Why Pay for AV When It’s Free? (Article)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Rasheed187, Aug 24, 2014.

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

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    6,455
    Location:
    USA
    Agreed. If your free AV has ads that is the price to use it. If you are going to disable the ads you might as well steal a paid product, it is the same thing.
     
  2. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,359
    No, paid products are full with toolbar cleaners, registry boosters, software updaters, driver manager - I prefer a slim AV without all the junk. :thumb:
     
  3. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    378
    In the past I was against paying for security software as I considered that none of them were bug free or could provide 100% protection. Besides I consider that you can get good protection for free. However the constant improvements that some vendors incorporate into their product in every major release convinced me to pay so as to support their development and growth.
     
  4. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    6,455
    Location:
    USA
    There are many products where this is not true. ESET for example has no garbage whatsoever.
     
  5. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,406
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes good point. :)

    LOL :argh:
     
  6. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,406
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I think that this is one of his frustrations, that paid AV´s hardly give any more protection than the free ones. :)

    And there is a lot of malware that is missed by scanners, you can see it everyday on VirusTotal for example.
    *VT results removed as per TOS*
     
  7. Gullible Jones

    Gullible Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Posts:
    1,466
    My point here is that it's better to intercept the attack before it hits the browser, than to intercept the payload when it executes. At the least that increases the chances of preventing compromise.
     
  8. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,406
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes my bad, but free AV´s also scan web-traffic AFAIK? :)

    And since when can´t we post VT results?
     
  9. guest

    guest Guest

    This thread has turned into an ideals-spamming party. :argh: Why oh why does nobody realise that the point of the article is AVs have been declining in effectiveness and they're not much of a worthy investment to pay anymore in this age?
     
  10. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    There are people here who just don't agree with that premise.
     
  11. guest

    guest Guest

    I know, and I respect their opinions as long as they're still being logical. But nearly everyone seems to overlooked the point of that article. The thread is filled with personal ideals about "why I like free products" vs "why I like paid products". Perhaps for home users this isn't much of a big issue, but for corporate environments this will cost inefficient expenses.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2014
  12. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    6,455
    Location:
    USA
    But the thread title is "Why pay for AV When It's Free". What did you expect?
     
  13. Gullible Jones

    Gullible Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Posts:
    1,466
    I would argue that AVs do have a role: notifying end users that the cool program they're about to deliberately install may in fact be a trojan, or that their OS might be compromised and need a clean install. IOW, not as "realtime protection," but as an expert system to assist the user with security decisions.

    ("Realtime protection" is a whole other matter though, that I think we've been over quite enough.)

    Edit: mind, I'm of the school of thought that if things go pear shaped, an OS should be able to quickly and clearly tell the user that it's compromised and can no longer be trusted.

    (Grace in defeat is for humans. Machines should fail as noisily as possible.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014
  14. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    You need to do your research better my friend :thumb:
     
  15. JRViejo

    JRViejo Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    67,952
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    FYI. Since 2007 - See Policy.
     
  16. guest

    guest Guest

    I expect this thread to not be turned into an ad-popups discussion. That's all.
     
  17. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,902
    Yes I am one of these people. Call me old-school or anything. But the reality is, there is no revolutionary anti-malware theory other than the ones used in current AV technology - virus definitions, pro-active heuristics, sandbox within an AV, etc. Basically its signature based or behavior based detection. The new, behavior based detection in is far from mature and must be used alongside of an AV product. It's not smart enough to replace traditional AV, yet.

    Back on topic. I would still prefer a paid AV as these will either provide stronger protection, or will not bother you with annoying ads. In a word, it's still worthwhile to buy and use a traditional AV product. Avira, Kaspersky are my top 2 list.
     
  18. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Most of them just use a URL black list that blocks access to sites.
    Since quite a long time actually :D
     
  19. Gullible Jones

    Gullible Jones Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Posts:
    1,466
    Better passive defenses have been available for a long time on server OSes. See for instance

    OpenVMS: hardware enforced exploit mitigation and reliable programming techniques, both in user and kernel space, to the point that it is *still* considered more secure than Linux. (Note that Windows design bears more relation now to VMS than to DOS, though obviously something went wrong somewhere...)

    Solaris, HP-UX, AIX: secure OS-level containers (think Sandboxie, but able to spawn entire OS sessions if needed).

    FreeBSD: several mandatory access control models, including a Biba implementation kind of like Windows integrity levels.

    There's nothing new about this stuff, it just never got into desktops until Windows Vista or thereabouts.
     
  20. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,902
    Thanks GJ for the info.
    Yes technically Vista is a great advance from XP structure in terms of OS security. Hope MS can do much better in the OS built-in security later.
     
  21. Rico

    Rico Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    Canada
    Austerity, FBlais, Securon, xxJackxx,Solarlynx +1

    Nothing is free, free products (here) are inducements or ads, to pitch the paid product. Dev. need some motivation so as to improve the product. If you like it & use it, Pay for it, or donate, or delete it!
     
  22. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,352
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I also think that a free version should have ads or provide less features than the paid equivalent. People often complain about the price, and granted anything above $40 is probably too expensive, but I've been paying for Avira around $14 a year for the last 3 years (grabbing discount offers) which is about $1.20 a month! Even the full price $30.99 is about $2.50 a month, the price of a coffee... I would be more inclined to think that people should either pay for an AV or go without it, malware analysts are not working pro bono...
     
  23. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    17,283
    Location:
    UK
    * remarks removed...lets keep to the subject and not get too personal
     
  24. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    14,406
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    If I was into security suites, I would be willing to pay $20 a year. But I think most products are not worth it, most of them are way too bloated, even some of the free ones, but OK that is a whole other discussion. :)

    What the hell, didn´t even know that, but after reading the policy, I can understand it a bit better. :D
     
  25. Austerity

    Austerity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    Georgia / USA
    I do pay for it. In fact, I've paid for several years of the following products:

    Avira Pro AV
    ESET NOD32
    Webroot Secure Anywhere
    Kaspersky Internet Security
    Bitdefender AV
    AppGuard
    EXE Radar Pro


    If you re-read my post, you'll see that at no point was I complaining about ads or other issues with my "free" product. I prefer to pay for AV that I like and want to support. I think you took my post completely out of context.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.