Spybot's renaissance

Hello,

Spybot labs has openly admitted that they do not recommend Kaspersky, McAfee & Trendmicro products.....they say that Avira is worth using.

Take a look here:

http://www.spybot.com/en/articles/foursecuritycolumns.html

And take a look what Symantec CEO is talking about:

http://forums.spybot.info/blog.php?b=27

So.....do you agree with Pepi MK's statements?

 

Ah, Germany, the country where Big Brother is becoming reality. Seriously, I'm already pretty sick of the spying tendencies everywhere, and I certainly wouldn't use any such product, be it from Symantec or anyone else.

There are enough alternatives, i.a. switching to Linux/BSD altogether for any net activities at least.

 

The anti-spyware becomes spyware... yummi.

 

Sounds like spybot are throwing the toys out of their pram. Whatever happened to communicating with the other company to voice their concerns...from what I can gather there hasn't been such a discussion so far.... They seem to be taking the "lets just confuse normal users even more by labelling companies "bad" just because they have checks for potentially conflicting software" approach (the checks can be skipped)

And what is this about lowering your security.... uninstalling spybot for Kaspersky or Mcafee is going to make your comptuer less secure? -please.

No...but I don't see what marketing has to do with it when spybot is a free product and not a replacement for an AV. A simple incompatibilty alert during installation counts as marketing apparently....see a contradiction there anyone?





Edit:

I will have a word with someone at KL to see if they can clear up any misunderstanding with SSD.

 

@ Baz_kasp

You are right . Replacing Spybot for Kaspersky/McAfee/any AV is a good idea . But to some extent I agree with PepiMK . Not talking about Kaspersky but Symantec . I remember they had a version (I haven't checked if it is still the same even with NAV 2009) ... a version that disables Windows Defender because they find it incompatiable . I have even seen a forum post where a Symantec employee wrote that their products disables WD because Symantec Norton will provide better protection than the one WD will .

I hate what Symantec do - I already have a security center in my Windows , some antispyware (Windows Defender) , etc , they way Symantec acts to replace WD with their products or to replace Windows Security Center with their own . Why not then replace the whole Windows OS with a *better* and *more secure* Symantec OS ?!

Security vendors write security products for Microsoft OS -Windows . So they must make their products fully compatiable with the OS (and the security vendors must accept the built-in tools such as Windows Defender , Windows Security Center , etc).

 

The other argument could be why should we have the likes of Windows Defender installed by default? We should have the choice whether to install it or not. That option is available for XP users, but not Vista users. Yes, you can manually disable it, but some would argue Microsoft are doing exactly the same thing by imposing it on users.

 

btw vipre from sunbelt also disables windows defender as default. hate it when companies disable bultin secuirty tools because they are ment to be uncompatible. if it isnt compatible with a bultin tool it shouldnt be listed as vista compatible IMO.

 

It's simple. Those products are not compatible with Spybot's TeaTimer, so they don't recommend them.

 

I disconnected the Tea Timer back when I had NOD32, I have Avira Now.

 

I too had problems with KIS 09 conflicting with spybot so i installed KIS first and than spybot worked perfectly

 

No , Microsoft doesn't do the same thing . I have paid for it when I have paid for my OS . If I have preferred on my own not to use , it will be disabled/deleted . However , if it is running , this will mean I want it and don't want anything disable it (exception only for WF - no two firewalls)


Why should we have Windows Defender by default ? Why have Security Center and Windows Firewall ? Why have User Account Control ? Why IE ?

I will asnwer very simple - why OS then ? Why Windows ?


Windows Defender , Windows Firewall both provide the basic protection everyone needs . Machines without firewall , without any antispyware are highly exposed to attacks . They only didn't add an antivirus because of different business reasons , otherwise they would have added it some. I have bought Microsoft product , I want its things inside . They do provide option to install 3rd party products and to completely ignore the Windows ones.