Slashdot Mirror
Tearing Apart a Hard-Sell Anti-Virus Ad
climenole writes "I came across an email sent by a security vendor, reminding me, no urging me with the liver-transplant sort of urgency, to renew my subscription to their product, lest my pixels perish. I spent a minute or two staring at the email, thinking about all the poor souls out there who do not have the comfort of being a geek and who may actually take the advertisement seriously." That led to this insightful deconstruction of these over-the-top ads, the kind that make it hard to keep straight the malware makers and the anti-malware makers.
McAfee is for those who have no idea and therefore the warnings make perfect sense. Ethically wrong, sure. Its been made up by the marketing department with the sole purpose of getting the likely clueless user to cough up. And that i'm sure they do. Tobacco causes cancer yet cigarette companies will still do whatever they can to flog their products to anyone who will buy them. It doesnt mean its right. What do you think about Microsofts 'Windows Genuine Advantage' program? It does absolutely nothing for the user but certainly helps Microsoft make a lot more money. Yet its pushed as giving some sort of advantage.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Whenever it updates itself, it plays a recording of a voice saying "virus database updated". So we'll just be sitting there and hear that. Since a well-functioning anti-virus just does its thing without bugging the user for the most part, the ones that are for profit have to make themselves loudly obvious and play up the threat level (not to imply there isn't one of course).
As other said, it sounds like Avast, and is a easy enough default to change. BTW, while they do sell it, there is also a free version for non-commercial users. Frankly the free version of Avast seems to do a better job than Norton and McAfee by far and IME better than NOD32 and Kaspersky.
While I think it's atrocious that Windows has to have a third-party layer akin to the FDA to keep users from getting waylaid by malicious code, I'm a little surprised that you think Avast is better than NOD32 or Kaspersky. The most recent AV-Comparatives report is rather unflattering to Avast. I'm personally a NOD32 (ESET) fan.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report26.pdf
The government can't save you.
While I think it's atrocious that Windows has to have a third-party layer
They don't. I have been using MS Security Essentials for a year now, on several XP, Vista (ugh) and W7 boxes (over a dozen). Uses less resources than even AVG, and haven't had a single virus yet, even with all the stupid browsing that gets done by users. And it is free.
It is sad that you need AV, but at least it is now free, good quality (relatively speaking) and works as good as or better than the average. Of course, I still would rather we switched the whole office to Linux or BSD, but if you have to use Windows, you don't have to use a 3rd party AV solution.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
A shame you posted as AC - I would have modded you up.
Yes, of course malware will run on Linux. And, you do point out that the malware was installed from a subverted "trusted source".
You also remind me that I've been stupid sometimes. I've been lazy, and failed to double check the md5 checksums of tarballs on occasion. With that Unreal story in mind, maybe I'll be less lazy in the future. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Coward.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's the principle of the thing. You go to a doctor, and you expect to see him wash his hands and/or put on gloves before examining you. Never mind that it's unnecessary most of the time; it should be a habit for him, simply because sometimes it matters, and when it matters it matters a lot.
Seeing a security company take a cavalier attitude with your information - even when that information probably isn't terribly sensitive and probably won't get intercepted anyway doesn't inspire confidence in their dedication to protecting your information in the scenarios where it does matter.
A shame you posted as AC - I would have modded you up.
Yes, of course malware will run on Linux. And, you do point out that the malware was installed from a subverted "trusted source".
You also remind me that I've been stupid sometimes. I've been lazy, and failed to double check the md5 checksums of tarballs on occasion. With that Unreal story in mind, maybe I'll be less lazy in the future. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Coward.
As a Linux user myself, I forget about how possible it is too. Would explain the new (that I've noticed) function in Ubuntu 10.04 that marks any program downloaded from a non-trusted as Non-Executable (you can make it executable by right-clicking it and checking the Executable box under Property-Permissions) to prevent you from blindly installing possible malware. Reminds me of Android's way of programs, preventing you from installing anything randomly unless you at least somewhat understand it might be bad to just install anything.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,