Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free Antivirus 459
thefickler writes "Clearly, the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec, with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software (including Microsoft's Security Essentials). 'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,' said David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec. According to Hall, there is a widening gap between people's understanding of what protection they need and the threats they're actually facing."
Symantec is saying this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives, I'd say he might have a point.
Unfortunately, most antivirus software sucks, with Symantec more or less epitomizing how good ideas on paper can turn into terrible/buggy/bloated security software that actually increases your exposure [msn.com] since it adds another node malicious code can attack. Symantec's argument-from-assertion notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between antivirus software being for-pay and higher quality.
From my experience, there's really bad antivirus software (such as Norton, which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine), and slightly less bad antivirus software. What went wrong? Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?
Predictable much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Antivirus-free for 15 years (Score:2, Insightful)
Free of free antivirus, paid antivirus and viruses, because I want my computer's CPU to do something useful.
Be Afraid! Buy Our Product! (Score:5, Insightful)
If Symantec's "security" security programs were worth a damn, the "free" products wouldn't stand a chance. So far, that hasn't been the case eh?
Rock and hard place (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, there are many free anti-virus products that work better than Symantec. It's a no-brainer choice. Free is cheaper and better.
I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business. There's something deeply wrong with that.
You get what you pay for. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Symantec is saying this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I have a lot of respect for ESET's AV (specifically NOD32) because it's fast and does the job.
But since they don't target consumers so aggressively (unlike Symantec with Norton, who manage to get difficult-to-remove trial version on tons of laptops at the point of sale) they don't exactly have a very big following. In fact, outside of business and tech circles, I assume they're completely unknown. So I suppose what went wrong, is that AV companies had to dump ethics to get well known. The decent ones who respect the end user and state of the machine (as opposed to "sticky" trial software and the like) end up at the bottom of the barrel. The industry is "upside down"
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Symantec is saying this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that most for-pay software sucks in this regard, just look at any corporate network. Most computers have terrible performance and still wind up spreading worms and viruses.
I think the key here is that the company is telling us we need his product. In other news, a consultant came to the conclusion that we need more consulting, GM told me I need a new car, and McDonald's told me I need a McBurger. No shit, a company telling me I need their products? Nothing to see here, move along, look for an unbiased neutral party.
Re:Rock and hard place (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy - software bundle contracts with all major computer vendors, branding and market exposure, plus they seem to always be available for interviews with '60 minutes' every time there's a trojan/virus outbreak like Conficker. This all culminates into ordinary people looking at anti-virus boxes on retail store shelves, seeing 'Symantic' and triggering that name from wherever they heard or saw it before.
It's simple marketing, and the fact they're still in business means they're damn good at it. Just like Microsoft.
Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as it makes sense from a tinfoil hat perspective, I don't think Norton/Symantec writes any viruses at all.
Why?
Because if they did, you would expect their security software would actually be at least marginally functional.
We all know it's not.....
Re:You get what you pay for. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll buy that, its not like Bananas grow on trees.
Indeed, they don't. Banana plants [wikipedia.org] are just weird clones - not trees.
Re:Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that myth stays in circulation, but trust me: AV companies do not write malware. For two reasons:
First, AV companies do talk a lot. Not only at conferences. There's a well built and solid network of sample exchange between them. Of course, you delay it a few hours or a day before you forward your new samples to the others so you can have a 'first', but a global malware detection array is in nobody's budget possible. So they split the world and detect together. Should it become known that you spew malware yourself, you're OUT. And that means you're dead.
And second, why bother the cost? You get the malware for free anyway. There are people who make it their (illegal, but who cares?) business to write and spread it. Why should I invest money into something I get free of charge?
Parent=Outdated information... (Score:3, Insightful)
Symantec has cleaned up their performance and bloat issues in internet security 2009. I have some machines running Norton, some running McAfee, using freeware stuff like Spybot, AVG and NoScript as additional lines of defense. Norton is definitely faster and smaller than McAfee this year and doesn't put perceptible overhead on any of the machines where I have it installed, including the old Athlon single core. McAfee chews up a full core of a CPU for a minute or so when it installs updates and the full scan can take days.
The detection rates for both are still mediocre, but those vary from month to month and vendor to vendor so much that I accept anything in the 95-99% detection range. There are too many new threats to rely on reported detection rates that are more than a couple of months old. The only major vendor that I've completely ruled out for a while is CA, and a few years ago they had the best detection rates in the (pay) industry. Compensate for mediocre detection by multi-layer defenses: NoScript to prevent website attacks, Spybot to provide a cross-check against spyware (especially "commercial" spyware that commercial vendors turn a blind eye to) and so on.
On the other hand, the Symantec exec IS spreading FUD saying that the free stuff can't do the job. I just ignore that kind of crap, it's endemic to the industry. The main reason I pay for commercial products is convenience (all other things being equal on the quality front). The free stuff is either nagware that wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it isn't an integrated suite, so I have to monitor separate installations for Antivirus, Anti-spyware, Intrusion Detection, Firewall and so on.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
And *that* is a crap statistic; it does nothing to describe the severities of the vulnerabilities, the vendor response, or the amount of time each was left unpatched. Who cares if FF had 184 vulnerabilities and IE 1, if the FF ones were hard to exploit and patched within a few days and the IE one was left open all year and readily attackable by script kiddies?
Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
Symantec provided a removal tool because their idiot programmers couldn't be assed to write a proper uninstaller for their shite product.
So basically what you're saying is that the idiot programmers used their ass to write a shoddy piece of code that you need a third party uninstaller to remove?
Yeah that sounds about right actually. And I'm finding the whole of the article, including Hall's bullshit spew to be absolutely hysterical, given that their product runs like a 5,000 pound pig in a 300 pound pig pen. Perhaps if they weren't so bloody quick to obsolete their products on a year to year basis, and trying to push out a new version every year that has even more bloat in it than the last year -- perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to rely on "free" anti-virus solutions as an alternative
Re:Symantec is saying this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ooops! There went any hope you had of credibility...
Re:Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end it boils down to what actual malware is out there in the wild.
"exploit statistics" are just numbers that are abused by people that need
to make up excuses for not being willing to dump crap and just use a better
product.
It's not the number of buffer overflow bugs in Firefox, it's the number of
actual trojans in the wild for Explorer.
Microsoft for a long time has suffered from this strange idea that they
can enhance the end user experience by allowing and piece of crap code
from any untrusted source to execute by default and run amok in the system.
Apple doesn't do it.
The Unixen don't do it.
Other Windows app vendors don't even do it.
Re:Symantec is saying this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What went wrong? Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?
Disclaimer: I'm not any particular expert.
My guess is that at least part of the problem is that the only thing that AV software seems to do well is basically signature-based detection, which they had down pat a couple decades ago. So for the past few decades, mostly AV software only needed updates to work with new operating systems, bug fixes, and new signatures.
Now the only real problem with that is that these companies all want to release a new version of their software every year and have everyone re-buy it, because (for psychological reasons) people will pay more for that (or a subscription to receive "free" updates) than they'll pay for signature updates. This puts the companies in a position where it makes sense to throw some new bells and whistles into their product every year, whether or not they're sensible or effective. That leads to bloat.
Re:The fundamental problem is sloppy code in Windo (Score:5, Insightful)
Malware? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know you need anti-virus? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than advocating a specific anti-virus product, I feel that the question is how do you know you need anti-virus. I would recommend choosing two anti-virus product and keep them up to date for the shortest subscription period allowed. During this time, work as usual, and take note of any virus alert you get, and how that happens. Get rid of one of the anti-virus that doesn't appear to be as effective (and recommend the remaining one to other people). Also adjust your computer using habit until you get no virus alerts. Then make sure you keep your habit within the confines of rules you find working well for you, so you don't get virus alert. Then get rid of the anti-virus software altogether.
I regard anti-virus software as some sort of potty training. You only need it until you find out what behavior will get you into trouble.
Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Symantec provided a removal tool because their idiot programmers couldn't be assed to write a proper uninstaller for their shite product."
Symantec products used to be good in the DOS early windows 95 days, now they are just garbage and add no real value, I could never defrag my hard drive in XP using later versions of norton defrag, etc, because of hard disk locking issues because the way their clueless programmers could not figure out NTFS.
I also hate what they did to partition magic when they bought out powerquest. It seems to me anything that gets aquired by symantec turns to shit.
They used to be a good company, now one only uses their products "at arms length" I hate installing their anti virus software and usually only run it from CD/DVD.
They had a few good programs: Their old dos norton utilities and the DOS versions of Ghost - quick, clean simple utilities, what I wouldn't give for someone to make good utilities again.
Sounds like the FUD against Universal Health Care (Score:3, Insightful)
Symantec is taking a page right out of the republican/democrat "anti (not for profit) universal health care" hand book. Instead of having universal single payer health care that would cover us all, for the good of man kind... the special interest groups are spreading FUD because they would lose profit and power.
Same thing with Symantec. They would have you believe that Free AV would destroy humanity itself and leave you unprotected. Symantec would have you believe that only they can protect you properly.
The reality is free AV will help prevent the spread of virii thanks to more people having anti virus software.
Apparently Symantec doesnt really care about protecting users... they just want a profit.
Re:Symantec is saying this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Scan on read is the important one, because you get virus updates every day, and a month from now you may detect something you didn't detect on write.
Really though, the important one is it do in-depth scans periodically, as most scanners find many more things on a scheduled scan as the real-time scan.
Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. because there is no way malware could click 'yes'. Hate to break it to you, but there is all kinds of software out there to do this.
And malware can't just include the Norton Removal Tool and run that? If it works for Norton's tool (the captcha) then it would work just as well being part of the install.
Besides, both McAfee and AVG (and even Norton!) include uninstallers in their installs. The only difference is that Norton's uninstaller is the only one that is significantly prone to failure.
Re:How do you know you need anti-virus? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, the idea that you only get viruses if you do something wrong is utter utter bullshit.
Doing things wrong certainly means you get more, but the only way to avoid them entirely is to disconnect your internet and refuse to use any kind of rewritable media.