Paid is best?

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2009/07/04/symantec-its-dangerous-to-rely-on-free-antivirus/

Simple question - do you agree or not and why?

 

Completely depends... just take a look at stuff like COMODO, MSE (Microsoft Securit Essentials) and Avast! and you probably get an idea... Not trying to be a fanboy (like, who would? ), but I would personally choose what's in my sig., which includes atleast one software that you pay for.

 

I think most people are fine with the great freebies available.

 

With the likes of Avira,AVG,Comodo (oh and Threatfire Symantec) available,if you take the time to put together an all-free combination it's quite possible to be as protected as any paid suite.This guy seems to be comparing the whole Norton suite with just free standalone AVs.

 

I think Norton should spend more time improving their product, less time giving virus samples to China and less time complaining about free products, Avast and Avira both have free versions which are far better than anything Norton/Symantec has produced in years!

 

A similar discussion going on at dslreports. If anyone is interested.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22653456-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus

 

It's not surprising that the product manager for Symantec would make such a statement;
in fact, it would be news if he endorsed a free antivirus solution.

After a one year fling with the paid stuff, I've reverted to free applications exclusively and I believe more and more people are learning that when properly configured and implemented, the free antivirus, antispyware, and firewall applications are capable of providing the same level of protection as payware.

When using, for instance, Avira (free), Online Armor (free), Prevx (free), MBAM (free), WinPatrol (free), Sandboxie (free), and (perhaps) the free version of Returnil, I see nothing in the paid security software that will offer superior protection.

Add to the above Firefox with Adblock and No Script, LUA and SRP for an even greater level of security.

Finally, if all else fails, a good imaging program.

By the way;
wasn't the Symantec website one of those that was recently hacked ?

 

I do not agree simply because free software has repeatedly out shined paid-for software.

 

There are great paid products and great free products. If there's a great free product at the same level as a paid one, then get it. Why pay if you can achieve the same using a free one, right?

 

It's bull; it's quite possible to have a good security setup using only freeware, and if you don't have smart computer practices, the best paid AV isn't going to do you any good.

Also, I might add that if I wanted a paid AV, I'd probably buy Avira or Avast Pro; after all, if they make good free software...

 

The leading free one more often than not beats most if not all the others. If you pay around ONLY $15 you get even more protection.

If nobody, or hardly anyone paid anything, the vendors wouldn't be there for long. Which means bang goes your Anti whatever. People need paying, and bills etc etc have to met too.

Look what happened to Privacy software/Boclean. Yes they got taken over by Comodo, but they were lucky. Not many others will be !

Relying on MS with their free AV is one way, but i wouldn't trust them, based on years of scandolous things thev'e been doing. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as the saying goes.

 

I disagree with the Symantec executive although I do understand the motives for his opinion.
Does the fact that a program has a price tag make it better? I don't think so.
There are plenty of free security programs that offer as good, if not better protection.

 

Not saying it wasn't, but source please?

 

Nope, but the content does - this is discussed elsewhere already (cloud-discussion), so I'll not go into it more here.

 

I wasn't aware that Symantec had a website hacked. It was posted here 5 months ago.


https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=233808

 

Just Google it. There are plenty of sources. Here's one --> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Symantec-Website-Hacked-104898.shtml

 

Guys we all know that the paid software is better than the free ones!

Let's look at browsers, for example!

 

The bill needs to get paid somehow, either directly or indirectly. I actually prefer the products with free and paid versions, and often opt for the paid, since they depend on performance and responsiveness to keep their business going but get a lot of advertising and debugging from the free versions. I would throw the open betas from places like Symantec in that category. AVs are reasonably complicated and require constant maintenance, so there is an ongoing cost, not just a cost to develop the product. Even Egoware starts to get stretched by these costs, and sometimes needs to do things like toolbars and other advertising products to cover costs. And if your company has 400 developers, for example, then even the third world ones expect to be paid in other than rhetoric and stroking. But again, it comes down to your assessment of what your risks are and what protects you against them, and certainly you can assemble a suite of free products that will help a lot to keep you safe-probably the less you know, the easier it is, and you can upgrade as you learn.

 

Not necessarily.

Any AVs paid or free won't give you enough protection.

In the last AV Comparatives Proactive/Retrospective test May 2009, Norton fared miserably against One care (35% and 60%)

 

I'm using computer since 1999.
I never paid for any software.
I will never pay for those greedy companies and I don't care if they announce bankruptcy.

 

Well what if I'm a bit too lazy when it's 2 or 3 in the morning?

 

I've mentioned this before - consider the situation now and not the past. I would be interested in a comparison between the MSE and Norton 2010 Beta done by AV-Comparatives (among other security software in the field like Panda and Prevx if these companies considered AV-Comparatives methodology or so to meet their expectations). Both have much improved technologies that need to be tested before words on what's NOT current come out.

 

I'm also looking forward to the next AV Comparatives having more players participating (my concern is about MSE versus Avira, I couldn't care less about Norton). In the context of this thread how can you call 'past' something that took place 1 month ago (May 2009)?

 

Very misleading article IMHO, trying to instill FUD into readers.

In particular:

Free AVs also have paid versions that some people use!

 

We have good free AVs like
Avast
Avira
AVG....
Good Firewalls
OA
Sunbelt
Sygate.....

Sandboxie
GESWall
AIO suite
Comodo IS
and tons of other freewares
MBAM
SAS
Spybot
what else do you need