hate all antiviruses

Off topic remarks removed. Please refrain from A v B type of discussion and arguments as per
Please see our Policy concerning these type questions.

 

You can close the post
What did you expect with this title: "hate all antiviruses"

Paid vs Free is also A vs B?

 

Something on line I have no use for one because....
certainly not the boring, my AV is considerably better than your AV because...

 

So if paid is better than free, why did Symantec do so poorly in the latest AV-C test?
I know the whole product wasn't tested, but that's true for the rest of the field as well.

And if paid is better than free, is more expensive better than less expensive?
If you "get what you pay for" and all.
This logic would have ESET as the clear king of the hill, for some time now, but this just isn't the case.

 

ROFL
I used quite a few AVs over the years before I switched to default-deny. It was Norton that failed to detect a virus until it infected my system, then was unable to remove it. A free AV removed the virus quite easily. It was Norton Internet Security that crashed completely when I inadvertently visited a malicious webpage. Norton failed me more times in 6 months than all the other AVs, firewalls, etc I've used combined ever have.

"You get what you pay for" does not apply to software. It barely applies to physical goods any more. Most of the time, the opposite is true. Some of the best software to be found is free. AVs are an increasingly ineffective option based on a flawed and obsolete idea. They benefit the vendor far more than the user by making users dependent on the need for constant updating. AVs should have died years ago.

 

3GUSER I've read some of your posts here and its hard to tell what perspective your looking at this from. Are you saying a beginner or an grandmother should have support for an AV or everyone? That beginners need paid AV's or everyone including advanced users needs a paid AV? In reality, you can harden windows with LUA & SRP and throw 100 malware samples at it and not infect it and not spend a penny. If your implying everyone on this forum needs a paid AV I'll highly disagree, if your implying that novices are better served with a paid AV I will agree!

 

It is really your intention to suggest that only (or even primarily) “novices” are well-served by utilizing a paid anti-malware solution -- i.e., that paid anti-malware solutions are good for the hoi polloi but not for the intelligentsia?

 

What precisely is the “flawed and obsolete idea” upon which anti-malware applications are founded? Please elaborate.

 

Follow the natural progression of what is cool to say and do at Wilders...

First it was to have lots of security tools in your "arsenal".
Next it was cool to pare down the coverage and get by with as few security apps as possible.
Now it's trash the AV's.
No idea what's up around the bend.

 

http://www.brighthub.com/computing/.../2008/08/12/whitelisting-vs-blacklisting.aspx

to answer your other post, any user might benefit from a paid AV, but advanced users are more likely to use a white-listing approach and a beginner is more likely to phone Norton tech support and use an AV program as their first line of defense.

 

Hope it is something interesting. I wonder if at some stage all of it makes a full circle and comes back to where it started (bit like fashion)

 

The problem is not blacklisting is out dated, the problem is the user downloads these files to start with. If everyone was aware of all the dangers the risk of viruses would go down, but most people think it's safe to just download any file because if it's bad the AV would block it. Me and all of my family use AV and non of us have ever been infected. I tried to use a HIPS program once but it got in my way so for now I am staying with just an AV.

 

Now that wouldn't surprise me at all....

 

It must be a tad galling for the people at AVG etc to read complaints about software that they've given away 'gratis and for free', as we say. Those who use it should perhaps enjoy the free software while they can, because, as Pleonasm points out, it rests on a shaky business model that may not survive for many more years.

Perhaps, maddawgz, one day you'll look back fondly, and even gratefully, on the good old days when Avast gave away its AV for nothing with a supersized GUI to boot.

 

1. AVs have to identify malicious code or recognize its behavior to defend against it. Anything not identified can run. That makes an AV quite useless against new and unrecognized threats.
2. They have to be updated constantly to remain semi-effective.
3. The detections are never complete or completely up to date.
4. Missed malware can attack and disable or destroy the AV. malware that attacks security software is increasingly common.
5. AVs are increasingly unable to remove malicious code that does evade the initial detection.
6. The database or signature files have become huge due to the quantity of malware in existence. Checking files and processes against these huge databases places an ever increasing demand on system resources and disk space.

The blame can't be all put on the user. For years, they've been given operating systems that do increasingly more for them and ask less of them, both physically and mentally. A user doesn't have to know or learn much of anything to go online and get into trouble. The operating systems basically allow them to do almost anything by default. Users have been conditioned to expect that the security software will protect them. The problem boils down to 2 primary factors:
1, Users with little or no knowledge of computers and the threats facing them.
2, An OS that allows the unknown to run.
As long as both continue to be the norm, the problem will continue.

 

Yeah, but what type of malware protection sells the most.

 

The one that requires that users continually pay to keep the service semi-effective.

 

Does it work real time, mind sending me it , we should be able to use old GUI"s if we want too.

 

ok becoming a runaway train a bit, going to try sandboxie..Mods can close it now