Beef Up Security?

[Wingless]

If you want to be extra paranoid, you can do all of your questionable activities in a VM.

 

[adomorn]

well, years ago i had an ubuntu boot disk that i would use sometimes, but then i never really used it enough.

 

put it in, boot up ubuntu temporarily, use the internet to pay bills, etc, and then reboot without the cd in.

[Moto]

I never have had problems while gaming using Avira AntiVir. That is one reason why I use it. Easy on the resources and reputable.

 

Each time the computer is booted. the program will want to do an automated update check at some point and when that happens, a "buy the pro version" window will pop up. This will disturb gameplay normally.

 

To deter this from occurring during a game, I manually run the update check after I start the computer and it won't want to check it later (unless I leave the rig on for days, but I don't).

[Papa John]

The difference is really that one company wants to turn a profit on everything and the other company wants to turn a profit on most things. The AV engine is typically almost identical between free and paid versions of a piece of software because they want you to BUY something. Remember when McAfee corporate shitcanned critical system files? That's very much a paid product that is years behind everyone else. Furthermore, every anti-malware software has strengths and weaknesses. Some kick false-positives because they're almost too intrusive. Some are heavy on system resources, but have great heuristics. Some are obnoxiously difficult to navigate from a UI standpoint. IMO, I'd rather have solid RTV scanning detection that prevents malware from even being loaded over pretty much anything else, and Avast still does that right.

 

As far as false positives go, I haven't had a single one in 18 months, but maybe that's just me. I HAVE seen AV heuristics changes flag somewhat obscure programs/services, such as Teracopy and compiled AutoIT scripts, but shit happens to everyone and they get it patched.

 

Point being, just get one of the major players. I don't really care which one, just as long is you have one.

 

So are you arguing in a consumer market they are wrong for charging for their products? Building on that the free version and the paid version are (for the majority) not equal. The ones that are equal are normally based on a trial instead of free for life. On the subject for McAfee they have always been market whores for the Anti-Virus industry, as you see when you buy a new computer and its already installed. Since they "appear" to have a firm grasp on the market they can skate by with a below-average security system. So going in the opposite direction you have Avast, which is intrusive to the "nth" degree. What Avast seems to not be able to grasp is that just because it looks like a virus doesn't mean its a virus. It then tries to "protect" you from this by quarantining it. Which means you must then go to the virus chest and restore. Which more often then not it goes an quarantines it again. So my point being that while you could say Avast isn't the worst AV you could have, there are far better ones out there.

[Wingless]

So are you arguing in a consumer market they are wrong for charging for their products? Building on that the free version and the paid version are (for the majority) not equal. The ones that are equal are normally based on a trial instead of free for life. On the subject for McAfee they have always been market whores for the Anti-Virus industry, as you see when you buy a new computer and its already installed. Since they "appear" to have a firm grasp on the market they can skate by with a below-average security system. So going in the opposite direction you have Avast, which is intrusive to the "nth" degree. What Avast seems to not be able to grasp is that just because it looks like a virus doesn't mean its a virus. It then tries to "protect" you from this by quarantining it. Which means you must then go to the virus chest and restore. Which more often then not it goes an quarantines it again. So my point being that while you could say Avast isn't the worst AV you could have, there are far better ones out there.

 

Both products that charge for all components and products that have some for free and some paid are BOTH taking advantage of our "consumer market", but they are marketing their products differently. These differing points of view existed back before the consumer market even knew what spyware was, let alone how to prevent it, if you were even sentient during that time period. It's been this way for over a decade. Just because they MARKET their products differently does not make one better than the other.

 

As far as your false positives go, lazy Google only shows one common date for reports, which is Dec 2009. Frankly, that's pretty much par for the course when it comes to reactive software development. If you have other times in mind where there was some sort of constrictive heuristics pandemic, now is a good time to cite your sources.

 

Also, for "just because it looks like a virus doesn't mean its a virus.", it looks like you've missed the point of heuristics. If it exhibits traits of a virus, responds like a virus... well, you get the point. Or not. Regardless, that's what heuristics DO. They're not always right, but it's an algorithm. it requires tweaking. Furthermore, some of the blame for false positives (across any AV platform) sits with the program's developer. Certain application behavior will trigger a hit on heuristics because it's identical to the replication methods used by malware.

 

Like I was telling OP, I don't care what you use for AV, as long as it's not McAfee. Or Norton, preferably. Yeah, don't pay for Anti-Virus.

[enigma#]

Both products that charge for all components and products that have some for free and some paid are BOTH taking advantage of our "consumer market", but they are marketing their products differently. These differing points of view existed back before the consumer market even knew what spyware was, let alone how to prevent it, if you were even sentient during that time period. It's been this way for over a decade. Just because they MARKET their products differently does not make one better than the other.

 

As far as your false positives go, lazy Google only shows one common date for reports, which is Dec 2009. Frankly, that's pretty much par for the course when it comes to reactive software development. If you have other times in mind where there was some sort of constrictive heuristics pandemic, now is a good time to cite your sources.

 

Also, for "just because it looks like a virus doesn't mean its a virus.", it looks like you've missed the point of heuristics. If it exhibits traits of a virus, responds like a virus... well, you get the point. Or not. Regardless, that's what heuristics DO. They're not always right, but it's an algorithm. it requires tweaking. Furthermore, some of the blame for false positives (across any AV platform) sits with the program's developer. Certain application behavior will trigger a hit on heuristics because it's identical to the replication methods used by malware.

 

Like I was telling OP, I don't care what you use for AV, as long as it's not McAfee. Or Norton, preferably. Yeah, don't pay for Anti-Virus.

 

In regards to the "don't pay for AV", I'd like you to write an AV program for me seeing as I shouldn't have to pay for it. Oh and by the way, please write a heuristic algorithm to pick up all the viruses. Don't forget the endless hours it will take to actually write all the code, test it, compile it and distribute it. Most humans would prefer to be paid for their hardwork actually and by choosing ONLY to work with free products, it is clear that all you care about (in relation to AV) is the fact that you don't need to pay for your goods.

 

Paid versions and free versions do have their differences... for instance, AVIRA publishes their free version with a pop-up every time you update... sure it's annoying but I think it's reasonable to say if you're willing to put up with any caveats free software has.. by all means go ahead

 

Seriously, the reason why (imo) AntiVirus software companies charge for it is to do the bloody research people don't want to do. If you don't know how to code an AV program, guess what? You're either buy one or not. If you choose to get a free AV, don't complain about it because there are no guarantees it's gonna be to your satisfaction. Plus not all AV companies will support you should the program fail on you. Second by buying the AV program, you are supporting the company you like because of you believe it is a superior product.

 

I agree however with your notion that marketing really messes things up with AV products =(

[Wingless]

 

Paid versions and free versions do have their differences... for instance, AVIRA publishes their free version with a pop-up every time you update... sure it's annoying but I think it's reasonable to say if you're willing to put up with any caveats free software has.. by all means go ahead

 

Seriously, the reason why (imo) AntiVirus software companies charge for it is to do the bloody research people don't want to do. If you don't know how to code an AV program, guess what? You're either buy one or not. If you choose to get a free AV, don't complain about it because there are no guarantees it's gonna be to your satisfaction. Plus not all AV companies will support you should the program fail on you. Second by buying the AV program, you are supporting the company you like because of you believe it is a superior product.

 

I agree however with your notion that marketing really messes things up with AV products =(

 

You don't seem to be getting it. Those companies are fully funded, just not by that specific product. If they weren't funded, or looking for funding as an upstart, they wouldn't be doing it. Trying to fault me for accepting their marketing model is completely asinine, as is insinuating that I was somehow complaining about nag windows.

 

On the flip side, I happen to be a proponent of open-source software, and instead of explaining to you what that entails, I'll just leave it as "if you can't figure out how to make money with a working product, you're an idiot". You don't have to sell software to turn a profit.

 

Frankly, I don't have to buy ANY software; I'll just boot up Linux. How's that for a decision?

[enigma#]

You don't seem to be getting it. Those companies are fully funded, just not by that specific product. If they weren't funded, or looking for funding as an upstart, they wouldn't be doing it. Trying to fault me for accepting their marketing model is completely asinine, as is insinuating that I was somehow complaining about nag windows.

 

On the flip side, I happen to be a proponent of open-source software, and instead of explaining to you what that entails, I'll just leave it as "if you can't figure out how to make money with a working product, you're an idiot". You don't have to sell software to turn a profit.

 

Frankly, I don't have to buy ANY software; I'll just boot up Linux. How's that for a decision?

 

I'm sorry if you interpreted my words as implying you're at fault. No, that's not what I was trying to say for sure. Perhaps I misunderstood you as well though, what I was trying to say is that given the nature of these companies if you are not willing to pay for it... fine that is your choice alone. What I was trying to point out is that, it is not the money that they build up on but rather to support the people who created this software.

 

If you want to live off Linux, that's fine. However it is no less insulting for you to tell others that Free == Paid because although many free versions share engines with paid versions, not all (like I said in my quote) include technical support, which happens to be important for people who don't understand computers.

 

I was hoping you wouldn't interpret what I was saying to be so negative but I was merely trying to point out that well-funded companies had to start somewhere beit from acquisitions or from scratch code. Regardless of the choice, they would need money and manpower. and manpower does need money (i.e. pay the people who coded the software)

 

Perhaps I was directing my comments too personal (although that was not my intention) and I do apologise for that. Let's not turn this into a flame thread.

Edited June 16, 2010 by enigma#

[Wingless]

 

If you want to live off Linux, that's fine. However it is no less insulting for you to tell others that Free == Paid because although many free versions share engines with paid versions, not all (like I said in my quote) include technical support, which happens to be most of the people who don't understand computers.

 

I was hoping you wouldn't interpret what I was saying to be so negative but I was merely trying to point out that well-funded companies had to start somewhere beit from acquisitions or from scratch code. Regardless of the choice, they would need money and manpower. and manpower does need money (i.e. pay the people who coded the software)

 

Perhaps I was directing my comments too personal and I do apologise for that. Let's not turn this into a flame thread.

 

Fair enough. I will agree that not everyone knows that person that can save them from assorted security blunders, and having someone to call if they get a hit from the AV engine is worth that 50 dollars a year. I'd pretty much assume that "free" software is also "free" of support, but it comes with the territory. Companies that subsidize that product's existence with other products or ad revenue probably can't afford to run a support center for free software. Call centers are freaking expensive.

 

On the other side, it's really up to the developer to state how they want to sustain themselves. Your common models are pretty much "free - donations appreciated", "free - paid suite" and "paid", and it's the company's place to figure out which fits. I (and most smart consumers) won't buy products they don't need, so I wouldn't buy the suite just because I like their AV. I have, however, donated to several projects I appreciate (Cyanogen Mod and the Spybot project, as examples) because I like what they do and they have earned my respect. It really depends on what my dollar gets, if you will.

 

OP has us to lean on, so I still think he should be able to get by without a tech line. Everyone else's mileage may differ.

[enigma#]

hahaha agreed wingless

and by the way Iove my Fedora box

 

xD

[Wingless]

 

Yeah, if deathangel wants freedom from rootkits/exploitation, he'll use selinux permissions. As long as he promises to tape the first 30 minutes or so of him trying to do things.

[enigma#]

selinux == LoL

I love how they still haven't patched the memory exploit bug for WINE =(

but overall SElinux has been good to me =]

 

To reiterate for OP,

Get a bloody AV program that works!

Don't be an idiot and be web-savvy (either learning or tutorials)

and use your brain because half of the time at least your brain is right

Edited June 16, 2010 by enigma#