The end of stand-alone spyware/virus/trojan security software. . .

Given the nature of the computer security market, it is likely that stand-alone anti-virus, anti-trojan, and anti-spyware software will eventually be a thing of the past. While I know much has been written about this, most of it has taken a different perspective, namely one that focuses on the prevailing of suites. While I agree with the notion that suites are increasingly becoming dominant in the computer security market, and think that will definitely be a factor contributing to the demise of the aforementioned stand-alone software, I also think another trend will arise as a factor in this respect.

This trend will be the emergence of stand-alone anti-malware software that incorporates spyware, trojan, and virus protection thus eliminating the need for stand-alone versions for each type of malware. A good example of this is the recent and virtual extinction of stand-alone anti-trojans. As anti-viruses continued to incorporate trojan protection, there was less need for stand-alone anti-trojan software. Similarly, as anti-viruses contine to incorporate spyware protection, there will be less need for stand-alone anti-spyware software. While the new AVs might maintain their traditional name of 'Anti-Virus' due to the nature of the market (particuarly the ignorance of typical consumers), in all reality they will be anti-malware software. This trend is already under way, and it is only a matter of time.

While I agree that that in general stand-alone ATs and ASs likely do a better job than the trojan and spyware protection incorporated into AVs, this will not stop the trend. Also, that gap in quality and effectiveness of protection will increasingly diminish as AVs develop in those areas.

I guess I forgot to add that I'm welcoming everyone's input on this matter. What do you all think of this predition? What about the trend itself?

EDIT: Thanks to whoever fixed the title.

 

Re: The end up stand-alone spyware/virus/trojan security software. . .

I will stay with stand alone layered security apps.

 

Re: The end up stand-alone spyware/virus/trojan security software. . .

I too will only use stand alone apps.Find the right combination and you will have protection far superior to any security suite.A layered approuch is the best way to go IMO.

 

Re: The end up stand-alone spyware/virus/trojan security software. . .

Just to clarify, I also prefer stand-alone security apps and think that if compiled and used by someone with a decent amount of know-how regarding computers and computer security they are capable of being vastly more effective than suites. However, let me also clarify that the focus of this thread isn't a continuance of the 'suites will overtake stand-alone apps' discussion. Rather it is a 'stand-alone anti-malware apps will replace stand-alone anti-spyware, anti-trojan, and anti-virus apps' discussion. That being said, I think that over time, assuming the aforementioned trend continues, the stand-alone anti-malware apps that emerge will eventually rival the level of effectiveness and protection offered by the stand-alone anti-spyware, anti-trojan, and anti-virus apps. How they arrive at this I'm not so sure. Who knows whether the current AVs (which will likely be the future all-inclusive anti-malware apps) will simply purchase other anti-spyware engines and incorporate that into their anti-malware app (like AVG did) or whether they develop their own anti-spyware engine or even just expand their engine to cover spyware. Also, I wonder if the future anti-malware apps will take the approach AVG did by integrating the engines into one engine (I think this is what they did) or simply running multiple engines like say AVK does. What do you all think?

 

To the topic starter: your statement about it coming to the end sounds true to me, especially once the commodity of being able to detect and clean malware is over. I personally believe it's much easier and faster to have a scanner detect suspicious file creations and registry modifications and thus a simple restore from FDISR, RollbackRX, or Acronis True Image, etc would be my route. I rather spend seconds than several minutes restoring my box, hoping that my AV, Trojan & Spyware app was able to detect and clean everything.

 

Do it all suites might be the choice of most average users, but I don't see stand-alone apps disappearing. They won't be as popular but the more savvy users will still want to choose their apps individually. The market is more than big enough to support both, and is still growing.
I wouldn't expect the majority of IT workers to switch to suites either. Most of them know the consequences of depending on one company or a single combined application when something goes wrong, such as a badly written update crashing the entire package. A popular all in one suite is a tempting target to malware writers. A single vulnerability, successfully exploited can give them access and/or control over a lot of PCs in a very short time. Exploit the right suite and you could have an almost instant bot army. The more popular the suite, the greater the payoff. The more they combine into one suite, the more code there is and the better the chances of finding a weakness. As good as some of these malware writers are, a suites popularity could be its undoing, along with everyone using it. I'll stay with my single purpose layered package.
Rick

 

@herbalist
While I agree with everything you said, you and most others seem to be missing the point. To reiterate, this thread isn't a continuance of the 'suites will overtake stand-alone apps' discussion, which seems to have already been thoroughly discussed, rather it is discussion regarding the notion that 'stand-alone anti-malware apps will eventually replace stand-alone anti-spyware, anti-trojan, and anti-virus apps'. Perhaps I'm not making that clear. If so, my apologies. But I can't think of a better way to put it.

 

Suites may overtake stand alones for one reason.People are lazy!They want a one button fix for everything and when their security as with computers fails they come crying to their security suite company or to sites like this.

 

TOPIC TITLED:

The end of stand-alone spyware/virus/trojan security software

YOU POSTED:

Standalone Anti-Malware Apps as in the combo of "ALL" 3 that you refer to if i read this correctly enough.

There is still to this very day no real safe replacement for individual standalone security apps IMHO like separate AT/AS/AV's that will ever reach the pinnacle point where they will fully supplant themselves successfully in place of AT LEAST ONE standalone security app like a AV, AT, AS, ARK, etc.

That is so long as IE is the browser-in-use. Every time i read about another vulnerability concerning I.E i believe more and more and IE is the biggest backdoor ever fashioned.

 

I'll stick with stand alones thank you. If one part of the suite fails the whole thing goes to pieces. Not good.

 

Yes - I think the ultimate software will be "anti-malware" one. As threats develop the security applications will try to cover them too. How good the new software will be in it? The market place, and enthusiasts at Wilders will tell.
Personally, I think it is the right direction.

 

Hello,

You're assuming that the market will remain in the hands of MS, which it will not. But it's a good assumption, in regard to MS products, that they will continue to be a mess that requires 22 applications to so-so secure.

As to the single vs suites, it really does not matter. The people in the know will always remain a quality margin that will enjoy the best, without having to succumb to the 'requirements of the market' - read the common PC moron.

Today, 90% of people have never heard of another anti-virus save Norton or McAfee. How is that different from what you predict? And yet, you have the connoisseurs, us, who will use the little-known high-quality products and scorn the riffraff.

Mrk

 

The only thing I really trust are my clean backup images or clean archived snapshots, created during an OFF-LINE installation from scratch and I separated these clean images/snapshots from my daily backups/snapshots, because only these are able to give my clean computer back.
I consider all my daily backups/snapshots as POSSIBLE infected.
Unfortunately more and more softwares require an internet connection to INSTALL them and those softwares are a nightmare for me.

Once my computer is connected to the internet, I don't trust anything anymore, no matter how many security softwares I have on my computer and many of these security softwares are based on blacklists, including stand-alone softwares and suites. What are suites anyway ? Firewall + scanners, AGAIN based on blacklists. That doesn't change anything.

Each time a scanner tells me "Congratulations, no malware found.", I think "What about the malware you didn't find ?"
So scanners never give me a reassuring feeling, my computer is clean.
Such messages are pure psychological to comfort the mind of the average user, but that doesn't mean your computer is clean.

I prefer to rollback to a clean state, rather than trusting firewalls and scanners or any other security software.
My favorite security softwares are based on whitelists and softwares that prevent the installation and above all the execution of malware, because I have already a solution for complete REMOVAL of malware.

I also have an OFF-LINE snapshot to do things quietly and safely without any disturbance or infection.
Only my ON-LINE snapshot is the trouble-maker and needs more attention.

 

It really comes down to whether a user cares, or should care for that matter, what an application does versus how it accomplishes it. Vendors eventually figured out that users, even advanced ones, are buying a security solution not part of a security solution. Each of the segmented product areas are a legacy artifact of how malware has evolved and the slowness with which dominant vendors have addressed that evolution.

If new approaches are found to compromise security and single solution vendors either do not address or inadequately address the situation, a specialized vendor will step in to fill the void. This is the capital market at work. It is also the capital market at work when large vendors wake up and figure out that this newly emergent specialized niche coverage is a way for them to differentiate their product as better (read - more complete) than the competition.

Blue

 

I agree,

Keep in mind that a PC was designed to use and not to tweak and fiddle. Most people buy a PC with the designated use in mind, safety has to be a part of it on which most don't want to spend time and too much money.

I think most security aps will be directed at an integrated suit of an AntiVirus/Trojan/Spy, Firewall and some form of intelligent behavior blocking and sharing of treaths across the web to reduce the zero day lag time.

For the security aware an interesting combo of stronger firewall, datawall and sandbox/HIPS will be an additional segment to target.

Some security enthousiasts (a minor market segment) and heavy gamers will be left to determine their own layered security setup, each sub segment from it's onw perspective (security - performance). For this audience specific registry/process monitors and virtualization aps will fullfil their needs.

Regards K

 

That is why I prefer to rollback to a clean state, because that is for me an EASY solution, which I do UNDERSTAND.
I don't have the knowledge or time to choose for another approach.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about operating systems here, right? That being the case, how do you figure that microsoft will lose the market? And to whom? Secondly, regardless of who controls the market, if it is as dominant as microsoft is now, then the effort to find exploits and write malware would be directed towards it. And while I agree that microsoft OS's are inherently more vulnerable than say linux or apple OS's, virtually every OS is vulnerable to some extent. That being the case, there will always be a market for security software. And regardless of which OS controls the market, the masses of computer illiterate consumers ('computer morons') will continue to dictate the direction of the market. Unless that changes, the aforementioned trends will continue.

Not sure of your reasoning on this. But the market for the most part will always determine whether a company and its product(s) can be viably sustained.