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

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Arclight

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.