Bull, or not to Bull?

[Loose rivets]

BullGuard was recommended to us by a couple of helpful Geeks in a small Essex computer shop. 3 users for under 20 quids. They said it was right up there with the big names, and used by banks. Never heard of it, but that means little. The seemed unimpressed with my "I use Security Essentials."


Any comments on the product, cos it's obviously very cheap.

[vulcanised]

Why pay when you can do it 'for free'?

[mixture]

Why pay when you can do it 'for free'?

Because free != better.

Just like Open Office is a very poor imitation of Microsoft Office full of bugs and incompatabilities unless you're doing very simple stuff.

As irrefutably demonstrated by a number of zero-day viruses that appeared on my radar this week, the free anti-virus brigade lag behind the commerical world in the speed of definiton releases.

It was interesting to watch.... some of the big names of the free brigade STILL haven't pushed definition updates to cover stuff that came out on Monday ! However in general they were 8 hours to a day behind the commercial guys.

BullGuard

Never used em, was once sent a free promo copy but it remains in plastic wrap to this day. They're not a big name, and I think the bank statment was likely a sales pitch ! Places like banks like the saftey of names they know and can easily recruit techies to maintain for.

I would suggest F-Secure. Or if you insist on going free, the Microsoft offering, because at least it's got Microsoft's bulgeing wallet behind it ! (note that neither of these recommendations are based on my comments above about zero day, because it varied which vendor picked them up first, Symantec and F-Secure did fairly well from memory though).

[Gomrath]

If there is one piece of software that I would always buy - it is AV.
I run Kaspersky - does the job and never had a single virus. Run with a number of open ports and get warnings of various network attempts - all trapped. New virus signatures are released within hours often less.
Not a recommendation - just a fact.

[mixture]

Yup, Kaspersky are a good name, with a good reputation of being on the ball in terms of analysing threats and releasing new definitions in a snap. Eugene Kaspersky runs a very tight ship by all accounts.

Some people have a problem with them being a Russian company. But I'd say that's pointless politics, and people shouldn't tarnish everyone with the same brush.

(as a side note, F-Secure is multi-engine, and one engine they have embedded is Kaspersky .... although they may have reviewed this of late ).

[A A Gruntpuddock]

I ditched Kaspersky because of the high cost of renewing and installed Security Essentials.

I started getting viruses so now have Bitdefender Total Security after seeing a recent review.

Bought the 2011 version at £11 for 3 machines for 1 year and got a free upgrade to the latest version (2012).

[Loose rivets]

I have to say I'm concerned at the moment, because I'm in the UK with only my laptop, and even reliant on it for my land-line telephone calls (via Skype.)

Since starting a thread about the piling up of the Task bar menus, I have had odd issues getting my attention. I thought I resolved that issue, but at exactly that time things started to get a tad odd. It may be nothing more than coincidence.

Goggle Earth vanished, and as mentioned before, when I reinstalled it the yellow pins were still in place.

IE vanished . . . not that I ever use it.

Now, stored words and passwords do not save. I've checked CCleaner, and the sites are still there to be saved.

In particular, MY BANK DETAILS do not save. I hasten to add, only the basic details used to be saved, the secret ones put in the hard way, but now I'm even having to type in my name etc.

e-bay, Yahoo Mail and Gmail are all asking to be re-started - sometimes, but not all the time. Certainly much more than before.

I'm due back in Texas hopefully before Christmas, where I'll format the drive(s) and put on W7 instead of Vista, but it's just this period where I feel very venerable. Even not being able to check in on line would be tedious cos of added medical issues where BA want a doctor's fax before I can fly!

Hotel bookings, transport, all done on line these days. Sheesh, life was so much simpler when I was the driver. I had to be really late to be left behind. Heck, my only contact with the Rivetess is via Skype. :rolleyes:

[ThreadBaron]

but now I'm even having to type in my name
it's just this period where I feel very venerable

The more venerable you become the more chance you have of forgetting your name, RL! ;)

[le Pingouin]

Because free != better.
Paying doesn't guarantee quality. I'm sure we all remember what Norton/Symantec were like a few years back. Vista anyone?

I've found Avira provides a good basic anti-virus program. Doesn't scan incoming mail but I don't see that as a huge disadvantage.

[le Pingouin]

Rivets, have you considered running a scan from a bootable CD or USB stick? All the major AV providers seem to make them - generally a free download. Look for something like "rescue disk". It might just ease your mind a little by eliminating the possibility of something nasty lurking.

[mixture]

Paying doesn't guarantee quality. I'm sure we all remember what Norton/Symantec were like a few years back. Vista anyone?

Of course.

But if we're looking at hard facts, the dynamic real world tests from AV comparatives do not feature any free products in the top 5 for year-to-date (Bitdefender,Symantec,F-Secure,Kaspersky,Gdata). The free brigade all lag behind, with Avira at 9th (avast and avg at 11 & 12) position at 97% detected and 3% compromised.... which isn't bad, but is pretty abismal compared to the leaders who consistently run at 99.6%+ detected.

I would much rather have a consistent 0.4% miss rate than a minimum 3% (or more, depending which free product or whether they've reacted in time to some new zero-day threats ) miss rate !

If you look at it in percentages of 365 days...that's just over 1 day a year when the leaders might miss a virus compared to the 11+ days the freebies spend lagging behind ! Or 35 hours a year compared to 263+ hours !

Yes, fine there are some commercials in the lower ranks (Sophos & Mcafee... but then they always had a low reputation in the industry, and we've already agreed on your counter-argument about paying & quality), Symantec & F-Secure are consistently highly ranked along side Kaspersky etc.

With paid products, there is the commercial incentive to continue developing and improving the products on offer.

This is certainly evidenced in your two examples with the improvements Symantec have made, and certainly with Windows 7 being what Vista should have been.

I know you'll probably say.... Ubuntu-this, and Ubuntu-that.... but open source is a different kettle of fish in terms of software develpment approach, and there are also equally many poor quality elements of open source software too. There are also many open source products out there where the developer(s) have lost interest , or there has been in-fighting amongst the developers and the open source product disappeared into oblivion.

Fact of the matter is that proper analysis of threats and development of anti-virus products (particularly the heuristic algorithm elements that enable correct and timely detection of zero-day viruses, and the running of support organisations to assist customers and review new threat samples that get submitted) is a time consuming and expensive process. Freebie providers simply do not have the resources behind them to do this, Symantec have 17,000+ employees and pleanty of cash to throw at it (plus additional advantages such as having bought MessageLabs and hence being in a good position to see zero-day threats appearing in vast volume email streams, and passing the benefit back down the chain to their AV customers), this enables Symantec to run 24x7 labs and invest in significant R&D.

I'm not saying free AV is bad... afterall, some AV is better than no AV. Similarly, just going out there and stating "Why pay when you can do it 'for free'? " is an equally questionable stance.

There is a place for free, and a place for paid elements of computing.... but just rushing in and replacing everything paid with free is a short sighted approach that will end up biting you in the backside.

P.S. Please DO NOT tarnish Norton and Symantec with the same brush !!!! Different products.

[le Pingouin]

Symantec owned & used the Norton name when the products were dogs so who else is to blame? They made it so are tarred & feathered in the public eye.

"Free" is not as clear cut as you make out. The version of Avira tested wasn't the free one, although I think it uses the same engine & definitions. BitDefender for Linux is free for personal use so how would you classify that?

Equally "you get what you pay for" is a questionable default policy.

[Loose rivets]

P.S. Please DO NOT tarnish Norton and Symantec with the same brush !!!! Different products.

*****************

Symantec owned & used the Norton name when the products were dogs so who else is to blame? They made it so are tarred & feathered in the public eye.



Good thing about these forums. That's another question answered.


I'm working at such low efficiency right now, I'm loth to tempt fate by messing with it. A bit like not looking at the dipstick in case the engine drops out.

My computer and OS are American purchased, so want to put a US registered W7 on - one of those 3 computer deals.

[Capetonian]

Just like Open Office is a very poor imitation of Microsoft Office full of bugs and incompatabilities unless you're doing very simple stuff.

I admit that I am not a computer techie, but I have been using Open Office for a good couple of years, on all our machines, and have not found it 'buggy' at all. I have created some fairly complex presentations with their 'powerpoint' equiv. and find it as good as, if not better, than .ppt.

[mixture]

Symantec owned & used the Norton name when the products were dogs so who else is to blame? They made it so are tarred & feathered in the public eye.

Nope. There were always two distinct anti-virus on offer. One being sold under the Norton brand, the other under the Symantec brand.

Its a bit like saying Compaq (as a brand, i.e. post-HP acquisition) is the same thing as HP. They are not the same either.

[mixture]

The version of Avira tested wasn't the free one, although I think it uses the same engine & definitions. BitDefender for Linux is free for personal use so how would you classify that?


I think you know exactly how I'd classify that.

Free versions of software subsidised by paid versions do not count as anything special because they more than likely have a greater number of people using the free version than the paid version and therefore don't have much money available to develop heuristics etc. etc.

There's only one exception to the above. Microsoft, and I think you know why they are the exception. :cool:

[Gomrath]

Paying doesn't guarantee quality.

Very true but if you do your homework then you can find excellent product that is well worth the price and I found Kaspersky to be one such product.
I don't consider $49 for 3 machines to be bad - especially when the cost of cleaning out a machine once virused would far exceed that cost in terms of time and effort.

[Background Noise]

I ditched Kaspersky because of the high cost of renewing

I'm all Mac now but have windows on bootcamp on one machine, that and all the kids laptops have Kaspersky which I have found to be the best I've tried - least intrusive performance-wise and cheap. At renewal time just buy another discounted retail pack and start again.