Free versus payware security software - don't be cheap!

[Skybird]

I have learned my lesson.

I already posted this as a reply in another thread, but since it is a new theme in itself and may be of interest for many people here using freeware security solutions, I post it again as a separate thread.

--------------------
I run XP on a PC.
...

I also do maintenance for the notebook of my Mom (Vista), and have just installed a new one for a friend of my parents (W7), checking out his old one first (XP). On all these, and my system as well, Avira Free AntiVir was installed plus free firewalls by Zonealarm or Comodo. No scanning results. I learned the lesson to switch all systems, including mine, to payware Avira Premium Security Suite after learning that Tahoe free scanners for example to not guard email traffic (didn't know that before). And immediately on all systems malware was detected, and critical internet traffic was blocked and reported.

The difference between the free versions of Virus-Scanners and Firewalls, and payware suites, obviously has been underestimated by me. I would recommend now to everybody to walk on the safe side of the road and always run full versions of according security software, not just free solutions.

I also learned that the Comodo firewall, which once was rated as very good, in the recent 12 months or so has found to be extremely leaky (German PC magazine reporting this in a test, I think it was c't). The Comodo firewall, and their scanner as well, was found to be sensationally unsafe.

--------------------

I add this:
until end of February, Avira is combining its suite with a free copy of TuneUp2010, it costs you nothing and is the full version. Running it many modules helped tremendously to clean all systems, the including registry cleaner and defragger found hundreds of entries that CCleaner for example never found, and the included harddrive defragger software in quality mode does a tremendously better job than the Microsoft tool that communes with XP, Vista or W7. You can also launch basic cleanup operations in a row with just one click. Very nice and recommended program! It offer many other easy-to-use and reliably working system optimization tools, too.

[the_tyrant]

I use Microsoft security essentials
works quite well
when i download files off the internet, i almost always scan it with an online scanner like http://vscan.novirusthanks.org/

Host based firewalls and IDSes are quite unnecessary in my opinion
Your NAT is your best firewall, because if your hiding behind an overloaded NAT, it is impossible for hackers to connect to your computer. also if possible, use network firewalls and network IDSs

[FIREWALL]

I use Avast and Windows Defender. Never had a problem.

[Respenus]

I've used Kaspersky for many years now and since then, not a problem in site. Right now I'm using Kaspersky PURE and even though it is a tad on the expensive side, and Kaspersky is well known for using up system resources like crazy, the additional tools and protection sure come in handy. You would newer guess how many legit, everyday sites have bugs hidden in them.

[JSLTIGER]

Avast FTW.

[Kaleun]

hi,

If (like me!) you're in a Barclays ibank customer (internet banking) they are now offering a 3 machine commercial Licence of Kaspersky Internet security 2011 valid for one year for FREE per customer!

Works a treat!

[kiwi_2005]

Atm i use Avast and Windows 7's firewall.

[Takeda Shingen]

McAfee Internet Security here. I really have no complaints about the overall performance, but I renewed by subscription today. What followed was an hour-long ordeal of downloading, rebooting and a blue screen of death followed by disk checking and finally settings adjustments. What a freaking hassle that was. I think the problem was that Windows Defender decided to turn itself back on when McAfee rebooted, and those two just don't get along.

[Tchocky]

Defraggler, MS Essentials, and CCCleaner for me. Have yet to see a reason* to switch to paid software.

( *= But surely, I hear you cry, once there is a reason it will be too late! )

Don't call me Shirley.

[Skybird]

I decided on basis of general feedback from various sources, own experience with Avira service over the past years, and a recent test of security suite by c't, a leading German PC quality magazine. What stayed on my mind from all this:

Norton is causing less technmcial problems than in earlier years, but still is a system hog. It has top rank recognition and malware stopping rates, though.

Kaspersky was found to have gone down in quality recently, with no longer top rank recognition performance, still quite some system damand, and a no longer top class firewall.

Comodo was found to be the worst firewall of all, with very huge security leaks.

Panda seems to be a secret tip amongst people, at least eiother the virusscanner or the firewall, but I forgot which one exactly. It is also cheap.

Avast is a good allrounder.

Avira is a top rate antivirus scanner and a good allrounder firewall. It is a package with one of the lowest system demands around. It'S only problem is that at higher settings it tends to create more false positives, but that is better than missing correct alarms.


@Tchocky,

you are living dangerous. I thought the way you did until recently, and thought spending money on complete suites is unneeded, but my story from three different systems should tell you how wrong I was. All three systems were infested, with the free versions of softwares not recognising it, but the payware suite immediately did. I am also pretty sure that you have no email protection with free scanners.

CCleaner is no security software, but an optimiser. You can take from my story that it does no complete job on registry cleaning. I use it myself, but now add TuneUp to it.

I used to use Spyware S&D in poast years,m but deinstalled it longer time ago, the immunisation function caused a lot of trouble and system slowings (a problem shared by many, I learned), and at least it was incompatible for some time with Avira in the past. Then there was A-squared, which also started to cause delaxys and problems longer time ago, so I abandoned it, same is true for Ad-Aware. I used all these also on the Vista-system of my mother, but there they were CREEPINGLY slow. VBista seems to hate these.
Currently, none of these often-referred programs is used on any of the three systems I maintain.

A good alternative re-scan-option in case of a find by your regular software when actively scanning, is Malware's Anti-Malware. The scanner is free, and it does the job. When my Avira finds something, I clean it via Avira, run a re-scan by Avira, and just then do a third scan via Anti-Malware.

Bit-Defender offers a free online scanning service.

[the_tyrant]

you know, I once used a firewall that says "attacks blocked"
the number stayed at 0 for years
Did anyone of you ever had a firewall that blocked an attack?

[Castout]

Ouch I'm still using COMODO.

But I think I've found the source of my PC hacking or rootkits. Shady or charged software install. I may owe certain party an apology for pointing my finger at them but then again experience has taught me those people have lost every credibility in my eyes.

[Arclight]

Atm i use Avast and Windows 7's firewall.
Same, never need anything more.

Used Comodo firewall+ in the past though, with Avast.
you know, I once used a firewall that says "attacks blocked"
the number stayed at 0 for years
Did anyone of you ever had a firewall that blocked an attack?
Have a look at your router's security log, if it keeps one (and if you have one, obviously). ;)

[Onkel Neal]

Sticking with pay/premium anti-virus software here. I cannot imagine some free AV group has the same resources as Norton or McAfee. If they're not brining in real $$ to pay employees and stay on top of emerging threats, how secure can it be? You get what you pay for.

[Arclight]

Fair enough, but it depends on the user I think. If you don't stick your nose in the wrong places, you don't need the very best in security.

Simply forcing a scan on a file you just downloaded, particularly executables, can save you trouble as well. It's really about what you do and how conscious you are of possible threats.


Pretty sure I could just shut down my AV and firewall and only rely on my router's firewall and still never get an infection. The 2nd PC here that's running as a Minecraft server is only firewalled, didn't bother with AV.

[the_tyrant]

Have a look at your router's security log, if it keeps one (and if you have one, obviously). ;)

you know, since the NAT and router blocks all the attacks, do you believe that desktop systems need a firewall?

[Arclight]

Not really, can't hurt though.

Nice to have a backup if external firewall is breached. And I'm sure there are ways to tunnel through those, as far as I know the ones running locally are more restrictive.

[papa_smurf]

CC cleaner, Defraggler, Spybot, ZoneAlarm (free version) and AVG here.

[the_tyrant]

Not really, can't hurt though.

Nice to have a backup if external firewall is breached. And I'm sure there are ways to tunnel through those, as far as I know the ones running locally are more restrictive.

ahh, I forgot
with IPV6 coming along, NAT will disappear
and considering that quite a lot of people (almost everyone in my area) uses the cheap router the ISP provides. Host based firewalls will be needed again.
Though I'll probably end up buying a Hardware firewall and/or IDS

[Skybird]

Fair enough, but it depends on the user I think. If you don't stick your nose in the wrong places, you don't need the very best in security.

Simply forcing a scan on a file you just downloaded, particularly executables, can save you trouble as well. It's really about what you do and how conscious you are of possible threats.


Pretty sure I could just shut down my AV and firewall and only rely on my router's firewall and still never get an infection. The 2nd PC here that's running as a Minecraft server is only firewalled, didn't bother with AV.
Note that latest tests show that only one of the usually mentioned security suites recognised in active scan an incredible 100% of threats that it was fed with in form of a standardised fixed threat library of the 250 thiusand most common trojans and virusses around. All others ran in the range between from I think 94 to 99% only. Also note that "in the zoo" (=real envrionment threat assessment) even the best candidates have lower recognition rates than when being tested with the standardised threat library. "In the zoo" means the software also depends on routines to recognise new malware that so far is not profled, and recognise it by suspicious behavior of the code. These routines usually can give you a maximum of only 55-60% of correct positives.

If you remmeber that there are more than 2.5 million virusses out there, it means that even an active scan with a reliability of 99% leaves you prone to 25 thousand samples your scanner would not recognise.

-----

Some of you seem to miss the poiint of my story I started with. I thought exactly like you guys did, until some days ago. I had only freeware, and used the software you mentioned. And when I switched to pro software, all of a sudden all three systems showed that nevertheless they were infected. And yes, I made sure that it were no false positive alarms, but correct alarms.

Don't take it easy, and be sure you don't defend the reliability of freeware just to justify that you personally do not want to spend a yearly fee for a licence. Freeware Antivirus scanners leave your email traffic unprotected, and both these scanners and freeware firewalls do not compare to the full versions's features and reliability. In the latest test that I referred to, the worst solutions for firewalls in their list were - the two freeware candidates, Zonealarm free and Comodo free. Comodo in parts let almost every fourth attack through, if I recall it correctly. The payware Zonealarm is said to have significantly better recognition than the freeware.

[Skybird]

Sticking with pay/premium anti-virus software here. I cannot imagine some free AV group has the same resources as Norton or McAfee. If they're not brining in real $$ to pay employees and stay on top of emerging threats, how secure can it be? You get what you pay for.
Yes, absolutely. However, for fairness one must mention that many free scanners are functionality-reduced versions of payware scanners, published by big companies for advertizing and Beta-testing purposes.

Also, some secondary tools released by free groups can be good and recommendable additions. But the lesson I learned is: do not exclusively depend on them: see them as additions only.

[Penguin]

I think the biggest advantage which paid antivirus software provides is the speed with with they react to a new virus/new method of attack. That's why I always was very fond of Kaspersky, they have the best reaction speed.