Why those big three are so lazy in updates?

I'm just a curious why those market leaders, Symantec, McAfee and TrendMicro, are not so famous of big update frequencies? Do they have the best heuristics ever or do they have a lack of employees?

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I'll bet you wish they were on Jotti's.

 

Yes I do!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Perhaps they are to big, and the distribution of new updates would take to long to accomplish if they did it more often. This is just a guess on my part, does any one really know? I know when I was working (after the military) that the company was so big that it took them a long time to get updates loaded on all of the computers, and as I remember it was a cumbersome process and didn't always work. They hated the fact that the updates were to frequent in their opinion, perhaps the big three figure this way also.

Thanks
Wildman

 

Even though they don't release auto downloads every day They will release dats if there is an outbreak and TM and Nav release dats every day if you want to manually make a couple of clicks with your mouse.

 

I think they know they have a locked in audience. Go into any computer store and what do you see, Norton and McAfee and sometimes EZAntivirus. At least thats how it is here in Texas. Not to say they take security lightly because the updates are issued when needed. I had to search the web and fine forums like DSL Reports and Wilders to find some of the better products available. Thats where I found DrWEB, NOD32 and Online Armor. Not to mention A squared and Process Guard...

 

Bottomline is $$$. That said, McAfee corporate (8i) updates on a daily basis.

 

McAfee VS 10 updates Monday-Friday. Weekends if there is an outbreak. I believe NAV 2006 updates daily through LiveUpdate. Not positive, but I think it updates on weekends also.

 

It's not because they can't, they could very easily do it. More likely they won't until costumers punish them by not purchasing/renewing, it will cost them $ if they for example would release updates around the clock like Kaspersky/DrWeb and $ are the bottomline in these big companies.

 

Have those big three LESS money than DrWeb for instance?

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

No, of course not, i'm just saying the mentality of big companies like Symantec/McAfee/Trend-Micro tends to be more oriented towards bringing out as many products as possible, more than they are interested in pushing out hourly signature updates that will increase costs in server-capacity, extra personel 24/7, unless the consumer forces them, because they could very easily do it if they wanted to.

 

OK, I agree! Actually this strategy is very common in the world wide production in general. Mostly those TOP 3 products in the market are only userfriendly, mediocre quality, suitable for the masses. The pearls you can find outside the ring, just need some work to discover them

PS. You can't go wrong with it, the s...t is good when millions of flies love it!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Hi Firefighter,

I use PC-Cillin Internet Security 2005, and I get an update nearly every day, and sometimes 3 a day. I'm constantly amazed by how many new pests are out there coming down the pipe that need to be addressed. Trend Micro is a distributed-around-the-world company, so I know they are out there 24/7 fighting the good fight against the threats on the Internet.

I wouldn't compare the frequency of updated definitions as a main criteria to determine that one or more companies are lazier than another. What matters is whether your system is protected from 'viruses/trojans/worms/rootkits' in the wild and whether your AV/AT/AS provider(s) can protect you or not from a breaking event that spreads like wildfire, as well as from yourself when you exercise a lapse in common sense (not sure any one tool can do that) - so, that is why a multi-layered security strategy is so important.

-- Tom

 

Sometimes...the bigger the company, the slower the pace of change.

I'll wager we'll see them increase as the general public PC user becomes educated a whisker more about AV software, and the need for more frequent updates. This will take a bigger bite out of the "Big 3's" sales...as more and more peeps become educated and turn towards better AV products. A drop in revenue could wake them up.

 

It just is so that there isn't such a community which defines in the wild trojan like nasties. They just sit all somewhere in the web and those unlucky surfers get infected. Look at Jotti's how hard it's to detect them properly, only excellent heuristics together with constant frequent updates can offer a decent solution.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I'm sure I read somewhere KAV is able to update more frequently because the costs in employing the workforce needed to do this in Russia is relatively cheap, and so they can afford to employ many more people to do 24-hour analysis and updating of signatures.

 

Maybe so, but look at the profits of Symantec and Kaspersky. I am sure Symantec has the money to role out serveral updates a day

 

In all the years I have been on the Internet I have used AV's from Russia,Germany.Japan And several others. Including Mcafee and Norton from the US. Regardless of the frequency of updates I have never been been infected because of weekly updates as compaired to daily updates. All of the Antivirus programs that I have used that usually have weekly or biweekly updates all will release an update if needed between regular updates. Basing the quality of an antivirus program soley on the frequency of updates makes absolutly no sense to me at all. To me the deciding factor to a good antivirus is detection and reliability and regardless what the defenders of the underdogs say The big three antivirue programs Nav,McAfee and Trend Micro all have good detection and have all worked just fine for me with no glitches or unwanted surprises. There has been some discussion about the actual size of an antivirus program affecting the way it works. That just doesn't wash, Nav is probably about the largest install av there is and it runs lighter on this comp than even Nod32 does. The size doesn;t automatically make it a resource hog as some would like you to believe. I don't make these statements from hearsay, I install run and test the useability of at least four antivirus programs a week on this computer in the real world not by reading someone elses testing results on some site on the web. The testing sites do give you a general idea of what an av is capable of but not the way it will work in actual use. That is up to the individual to trial each and see for them selfs. I am sorry for the rant but I just get tired of reading the negative remarks about the larger av companies by people that really don't have a clue as to the business workings of these corporations. These companies do spend a lot on advertising and that does help their profits. But these companies didn't get to be this big by selling junk. Their products work and continue to sell because of that, not just because some of them come preinstalled on new computers. It is really doing a disservice to the average user to think that they just keep useing them because the were on the comp when they bought them and don't have the intelligence to make their own decisions. It does not usually take a new computer user long to figure out what works and what doesn't.

 

Well said.

 

I'll second that remark. The individual to whom we refer is very knowledgeable in this arena, and I trust his comments much more than quiet a few from other individuals, enough said.

Thanks
Wildman

 

Here's something I've noticed though...because of what I do for a living, I get to see so many computers out in the real world in various states of health. By that I mean...you are someone who I bet keeps their computer quite tight, up to date with windows updates, you probably surf relatively safe sites, don't have much ad/spyware on your system, etc etc.

What do I do for a living? I'm a consultant/VAR aiming mostly at small business networks..be it various health care, non-profits, accountants, law firms, some large golf course clubs, smaller schools, a few yacht brokers, some smaller manufacturing plants, quite literally any type of business that has a few PCs or network, etc etc. I get to work on PCs that get used by the common office types...and those PCs can be in various states of health That blond bimbo secretary who infests her computer with various "bargain" adwares, or that young sales guy in the back who loves to surf porn, etc.

I've been in the situation where I have seen some antivirus such as Symantec CE (more common) or whatever they were running fail on those PCs...yet the more healthy ones on the network have remained clean. It goes towards the arguement that keeping windows up to date and stuff like that goes hand in hand with your antivirus software...but...just stating, I've seen up to date antivirus programs still let stuff slip by.

I've also done upgrades/replacements of other AV software with NOD32 (because that's all I use lately for clients) and seen it light up red flags relatively quick...finding stuff the prior AV product didn't find. At least 3/4 of what I replace is Symantec CE...because I had been a reseller of that for many many years..going way back to something like version 5. But I've also replaced a few CA networks and that..ugh...McAfee.

Anyways..back to my point, I believe there is a performance/ability difference when one tests an antivirus product on a good, well kept computer like I bet yours is...versus the "typical example of the somewhat abused/not so healthy PC" out there in the real world. Because I've seen the same exact product perform differently under the same network outbreak.

I'm not sure I agree with being dismissive about frequency of updates being important. I've seen such as MS Exchange servers get killed when an outbreak occurs...because that AV product that's supposed to be protecting that Exch server hasn't received an update on the current outbreak bad guy yet.

 

Do you mean in other words that updating like hourly basis is a vain compared to updating like weekly basis? If some malware definition is missing about a week or two more than the best updaters have done it, it's actually just the same time too late. To get a HIGH DETECTION RATE AFTERWARDS, doesn't help those users when they have downloaded that infected sample in the beginning.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Well i was kinda satisfied with McAfee VSE 8.0i. It was lean and mean AV software. Daily updates, very fast analysis response (they always responded only few hours after submission through WebImmune). McAfee VirusSCan 10 is not that great, manly because it lacks few options and because that stupid Security Center thing is still there. I was using Trend Micro back in 99. It was still named Trend Micro Pc-cillin 98. Can't really say anything since i never had chance to see it in action. But i was using Norton ever since year 2000 (NAV2000) till version 2004 when i found avast!. It was free and provided me decent protection while giving me the chance to talk directly with developers.
Thats quiet important for me because i can recommend stuff to them which i never could to Symantec or McAfee... And they actually listened to my suggestions. Few weeks ago i got NOD32 1 year license so i'm with the green eye for the time being. But i think Symantec checked my "complaint" about lack of spyware detection for On-Access (which is now available in NAV2006).
I also ranted about daily updates although i'm not sure if regular users of NAV2006 have daily updates...
Anyway, NAV2005 and 2006 were a bit of surprise compared to terrible 2004.
They also improved overall detection. McAfee was always very near Kaspersky. But Trend Micro is somehow average AV altghough it's well known.
Probably because of the eye candy and techsupport or something...

 

That makes good sense, as, a corporate server {protecting an entire network} should be updated frequently and that shouldn't be too hard to implement -- so in that case I would blame the administrators of the network for not implementing a better strategy on their Servers.

But in the case of the "bozos" you gave examples of -- guys who are addicted to porn, clueless office workers who download adware & spyware, etc. -- those people, I fear, would infect themselves no matter how frequent an updates policy you impose.

There is some requirement of user intelligence & responsibility, I don't think any AV or Security Product can provide bulletproof protection against user stupidity.

Other than those caveats, I agree with BigC's comments ..

 

If I remember right, about 80 % of PC/laptop users are using Symantec/McAfee/TrendMicro protected systems. From which systems do you think those Jotti's snapshots are MAINLY taken from? Aren't they from Vba32, KAV, DrWeb, NOD (because of the extreme GOOD heuristics) or BitDefender?

PS. Actually the answer to the last question MAY be YES, because there is the best probability to DETECT them!

Best regards,
Firefighter!