Do you need to pay to be protected on Internet?

[polonus]

Hi DavidR,

+1
Totally and utterly agree with all of the above posting in this thread, it is just scaring non-wits into buying Symantec's all-in-one paid version, the only difference these scared users feel is in their wallets,

pol

[Lisandro]

If you know how to bastle a combination of layered protection as I sketched above, who needs the paid all-in-one bloatware av solutions.

Well, I'm using AIS and I don't think it fits this definition of "paid all-in-one bloatware av solutions". Sorry.

Well those that click after abything that is clickable, have no notice of what Internet security is about, rely fully on an automated process of  paid protection solutions to do that for them, and what will be the end result they will remain vulnerable as hell, because they do not know what to do with the applications, do not know what to do with the settings, do not know about what threats they are up against, etc. etc. So they pay and get fooled. This makes it a complete different discussion.

Ok, the user habits changes a lot the security that could be achieved. But this is not the point here. Like you say, it's a complete different discussion.

AV-protection has to be educated and users have to grow into the habit and then it does not cost much to be nearly fully protected...

But you've tried to define what is fully protected and listed some kind of software.
Indeed, you can achieve all of that using different applications together.
But this makes the Symantec guy's declaration something right, i.e., that free basic protection of antivirus is not enough.

so I am completely protected with my combination of free programs and free tools: a free firewall, avast free, the free version of MBAM or SAS (or both as on-demands), SpywareBlaster, Windows Defender, in-browser security extensions, the only suspicious things I saw in recent years were some ad-tracking cookies, and those I cleanse at closing the computer with some Cleansing Programs, by the way these are also free,

Which firewall do you use?

[Lisandro]

It would only be true if you couldn't get an all free solution in individual components, which is easily achievable. It is Symantec/Norton that are peddling a false perception that the only way to be protected is to pay.

But doesn't avast do the same with the paid versions?

Avast has a great free anti-virus solution and there are many free firewalls that are more than capable, there are many such free security applications. The only issue is the user has to choose which is best for them and some are lazy and get a suite and for the most part that means paying.

Sure. So free basic antivirus protection is not enough.

All they are out to do is scare people into buying Symantec/Norton Suite, this is pure marketing BS to try and steer people away from free solutions and hopefully to them.

Sure. I don't believe Symantec either

@ Tech
I suggest you refresh your memory with the Blog article by Vince about free products.

I've read them yesterday as I've posted before.

[polonus]

Hi Tech,

I agree with the thesis that just a single resident free av-solution is not enough to have full "layered protection".
I would state that using a full security suite and have parts of it disabled (because it works better ) is giving nearly the same overall results of the total free resident solution.

I also would state that if you're aware what layered free security suite to select from free components this can be/mesan an advantage over the single all-in-one suites, because you have a smaller vulnerability window (varying detection spectrum), the various products detect differently and over a much broader scale of malware- so decent free resident av solution, a nasties blocking solution (SpywareBlaster), specific anti-malware solutions (MBAM, SAS, Windows Defender), temp and other cleaners like ClearProg, in-browser security extensions, probably an in the cloud solution" like ImmunetProtect and you are done, learn a bit of SafeHexing and update and patch fully(use Secunia's solution to that problem or SecBrowsing extension in GoogleChrome for plug-ins and you are ready to go without a fear to have missed something. The firewall I would have is the Windows Vista one (make it dual way) or I used ZA free,
and not to forget make XP SP3 more secure with MS's EMET tool, it is great,

polonus

[Hermite15]

...seriously, we all know here that one can be perfectly (i.e. as well as possible) for free, with a free protection setup matching or even outperforming many paid solutions.

So free basic antivirus protection is not enough.

Tech, are you trying to underline again that Avast firewall should be free (in your opinion)?

 ...as David mentioned, there are indeed very good free firewalls for those who wouldn't be ready to cough some cash for AIS. Symantec is just promoting >>> Symantec.

ps: on a side note, they acquired PGP, and I'm wondering what they're gonna do with it, especially considering that some of it can't be sold (to customers). Not talking about GNUPG but PGP itself that includes basic free functions inherited from Phil Zimmermann's work, free fucntions that were always free in all PGP versions...

[DavidR]

It would only be true if you couldn't get an all free solution in individual components, which is easily achievable. It is Symantec/Norton that are peddling a false perception that the only way to be protected is to pay.

But doesn't avast do the same with the paid versions?

Absolutely not, Avast aren't writing articles stating that 'all' free software can't protect you. They are promoting the paid option and stating what you get in doing so, now if you have those areas covered no problem, they aren't trying to scare avast free users into paying (like the recent ZA fiasco).

Avast has a great free anti-virus solution and there are many free firewalls that are more than capable, there are many such free security applications. The only issue is the user has to choose which is best for them and some are lazy and get a suite and for the most part that means paying.

Sure. So free basic antivirus protection is not enough.

You/they can't compare any stand alone product against a suite as we all know you need more protection in the form of a firewall and one comes with your OS. We also know that it is at best basic or there would be monopoly lawyers climbing all over it.

They are saying this for no other purpose than to try and sell their products and boy in this case does their name match what they are doing 'playing with semantics,' to serve their own ends. Give the potential customer a head ache and sell them an aspirin.

[Lisandro]

Tech, are you trying to underline again that Avast firewall should be free (in your opinion)?

Don't jump to conclusions.
But we can't say it delivers full protection for free

...as David mentioned, there are indeed very good free firewalls for those who wouldn't be ready to cough some cash for AIS.

Sure.

Symantec is just promoting >>> Symantec.

No doubt about it. Every company promotes their own products

[Lisandro]

I would state that using a full security suite and have parts of it disabled (because it works better ) is giving nearly the same overall results of the total free resident solution.

Sure. No doubt that this can occur if the user disables necessary parts of the suite.

The firewall I would have is the Windows Vista one (make it dual way) or I used ZA free

Ok. I've thought you were using AIS (as you were a beta tester...).

[DavidR]

<snip>

Symantec is just promoting >>> Symantec.

No doubt about it. Every company promotes their own products

But not by completely trashing a complete sector of the market (free AV software solutions). Avast promotes its own products, it doesn't rubbish everyone else's.

[Lisandro]

Absolutely not, Avast aren't writing articles stating that 'all' free software can't protect you. They are promoting the paid option and stating what you get in doing so, now if you have those areas covered no problem, they aren't trying to scare avast free users into paying (like the recent ZA fiasco).

Sure they aren't writing FUD as Symantec and sure it's not ZA fiasco either.

You/they can't compare any stand alone product against a suite

Sure. There is also free suites.

They are saying this for no other purpose than to try and sell their products

Sure. Every company does that.
Ok. In this case, it's not ethic to make FUD just to promote your product (I think everybody here agrees with this).

[Lisandro]

But not by completely trashing a complete sector of the market (free AV software solutions). Avast promotes its own products, it doesn't rubbish everyone else's.

Sure. I'll never be on a rubbish side.
But, really, they're trashing the concept that you can achieve full protection with free antivirus.
I think antivirus companies can't say that either.

[Hermite15]

Tech, are you trying to underline again that Avast firewall should be free (in your opinion)?

Don't jump to conclusions.
But we can't say it delivers full protection for free

  ...well it's hard to have another interpretation but I promise to try

[Lisandro]

well it's hard to have another interpretation but I promise to try

Let me know if you could achieve

[Hermite15]

well it's hard to have another interpretation but I promise to try

Let me know if you could achieve

I failed again

[Chris Thomas]

Guess who is challenging Symantec

Comodo CEO MELIH ABDULHAYO - GLU - However that is spelled 

http://www.melih.com/2010/09/18/challenge-to-symantec-from-comodo-ceo/