Free security software 'as good as commercial brands'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julian
  • Start date Start date
J

Julian

The consumer watchdog Which? found that many free programs
outperformed rivals costing up to £50.

Computer owners who pay for top-of-the-range security software
could be wasting their money, according to Which?

A report by the consumer watchdog found that free alternatives
to popular security products such as Norton Anti-Virus and
McAfee VirusScan work just as well as paid-for programs,
and were on the whole just as easy to use.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2361464.ece
 
My experience is that the free and/or cheaper alternatives often perform
better as they do not require the intense amount of system resources used by
the likes of McAfee and Symantec software. Nor do they cause as many
performance issues or software conflicts.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
Julian said:
The consumer watchdog Which? found that many free programs
outperformed rivals costing up to £50.

Computer owners who pay for top-of-the-range security software
could be wasting their money, according to Which?

A report by the consumer watchdog found that free alternatives
to popular security products such as Norton Anti-Virus and
McAfee VirusScan work just as well as paid-for programs,
and were on the whole just as easy to use.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2361464.ece
Click to expand...

I wonder if they ran the Vista firewall in advanced mode to get that 64%
rating?
Probably not.. the Which reports I have read where I know something about
the subject have usually been rubbish.. I expect its true for them all.
 
dennis@home said:
I wonder if they ran the Vista firewall in advanced mode to get that 64%
rating?
Probably not.. the Which reports I have read where I know something about
the subject have usually been rubbish.. I expect its true for them all.
Click to expand...

That may be true of Which? but there is an ever growing mountain of
evidence that Norton and McAfee antivirus products are not compatible
with Vistas Windows Mail which has experienced a myriad of different
problems that disappear when Norton and McAfee AVs are binned.
 
* Julian:
The consumer watchdog Which? found that many free programs
outperformed rivals costing up to £50.

Computer owners who pay for top-of-the-range security software
could be wasting their money, according to Which?

A report by the consumer watchdog found that free alternatives
to popular security products such as Norton Anti-Virus and
McAfee VirusScan work just as well as paid-for programs,
and were on the whole just as easy to use.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2361464.ece
Click to expand...

This may be true of Norton and McAfee products, it is not true
for NOD32. The best AV there is. Period.


-Michael
 
MICHAEL said:
* Julian:

This may be true of Norton and McAfee products, it is not true
for NOD32. The best AV there is. Period.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but there very few cases where someone spending
£300 on a PC needs to spend another 10% on AV software.

I don't believe that the average home PC user,
a huge segment of the market, needs to spend
even one penny on security software

They are frightened into buying superfluous software
and conned by PC vendors who have been bribed to
preinstall expensive bloatware.
 
Knowledge is "the best" protection.

People go with different products based on how much time they want to spend
with it. Those who use freeware products typically go into it knowing they
will tune it to their specific use. Those who use bundled products typically
don't care... they simply "trust" the vendor's settings and let it run. If
you take the time to "tweak" any of these, you will only make it stronger
based on how you use your computer.

Those who don't know what a rootkit or trojan is have attained a 100% rating
with their product and probably without trying. Those who tweak and fiddle
to get that last ounce of speed from their machine but keep getting
bombarded with ads get a 0% rating. Doesn't matter what the product is or
how much it costs.
 
The majority of home users install Norton or McAfee and that is it. They do
not make use of the advanced features, and more often than not find that
their systems slow down. Firewalls pop up messages that they do not
understand, and are summarily disabled, the next question being 'how to stop
Security Center from displaying 'you have no firewall enabled'.

The free stuff is backed by commercial sales, some automatically update, and
if there is a problem, uninstall/re-install takes maybe 5 minutes, no
specialized uninstall program being required.

'Which' mag may not always be right, but in this case, it is..


dennis@home said:
I wonder if they ran the Vista firewall in advanced mode to get that 64%
rating?
Probably not.. the Which reports I have read where I know something about
the subject have usually been rubbish.. I expect its true for them all.
Click to expand...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
 
Mike Hall - MVP said:
The majority of home users install Norton or McAfee and that is it. They
do not make use of the advanced features, and more often than not find
that their systems slow down. Firewalls pop up messages that they do not
understand, and are summarily disabled, the next question being 'how to
stop Security Center from displaying 'you have no firewall enabled'.

The free stuff is backed by commercial sales, some automatically update,
and if there is a problem, uninstall/re-install takes maybe 5 minutes, no
specialized uninstall program being required.

'Which' mag may not always be right, but in this case, it is..
Click to expand...

Well in the case of the AV software I would agree.. how they got there is a
bit more debateable but I wont argue with the answer.

I was questioning how one firewall gets 94% when another that can do the
same gets 64%.
Like I said I find Which reports to be rubbish.. they seldom appear to know
what they are doing and its all dumbed down to the level of a Sun reader.
I would have given all the firewalls no more than 5% myself, but I do
understand how they work and what they can really do rather than what is
claimed for them.
 
Assuming that the numbers relate to how good the product is as used by the
average person, and not just by the amount of features present as I suspect
they are, then Zonealarm shouldn't score any higher than XP or Vista
Firewall..

Zonealarm may well be more capable, but if the user doesn't take advantage
of ALL of the features, most capability is lost. I always set my local
clients up with AVG or Avast, Windows Defender, and the resident Windows
firewall. At least these four hardly require user intervention of any kind,
and will chug along in the background protecting them far more than a bunch
of hard to use, hard to set up, hard to understand utilities, none of which
the average user will even look at during a year.


dennis@home said:
Well in the case of the AV software I would agree.. how they got there is
a bit more debateable but I wont argue with the answer.

I was questioning how one firewall gets 94% when another that can do the
same gets 64%.
Like I said I find Which reports to be rubbish.. they seldom appear to
know what they are doing and its all dumbed down to the level of a Sun
reader.
I would have given all the firewalls no more than 5% myself, but I do
understand how they work and what they can really do rather than what is
claimed for them.
Click to expand...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
 
Assuming that the numbers relate to how good the product is as used by the
average person, and not just by the amount of features present as I suspect
they are, then Zonealarm shouldn't score any higher than XP or Vista
Firewall..

Zonealarm may well be more capable, but if the user doesn't take advantage
of ALL of the features, most capability is lost. I always set my local
clients up with AVG or Avast, Windows Defender, and the resident Windows
firewall. At least these four hardly require user intervention of any kind,
and will chug along in the background protecting them far more than a bunch
of hard to use, hard to set up, hard to understand utilities, none of which
the average user will even look at during a year.












--

Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/Userhttp://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

I've been using all the free stuff out there. Some is good, some not
so good. I have ended up with a very simple protection plan that has
worked great on all our computers: I use the Windows firewall and
SpySweeper with AntiVirus. SpySweeper I have used for years, and it
now has the Sophos anti virus engine built in which you only can get
in enterprice except for through SpySweeper. This has kept us clean.
SpySweeper finds something every time it scans, mostly cookies, and
we've had several instances where the anti-virus engine has saved us.

This is not a free solution, but a good one in my opinion. And you are
getting two products for the price of one.

//ceed-me-not
 
They don't post a link to the actual study or any details of the methodology
used to test any of the software. Without that the article is meaningless.
From personal experience I agree with some of the conclusions and disagree
with others but without knowing how they tested I can't even compare my
opinions with their results.
 
Julian said:
The consumer watchdog Which? found that many free programs
outperformed rivals costing up to £50.

Computer owners who pay for top-of-the-range security software
could be wasting their money, according to Which?

A report by the consumer watchdog found that free alternatives
to popular security products such as Norton Anti-Virus and
McAfee VirusScan work just as well as paid-for programs,
and were on the whole just as easy to use.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2361464.ece
Click to expand...


There was a virtually identical article in another leading UK computer
magazine approx. 1-2 months earlier. So so much for original comment.
 
Kerry Brown said:
They don't post a link to the actual study or any details of the
methodology used to test any of the software. Without that the article is
meaningless. From personal experience I agree with some of the conclusions
and disagree with others but without knowing how they tested I can't even
compare my opinions with their results.
Click to expand...

Which? (a strange beast) is a subscription service and you need to be
a member to access its reports although they are available in
meatword libraries in the UK (at least)

http://www.which.co.uk/about_us/A/who_we_are/overview/Who_we_are_482_111727.jsp
 
This may be true of Norton and McAfee products, it is not true
for NOD32. The best AV there is. Period.
Click to expand...

I'd beg to differ. It turned my father's PC to treacle. It (NOD32) was one
of the more highly acclaimed ones last year...but a recent PC Pro review put
it rather low down...OK...not as low as Norton! ;-)

I personally use AVG, Windows Firewall, Windows Defender and my router's
hardware firewall. I then periodically use Ad-aware and Spybot S&D.

JW
 
Jon said:
There was a virtually identical article in another leading UK computer
magazine approx. 1-2 months earlier. So so much for original comment.
Click to expand...

Yep...PC Pro. I just dumped that copy tonight. Might dig it out of the
recycle box tomorrow!

JW
 
Julian said:
The consumer watchdog Which? found that many free programs
outperformed rivals costing up to £50.

Computer owners who pay for top-of-the-range security software
could be wasting their money, according to Which?

A report by the consumer watchdog found that free alternatives
to popular security products such as Norton Anti-Virus and
McAfee VirusScan work just as well as paid-for programs,
and were on the whole just as easy to use.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2361464.ece
Click to expand...

I use and reccomend the free products myself but I feel I ought to mention
that Which magazine reviewers generally can't tell their backside from their
elbow. I'd take their advice with a pinch of salt; they might be making a
good point here but they're likely to be doing so by luck rather than by
judgement.
 
* John Whitworth:
I'd beg to differ. It turned my father's PC to treacle. It (NOD32) was one of the more
highly acclaimed ones last year...but a recent PC Pro review put it rather low
down...OK...not as low as Norton! ;-)

I personally use AVG, Windows Firewall, Windows Defender and my router's hardware firewall.
I then periodically use Ad-aware and Spybot S&D.
Click to expand...

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary
ESET has achieved 45 Virus Bulletin VB100 Awards, more than any other vendor.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/
"NOD32 is the leader in Advanced+ awards, having received top honors
in each of the last five tests. This represents the most proactive malware detection
capabilities of all the products tested over the last 12 months."

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus-software/
Best antivirus software for experts. Reviews unanimously agree that NOD32 is as good as or
better than Kaspersky Anti-Virus in all but one area: Reviews say NOD32 has a very hard-to-use
interface. Although computer experts say NOD32 offers great protection, no system drain and no
software conflicts, most users will be confused by its unintuitive and confusing interface and
controls. That puts NOD32 out of contention for anyone but sophisticated computer users.

http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/eset-nod32-review.html
Effectiveness:
The most important function of antivirus software is to detect and block viruses, and Nod32
does an excellent job. This software received the VB100% award in June 2007, was certified by
ICSA in 2007 and passed the level 1 & 2 Checkmark from West Coast Labs.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129883-page,2-c,antivirus/article.html
When a Signature Isn't Enough

The heuristics approach looks inside a potential piece of malware, but behavioral analysis,
another proactive-protection technique, looks at it from the outside to see how it runs. If a
file behaves suspiciously, such as by executing from a temp directory, antivirus programs may
flag it as potential malware.

Some newer, advanced types of behavioral methods create what's called a sandbox, in which part
or all of a suspect program can be analyzed in a protected virtual environment. The top two
performers in our proactive tests, which subject PCs protected by month-old signatures to new
malware to simulate future unknown threats, rely on the sandbox approach. Eset's NOD32 program
intercepted 79 percent of malware, and BitDefender Antivirus 10 stopped 61 percent. On the
other hand, Grisoft AVG finished last, at 34 percent, despite using a sandbox.
 
MICHAEL said:
* John Whitworth:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary
ESET has achieved 45 Virus Bulletin VB100 Awards, more than any other
vendor.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/
"NOD32 is the leader in Advanced+ awards, having received top honors
in each of the last five tests. This represents the most proactive malware
detection
capabilities of all the products tested over the last 12 months."

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus-software/
Best antivirus software for experts. Reviews unanimously agree that NOD32
is as good as or
better than Kaspersky Anti-Virus in all but one area: Reviews say NOD32
has a very hard-to-use
interface. Although computer experts say NOD32 offers great protection, no
system drain and no
software conflicts, most users will be confused by its unintuitive and
confusing interface and
controls. That puts NOD32 out of contention for anyone but sophisticated
computer users.

http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/eset-nod32-review.html
Effectiveness:
The most important function of antivirus software is to detect and block
viruses, and Nod32
does an excellent job. This software received the VB100% award in June
2007, was certified by
ICSA in 2007 and passed the level 1 & 2 Checkmark from West Coast Labs.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129883-page,2-c,antivirus/article.html
When a Signature Isn't Enough

The heuristics approach looks inside a potential piece of malware, but
behavioral analysis,
another proactive-protection technique, looks at it from the outside to
see how it runs. If a
file behaves suspiciously, such as by executing from a temp directory,
antivirus programs may
flag it as potential malware.

Some newer, advanced types of behavioral methods create what's called a
sandbox, in which part
or all of a suspect program can be analyzed in a protected virtual
environment. The top two
performers in our proactive tests, which subject PCs protected by
month-old signatures to new
malware to simulate future unknown threats, rely on the sandbox approach.
Eset's NOD32 program
intercepted 79 percent of malware, and BitDefender Antivirus 10 stopped 61
percent. On the
other hand, Grisoft AVG finished last, at 34 percent, despite using a
sandbox.
Click to expand...

If peoples criticisms of Which are valid they should also consider
how reliable any of the stuff they read in ANY commercial trade mag
is. None of the PC mags are throroughly reliable since the never want
to alienate the companies that advertise with them. If a product has
ever been advertised, or its maker ever advertises in a particular
magazines or the magazines belonging to it's parent, the review is
worth diddly-squat or -273.15.
 
* Julian:
If peoples criticisms of Which are valid they should also consider
how reliable any of the stuff they read in ANY commercial trade mag
is. None of the PC mags are throroughly reliable since the never want
to alienate the companies that advertise with them. If a product has
ever been advertised, or its maker ever advertises in a particular
magazines or the magazines belonging to it's parent, the review is
worth diddly-squat or -273.15.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree, Julian.


-Michael
 
Back
Top