Is Free Anti-virus Enough to Protect a Computer?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by kasperking, Sep 27, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kasperking

    kasperking Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Posts:
    406
    well......... Donna sets out to find an answer........here

     
  2. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    In the end reviews of this nature are entertaining at best. The fact is no matter what free or paid av you have it is not 100%, and all it takes is a zero day piece of malware to bypass the typical end user security configuration. I see it happen on live systems numerous times each and every week. I even have a few regular customers with MBAM paid in real-time + Avast/AVG/Avira/MSE/PCAV getting reinfected because they do not exercise common sense. Sure I could invoke a LUA w/ SRP and lock things down, or maybe even sandbox them, but in the end that is not what your average customer wants to endure.
     
  3. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377
    For Comodo.

    LOL
     
  4. atomomega

    atomomega Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Posts:
    1,285
    i can feel this thread being closed... kind of like A (free) vs B (paid) comparison.....
     
  5. kerykeion

    kerykeion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Posts:
    267
    Location:
    Philippines
    I think a layered approach (while using free software) would provide a better protection on a system.
     
  6. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Yup, she lost all the credibility here... It's like saying, well, we'll disable Norton SONAR and INSIGHT, just for malware to do it's job. Lol wut?
    If you're doing a dynamic test, you have to use all the technologies available to make it a fair and logical test, that also includes Comodo Automatic Sandbox. Otherwise just say you're doing an on-demand test lol...
     
  7. drakester

    drakester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    54
    I believe this is solely an antivirus component comparison.

    People should get realist and admit their solution isn't at the top in that regard despite outperforming in other areas. All software can be improved somehow and if a certain area is lacking compared to the rest, you should focus your effors on improving it rather than making excuses.

    Software quality shouldn't be attached to price in my opinion, I've seen free products do great, others do bad and the same goes for paid solutions. In the end I stick with what performs well in my daily use.

    Also in before lock. :isay:
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  8. Narxis

    Narxis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Posts:
    477
    Agree, there is no 100% protection.
     
  9. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    My brain hurts.
     
  10. buddee

    buddee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Posts:
    21
    use an AV with Behavior Analyzer or HIPS like ThreatFire etc.
     
  11. century

    century Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Posts:
    92
    No AV - free or paid - gives full protection, unless you use your discretion. Same for combinations.
     
  12. Fuzzydice45

    Fuzzydice45 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Posts:
    108
    Location:
    Australia
    That sentence alone put me off reading that article.
     
  13. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    ofcouse there isnt 100% protection
    in general , free av are head to head to with paid
     
  14. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,633
    Location:
    UK
    Some might argue that malicious files are harmless within archives as they lie dormant until executed. That in mind, some paid anti-malware solutions don't scan archives either.
     
  15. Gauchoo

    Gauchoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Posts:
    83
    Location:
    Scotland
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  16. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Lol, because it makes no sense at all. Technologies like behavior analysis and cloud tech exist because of this, not the other way around.

    These guys don't seem to understand the Comodo technology at all. The point of Sandbox is not to prevent ANY kind of modifications, it's designed to prevent ANY kind of malicious actions while still allow most of stuff.
    But they are complaining over spawned VBS files (which by themself aren't malicious unless they are executed and try to do further actions). They were also complaining over created processes and connections. Well, that's normal, it's an limited sandbox. Lol, ppl want to be a wannabe testers, yet they don't understand a thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  17. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Interestingly, they haven't even mentioned that Norton's suite also has a HIPS, that I could see.

    To enlight this even further, such protection should had been enabled (Otherwise, they only test an "orange" against a "limon". It should had been "orange" to "orange" or "limon" to "limon".). Of course, this only to show which one would be more effective with all protections set in place.

    Also, 10 urls prove nothing. Other 10 different urls could have pointed into a different situation. And, so on.

    Anyway, as I mentioned in one other thread, to prove whether or not XYZ is efficient, put it in the hands of those who enjoy clicking and executing everything that appears in front of them. Are those users such security applications should be protecting, without freaking them out. I guess that's one of the reasons why Norton's suite does not have its HIPS turned on by default, or at least I don't think it has.

    Still, whether or not they understand how such products work, according to what they know it's what happens or how it works, Norton's suite proved to be more efficient, and without HIPS.

    That's how I interpreted the testing; but, well, I'm prone to making errors as well.
     
  18. xandros

    xandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    yes free internet security will protect ur computer.:D
     
  19. Boyfriend

    Boyfriend Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,070
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Among free antiviruses, Comodo (due to stronger sandbox) can protect you very well. Avast and Avira are two other trusted antiviruses for protection.
     
  20. drkoopz

    drkoopz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Posts:
    74
    These types of articles are absolutely silly. Detection rates are irrelevant in terms of overall computer security. Efficiency, company reputation and quietness are what people should be looking for in an anti-virus product. Real security comes from patched software, limited rights and basic common sense. Whenever people fret over 1% extra detection rate and switch antivirus programs because their product dropped in the ratings, you're going to be playing a rather frustrating game of whack-a-mole. The answer is that no antivirus is enough security and all antivirus programs are enough security. Security is what you make of it. Just don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
     
  21. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,066
    A good combo of free security app's is more than enough.
     
  22. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Precisely!

    Common sense must come in first place, and this is the number one security people will ever get, and that no one can offer them.
    Then, according to their knowledge, have other security measures in place to take care of the rest, which is beyond their common sense.

    And, like lordraiden mentioned, users don't need to waste a cent protecting their systems.
     
  23. pajenn

    pajenn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Posts:
    930
    What about the rate of false positives?

    Currently I use Prevx Free for real-time, and a2cmd and others on-demand. If they find anything, I check the result with VirusTotal.com (an online service that scans uploaded files with ~40 different AV scanners). Sometimes 2-10% of them report a problem, in which case I usually uninstall/remove the software just to be safe, but it sucks because I'm probably depriving myself of good soft. (If it's just 1 or 2 out of 40 I often assume it's a FP if I really like the program).
     
  24. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    depends who you take notice of:-some guys think you've got to have layer upon layer of expensive programs protecting you others think you only need common sense and no apps at all,free or paid for!I think the only advantage in using paid for protection is possibly in customer backup if things do go slightly pear shaped and I do know some friends who use avira free have experienced update problems from time to time:-I think possibly paid for customers get slightly preferential treatment at heavy traffic times
     
  25. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Some free security products are the best and case in point I have the only security apparatus free product that can 100% protect any Windows user from Windows virus is Linux.

    To Windows users try Linux and see how the other side of the world looks like. What do you have to lose? Beside, most likely, you might like it. Please, dig in.

    Thanks.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.