freeware is the best.

who agrees? when i say freeware, i mean 100000% free.. no nags,adware,spyware,registration requirements, ect.

 

I like freeware as well. Especially when it's "smallware". And easy on resources.

 

freeware is nice especially opensourceware, but there are a few apps i prefer paid.

 

i prefer not to pay.

 

Freeware is very good sometimes, but rarely is it bloat free. Usually freeware is less cabable of what a paid solution can do, but there are the few odd exceptions to the rule such as opera browser, Truecrypt, and a few others. Not forgetting Payware that has a convenient Free "mode" such as ProcessGuard. With most of my "security orientated" freeware i prefer them to be open source like Truecrypt and PGP etc . .

Check Opera browser . . . Now it is free and offeres nice security and customisability.

 

Oh Yeah!!!

Freewares and lots of freewares.... thanks God I don't have to spend much on using my pc.

I really love freewares, but sometimes I have to rely on the users comments and experts advice on what freewares to use or else I may sometimes go into troubles using them... coz some of them are craps and garbage.

But still, some are really good that are even more better than the paid ones. http://www.techhelpers.net/e4u/aliens/ufo.gif

 

Fully agree...........

 

I always try to find a similar or better freeware over the shareware, and normally I find...

 

Hmmm... The "free" Process Guard is quite close to being useless, in my experience (unlike, say, the free Ewido, which is very useful even in its "free" mode). Only the paid version is the real deal.

Yes, easily some of the best software you can get is open source.

 

That's what I heard of Outpost Free too.

 

Sure, freeware in certain categories is great. However, in the category of malware protection (AV, AT, etc.) I think that money must change hands in order to provide the programmers with sufficient livelihood/incentive/manpower to keep their program at the bleeding edge of *state-of-the-art*. . .

***Witness Gladiator AV -- no longer with us (perhaps because the near-genius programmer had a nasty addiction to eating regularly).

***Further witness TDS AT -- a prime example that a sure-fire formula for eventual demise is to offer a one-off, lifetime fee for an expensive-to-maintain program that MUST have constant updates to meet new threats.

I prefer to pay for my anti-malware needs. Moreover, I will never buy an anti-malware program that charges a one-off fee. I want to buy from programmers who are driving late model cars, & have nice homes, & who want to keep their users happy (i.e. well protected) so that those programmers can retain their enjoyable lifestyles.

 

Hmmm... sorry, I must say I disagree. The OpenBSD team created some of the most well known (at least in the UNIX world) examples "bleeding edge" security apps, and most of them have been later adopted by others. Yet the project is open source, as in "free" (only financed through sales of CDs and posters/t-shirts).

 

As for example ClamAV? If so, can you identify some AV tests that show ClamAV anywhere near the top of its class?

Although I am a long-time booster of open source in general (& Clam, in particular), I would prefer that my frontline security needs be met by well-paid full-time professionals instead of hobbiests who support a program part-time while earning their daily bread elsewhere.

Even Tiger W had eventually to turn pro, wot?

 

ClamAV was not by the OpenBSD team, and it's an antivirus made to protect Windows. Get your facts straight.

Oh yeah... and guess what, you're wrong. And if you knew about something else than Windows, you would know it.

 

No need to get emotional, old bean. ClamWin is for windows. As I stated, ClamAV (of which, under my real name, I am a listed $$$ supporter) is for Linux, FreeBSD, Unix, et alia. Before munching thy pedal extremity, check it at THIS site-for-sore-eyes.

I am also a member & listed supporter of Source Forge, so maybe I just do know my facts, wot? Now... be nice, okay.

 

ClamAV is for Unix, but its functionality is (mainly, possibly only) aimed at protecting windows anyway: like pretty much any Unix antivirus out there, they are used for e-mail cleaning, not to protect the local system from viruses. That's a fact. Can you show me an antivirus aimed at protecting a BSD system itself from viruses?

And why are we talking about antivirus applications anyway? That's only a tiny section of "security" products. Security applications range from intrusion detection, file encryption, system hardening, communication encryption, vulnerability scanners, sandboxes, etc. In most of those there is at least one open source or free security product at least as good (or better) than commercial products. Sandboxing, you have chroot implemented natively on open source UNIX systems. Nessus is widely considered one of the best between remote vulnerability scanners. Intrusion prevention, you have systrace which can somewhat be thought as what Process Guard is to Windows (only more complete), file encryption there is TrueCrypt, GnuPG, which are certainly not inferior to any other similar product, communication encryption there is OpenSSH... and these are just examples. These are ALL examples of bleeding edge technology which is pretty much unsurpassed by any commercial products.

 

First you say ClamAV is for Windoze. Now you say something else. Ah-- an unsuppported assertation for every eventuality. Munch munch.

Check the ClamAV website. Check Google. Check Jotti -- ClamAV is primarily used for Linux servers, comes packaged with many of them, such as RedHat, & is used as a full-scope, reasonably effective antivirus. Tested as such by Jotti et alia. Unlike ClamWin (a Windoze AV), ClamAV is designed exclusively for Unix/Linx/BSD-family usage, has a real-time monitor, & doesn't use Cygwin.

As an aside -- nowadays some of the mainstream AVs, such as BitDefender (its Unix pkg is okay, AFAIK, if set to run as a cron job) are moving into Linux territory. A good trend, I would say. Check it out.

Now... back to the subject of this thread -- I recommend a neat freebie name of PopPeeper (see my sig). Superb tool for anyone, but especially for webmasters with numerous email accounts to deal with.

To view status of PopPeeper & lots more freebies (& to stay posted with updates to the ones you already have) check out THIS site. Despite its url/name, this site has scads of programs that are well beyond beta -- such as NOD, KAV, AVG, etc etc etc. The site will notify you of updates to programs that interest you, IF you subscibe.

Not to contribute any further to hi-jacking this thread to OT, I shall henceforth abstain.

aloha... bellgamin
When I die I hope it's just like the way my grandfather died.. peacefully in his sleep. Not like the screaming passengers behind him in the rear seat!

 

"And it's an antivirus made to protect Windows"... Ha! Can you read me the part where I claim it runs just on Windows? I really must have missed it.

Are you trying to question the fact that antiviruses running on UNIX are actually made mainly to detect Windows viruses? Really? If so, get your head out of the sand, you know.

As for the rest, read the rest of my message. I can't bother repeating myself, really.

 

Well, from what I see -

from

http://www.clamav.net/abstract.html#pagestart

Either way, let's all please be very careful and think through our posts well before hitting "submit post" to make sure we're not getting overly personal.

 

I never claimed the opposite. We use it on a UNIX platform at work. What is it used for? To check the incoming e-mail and detect possible Windows viruses, certainly NOT to protect the local UNIX system.

 

free as in freedom. gotta love it.

 

agreed x 1000000

freeware should be free without any risks or rules! if all freeware was like that----well let's just say the worled would be a better place

 

Not me, I HATE freeware.

Is there really anyone that doesn't like free things?

 

TNT and bellgamin I would submit that you guys actually dont really disagree.

What Bellgamin is saying is that a "free" AV would be harder to keep up with "pay" AV because it's a full time job to daily add signatures. I don't think TNT disagrees

On the other hand, TNT reacted because you gave the impression I think that free software cannot be secure. Not all security products require the amount of work that an AV needs. For some cases secure code, will always remain secure code, and the rare exploits and errors that popup can be fixed without being a full time job.

That was the reason why Diamond CS dropped TDS-3 I believe.

I have to agree with TNT also that though virus scanners exist for unix, most of them are used at the gateway level for filtering to the hosts machines which run windows.

 

how can you hate freeware? well i dont have as much respect for notok as i once did.

freeware is the way to go.