Do you need to pay to be protected on Internet?

[ardvark]

Janice Chaffin, president of Symantec's consumer business unit, says: "Freeware vendors have created a false perception that free, basic security is enough to protect you from today's online threats. The reality is, free is not enough. It's like wearing a light windbreaker in a snowstorm."

A USA TODAY survey of 16 anti-virus companies shows that no-cost anti-virus programs generally lack important features such as a firewall, website health checks, automatic updates and customer support. Meanwhile, full, subscription AV suites continue to get more powerful each year.

(...)

The common denominator: Each promotion — whether it be for a free basic version or free trial period or a free infection scan — seeks to convert users to a paid subscription.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2010-09-22-antivirus22_CV_N.htm

What do you think? Do you need to pay to be protected on Internet?

This is one of the reasons I like Kubuntu, No AV or other security software required and there is an excellent chance that the software you do want is going to be free of charge and free to do with as you please, if I understand the GPL correctly.

However, to answer the question: No, you don't need to pay to receive acceptable protection, in my opinion. Paying means getting more protective features and settings options.

Regards...

[Lisandro]

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/

The Symantec answer was simple: http://pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369524,00.asp

Symantec's response points out that independent tests already exist. "Norton is included in a variety of independent, third-party tests from testing labs like AV-Test and AV Comparatives. We encourage Comodo to contact these testing labs if they are interested in having their product included in these tests," the company said.

Then the Comodo's CEO said:

Those independent tests they claim show other Free AV products doing really well, in some scenerios, better than Norton. So if those are the tests they believe in, then why are they spreading misinformation to public?

[MikeBCda]

Personally, I avoid suites (free or paid) for pretty much the same reason I don't get cable TV/phone/internet "bundles" for communication.  I get all my phone services from Bell, cable TV from the cable company, and internet from an regional independent ISP with an excellent reputation, simply because each of those companies started out specializing in one of those fields before expanding out into the others, and I feel that their original field is what they're best at.

The same with my defense "arsenal" (see sig.) -- in each case, I've gone with a product from a supplier who (starting out, at least) specialized in a specific kind of protection.  The only sorta-duplication is with SAS and MBAM (free, on-demand-only versions) primarily because while they both protect against essentially the same types of malware, they do so in different ways and using different databases.

[YoKenny]

Personally, I avoid suites (free or paid) for pretty much the same reason I don't get cable TV/phone/internet "bundles" for communication.  I get all my phone services from Bell, cable TV from the cable company, and internet from an regional independent ISP with an excellent reputation, simply because each of those companies started out specializing in one of those fields before expanding out into the others, and I feel that their original field is what they're best at.

Bell will give you a great discount if you bundle Internet and Phone.
Sadly you still believe in AOHell and continue to spend money needlessely.

How do I know

I have both.


 

[Left123]

my opinion is: buy an  av=waste of money when mbam and avast are here to safe your pc from daily/most complicated malwares ,however if you are rich or you can spend 20 euros to buy avast or mbam it's a good idea,but kav costs 100 euros,are they making fun of unprotected ppl?

[George Yves]

Symantec and others want me to pay for their "good work" but will they pay me back if their products fail? Will they risk their profits?

I think my questions are just rhetoric.

[polonus]

Hi George Yves,

Your questions are realistic. I experienced it, we had their suite at work, one day in February in the early years of this century they got the wrong certifications in, it brought all of their security to a complete standstill almost, the av no longer functioned, everything became as slow as molasses from a very resistent sort, it was a complete disaster. So I experienced what you are on about, and that cured us from any longer using "the top notch av solution of our days",

polonus

[Lisandro]

Symantec and others want me to pay for their "good work" but will they pay me back if their products fail? Will they risk their profits?
I think my questions are just rhetoric.

No, not really. Look, some people has already bashed the free antivirus when they failed with the phrase: "this is what I get when I pay nothing... I got an infection. Now I need to spend 200 bucks on a technician...". I know that this could occur with paid also. And none would be responsible for the damages.
I know an exception (and I'm opened to other ones): Comodo pay back 500 dollars if a computer get infected in United States with their software installed in a clean computer. http://antivirus.comodo.com/clean-my-pc.php

[Gargamel360]

I know an exception (and I'm opened to other ones): Comodo pay back 500 dollars if a computer get infected in United States with their software installed in a clean computer. http://antivirus.comodo.com/clean-my-pc.php

That is a nice guarantee. Restrictive on some levels, as I suppose such a deal must be, but this part of agreement would make he hesitate most;
If a Comodo support representative cannot
connect to the computer because of the malware, the limited guarantee does not apply.

[Lisandro]

“There is a very, very big gap between what antivirus does and the threats that are being delivered today,” Hall said at the time. “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. That’s why free antivirus is not enough: you need in-depth layered technologies, which only come from the more mature paid suites” (David Hall, Symantec’s product manager for Consumer Products in Asia-Pacific, 2009).

Who's giving the best protection? Free or paid?
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201038/6191/Comodo-vs-Symantec-Who-offers-the-best-Malware-defense

[Lisandro]

but this part of agreement would make he hesitate most;
If a Comodo support representative cannot connect to the computer because of the malware, the limited guarantee does not apply.

That means that the computer must be scanned by a Comodo on-demand scanning, security data is anonymously collected and if the system fulfill the minimum requirements, the agreement could be done.

[Gargamel360]

but this part of agreement would make he hesitate most;
If a Comodo support representative cannot connect to the computer because of the malware, the limited guarantee does not apply.

That means that the computer must be scanned by a Comodo on-demand scanning, security data is anonymously collected and if the system fulfill the minimum requirements, the agreement could be done.

No, that part was from the limited guarantee section of the user agreement, regarding the $500 payback if infected.  It stated the financial reimbursement only applies toward the cost of Comodo licensed tech support.  Since that tech support is only available online, you must be able to connect.  Also states clearly that even if it is malware that has compromised your connection, your guarantee of $500 is void. 
So a $500 guarantee is nice, but...... it is redeemable only toward the cost of tech support that is licensed through Comodo to begin with, and only if you can first contact that tech support, then they must be able to remotely connect to your PC.  And an infection compromising this ability to connect voids the agreement.   

[Lisandro]

Ok, these are the limitations of the agreement... What can we do? They're clearly stated.
I think no other antivirus is releasing such a promise.

[Gargamel360]

True, for sure, it is not a bad thing, and the only guarantee of its type I have seen.

It is a very bold statement also, a bit of a dare almost?

Any cash payback like that is bound to have some strings attached, and they state it clearly enough ahead of time, it is just more strings than I would care for, personally.
 

[Dch48]

The answer is simply, No, you do not have to pay these days to get a good level of protection. Having said that, many of the paid complete suites are excellent. Norton, Avast!, and Kaspersky are probably the best. I would stay away from McAfee, AVG, and Trend Micro myself. If you want a complete package of protection for free, you have to piece it together from a couple of vendors unless you decide to go with Comodo, which offers a complete solution free. It provides excellent protection but at a price in ease of use of your computer. It monitors every action by every program and alerts you to them unless the application is whitelisted. Their whitelist is getting better and the latest v5.0 is the best so far in regards to usability. As far as just AV programs go, Avast! is the only one I know of that offers the same features in it's free version as in the paid one. The only thing the paid AV gives is an on demand sandbox. Other vendors such as Avira and AVG do not give all their AV scanning features in the free versions so you are getting what the Symantec person says is "free basic protection" and paid AV's are better than those offerings. MSE is not bad and only comes in a free version but If you want the best AV protection you can get without paying a cent, I would recommend Avast!.