Paid Security Suite vs Free Layered protection

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by sg09, Mar 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
  2. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Skimming over the first PDF, looks like a load of crap. Says free AVs don't have cloud, http filters, etc... Many free AVs do have those features.
     
  3. Someheresomethere

    Someheresomethere Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Posts:
    71
    Free antivirus products won't slow down your computer like G-Data's paid ones.
     
  4. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Guys I just wanted your opinion regarding the mentioned incompatibilities in the combined layered protection components. No bashing please...:oops:
     
  5. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    On that specifically, I'd say that there is a lot of merit to combined components stepping on each other's toes, or generally having issues and conflicts with one another. Suites, on the other hand, get along real good with themselves. ;)
     
  6. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    And less well so with OS updates... Case in point being ZoneAlarm. ;)
     
  7. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Different people will have different experiences.

    For example, recently in the BitDefender TrafficLight thread, user sm1 complained that Chrome would fail a XSS test using www.browserscope.org.

    I tried with Chromium, and no issues. This isn't exactly regarding two security applications, I know, but nonetheless, conflicting with security provided by the web browser itself.

    Another example - Sandboxie and Prevx SafeOnline. There are known issues between them. SafeOnline won't run inside Sandboxie. At least, not without compromising Sandboxie a bit, according to Sandboxie's compatibility issues page.

    It all comes down to what problems they introduce, both usability and security.

    But, this is not just because they're free! Can't I make use of paid-for applications, and also experience a lot of problems, security related or otherwise?
     
  8. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    I'm not familiar with ZA suite not getting along with OS updates, you mean as opposed to ZA FW by itself?
     
  9. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Not really. I mean e.g. this lovely KB 951748. IOW, it really does not matter whether the products have incompatibilites with other products or with OS itself. Getting a suite will not magically ensure compatibility. Not even with the OS itself.
     
  10. nosirrah

    nosirrah Malware Fighter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Posts:
    561
    Location:
    Cummington MA USA
    'Enough' security is a relative term based on evaluating your needs and selecting software and system modifications to meet those needs. Sometimes a suite is a perfect fit, sometimes mixing and matching on a budget is the way to go, there is no one size fits all answer here.

    In many cases free software + a hardened system is all that someone would ever need.

    Many advanced users have execution locked to a white list and use free AV for 'finger slip allow' incidents, this is the perfect solution in their case as well.
     
  11. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Agree that suites will not magically ensure compatibility with the OS.
    But a suite will not have incompatibility with its own components, which was my point. Or, if you are going to cite some instances of a suite that DOES have an incompatibility with itself (I'm looking forward to that reference) then I will still fall back on the fact that it doesn't happen as frequently as conflicting, separate, layered components. :)
     
  12. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Even with suites I consider it necessary to layer to some degree. It has seemed that AVs do not detect and remove rogues very well. Accordingly, MBAM is necessary in my view.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  13. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    One thing I didn't see mentioned was that when something goes "boom", whether that be via malware or bug, it often brings the entire suite to its knees. That's not going to be much of a problem with separate apps. Also, if you don't like something or problems start, with a suite you're tossing the entire thing out. With layers, you can switch one for another.
     
  14. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Hey dw,
    If in fact that is how it goes, you make a terrific point.
    I wouldn't know, from personal experience, if that is how things often go with suites.
    I never have ran one before, in quite a few years of computing, never have.
    But I still think of my set up as layered, even with Vipre Premium installed.
    And that's because of Sandboxie. :thumb:
     
  15. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    It's not how it always goes, but it is a risk, and happens often enough.
     
  16. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
  17. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Let's say that in your scenario above, an entire suite is brought to its knees by malware. With that bone-chilling premise in place, what would be your opinion on the effect of the popularity of the security suite on the likelihood that malware would be devised that could compromise it? I'm thinking along the lines of the popularity (or lack thereof) of a browser, and how it impacts the number of bad guys who endeavor to bring it down. Would using something like NIS then tend to make a user more prone to suffering at the hands of suite-killing malware, and perhaps the lightly-used suite not as threatened? Naturally the self-protection capabilities of the suites come into play, but I'm thinking that Symantec, for instance, must be targeted constantly. What's your opinion?
     
  18. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    So basically: Free layered protection for geeks, paid security suite for newbs.
     
  19. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Well, obviously if a certain product, whether that be a browser or security program, consistently has issues with being compromised, popularity, and therefore usage, should suffer. However, one only needs to point at Internet Explorers long reign as most used browser to show that it isn't always like that. Users will use what works, and what works easiest, security be darned. The thing that has to be understood is that, no matter how hard vendors work to prevent it, someone will manage to poke holes in software. There will always be malware that either targets a certain software, or is at least capable of penetrating it. Nothing can be done about that. What the user should care about, is how often does this happen? How easy was it to compromise the product? What, exactly compromised it? Did the vendor fix the issue?

    You can't expect 100%, whether in a suite or layered setup. The bad guys are persistent, I dare say more persistent than the majority of security vendors. Also, at the end of the day, it's the user that should be avoiding even coming into contact with the "suite killers" of the world. The vendors have to do their part, but so do we. If either side fails, then there will be trouble.

    I don't know if I really answered your question well or not.
     
  20. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Well, that would be the attitude of many, including many here. But, it's not necessarily so. Many people here, and I'm sure outside of here, run just an AV and Sandboxie. There's nothing "geeky" there, that's about as simple as you can get. Some people can't figure out the options in a security suite to save their life (that's not so much stupidity as it is the trend of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into suites.), but they can handle a firewall and AV from different vendors just fine. If you start bringing HIPS into it, then yeah, no matter how much it is "simplified", a proper HIPS is going to take some learning. Even stand alone firewalls need a little bit of RTFM, so no, it isn't necessarily suites for newbs and layered for smart folk.
     
  21. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    Freeware av does not include an http scanner? I could have swore that Avast! free version scans http. Does Gdata not even realize what's inside their own product?

    Also, odd that Gdata talks about how free av's offer no comparable customer support to paid products when Gdata probably has the reputation of having the worst customer support of any paid security product. Maybe sometimes a person doesn't get what they pay for?
     
  22. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Sure enough. I wondered what your thoughts were on a more popular suite being targeted by malware more often, just like IE gets attacked more often than other browsers, and whether you thought the opposite was true too... that less popular suites get attacked less. It's the old "security through obscurity" notion.
     
  23. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    It's just another marketing thing, and obviously they've been sleeping in class, as in fact there are AVs that scan HTTP, Avast being one. Symantec also has poor customer service, and Avast and Panda, both free mind you, have good to excellent customer service. As with everything, it depends on the rep you talk to or the tech person.
     
  24. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    IE was and is not only popular, in the past its design is what put it through hell. Malware authors will certainly go after the most used operating systems and programs, but the "security through obscurity" mindset is no longer the best mindset to have. At the end of the day, the bad guys will attack and compromise anything and everything to get to their treasure, vendor names mean very little, if anything at all.
     
  25. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
    Free Layered protection: Comodo Internet Security + Prevx Safe Online Free
    "There is not paid solution able beat that"
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.