Fighting malware and spam
PollsThere are stories about computer security in the news every day, but it can be hard to find an unbiased opinion, or even hard facts. Virus Bulletin would like to know your experiences and opinions about the topics that concern computer users. Whether you're the CEO of an anti-malware company, administrator of a large corporate network or a home user, we'd like to know about your experiences and opinions. On this page you will find an overview of the previous polls that have run on Virus Bulletin. The current poll can be found on the right-hand side of the page. Suggest a pollIs there a question you think we should ask our users? Click here to suggest a poll! Previous pollsWill taking client-side security 'into the cloud' provide better security for the end user? Will the current banking crisis lead to an increase in phishing attacks? Have you ever been conned by a phishing email? Is it reasonable to teach virus writing as part of a computer security course? Have you ever actually read an End-User License Agreement? Is 47 months imprisonment sufficient punishment for a convicted spammer? Will new browsers like Firefox 3, Internet Explorer 8 and Opera 9.5 help fight web-based malware? When do you feel most at risk from malware and cybercrime? What was the main reason for choosing your current anti-virus product? Are virus-writing contests a good idea? How often do you check your spam folder for false positives? Do you use security software on your mobile phone? Do you ever forward chain letters? Who should take ultimate responsibility for computer security? Has your antivirus software ever produced a false alert? $3.2 billion was lost in phishing attacks in 2007. Do you think this is going to be worse in 2008? Should governments be allowed to write viruses to bug terrorists? Has Windows Vista made the web a safer place? Do you feel safe banking online? Have you suffered a malware infection that wasn't spotted by your anti-virus software? Does your company block any social networking sites? Is it acceptable to demand money for information on software vulnerabilities? |
Current pollShould anti-virus software be free for personal use? CommentsFree antivirus gives the user a false sense of security. For example, I recently had to fix a machine that had AVG Free on it. AVG found the virus during a scan, however, it should have prevented it from being installed in the first place. In addition, a good virus product like NOD32 or Vipre often provide protection that goes above and beyond what a free product does. As for Microsoft - their virus product was half baked to begin with. At least they are now getting the price right - free as in you get what you pay for. On the other hand, the better antivirus products (Nod32, Vipre, etc.) need to do a much better job at getting name recognition. When ask most consumers think that the best products are the bloated Symantac and McAfee - which are viruses (IMHO) themselves as well as resource hogs. Why doesn't the better products get more positive press? by Charles, 20 November 2008, 16:35 Home users with poorly patched PCs and inadequate or expired AV account for a high proportion of virus and malware issues. So I am in favour of a free AV solution for these users. Many use AVG Free which is (IMO) somewhat inadequate as it does not detect any malware, just viruses. Avast Free Home is a better choice but is not well known. Something offered and deployed with Windows Updates so it involves minimal thought and effort by users should be welcomed. Windows Defender works this way already, most users have it enabled because that's the default and they don't have to think about it. by Paul, 20 November 2008, 16:39 Yes! Antivirus should not only be Free for End users. It should be an integrated part of anny serious Opperating system. The vendor has to secure that his OS not is vulnerable to unintended use of facilities. In fact, computer virus is'nt anything but "intentionally harmfull use of operation system possibillities". Why should annybody pay for bad code in expensive licensed Opeerating systems.? It's the vendors resonsabillity! by Henrik Thomsen, 20 November 2008, 17:23 As long as MS don't distort the market (again!) by simply bundling in AV willy-nilly, and in so doing ruining many excellent AV vendors - then fine. There are already many free offerings for home use - most of them pretty badly crippled for today's environment - so one more can't hurt. But I'd hate to see the best company's, like eset, go to the wall. I hope the current anti-trust legislation will control MS enough to make sure that doesn't happen. by David Shear, 20 November 2008, 17:29 Yes it should, alongside a paid-for premium version. Most of the best paid-for anti-virus software products available today are versions of little-known products also available for free. Conversely, most of the best free anti-virus software also has a commercial version. The best-known and most popular anti-virus products are overpriced bloated resource-hogging suites full of unnecessary extra features that adversely affect overall system performance and stability. I'm all in favour of free personal anti-virus software as a way of promoting the superior minnows. by Martin Campbell, 20 November 2008, 17:30 Free is a gift , also the first Trojan Horse was a gift! by Guido Elia, 20 November 2008, 17:44 The previous product was inadequate. If this is the same thing dressed-up then it is yet another marketing ploy. I agree that the operating system should have the best possible anti-virus software and there must be a provision to automatically update it. Further, the software should report the details of intrusive attempts automatically to keep close to the malware social malcontents. We cannot protect the addon industry with our PC's safety. Their market problems are their's alone. These comments are predicated on Microsoft clearly stating that they will only pull very specific information thus making it easy to sue them if that becomes necessary. Finally, I do not trust Microsoft so maybe my comments are counter intuitive and we should trust obscure little companies where redress is almost impossible, hmmmm by Richard Boley, 20 November 2008, 19:50 Yes! I have always held the view that every PC sold should routinely come with an AV program installed (that's how, many years ago, I got my first encounter with an AV program). Imperfect though any such program may be it would substantially reduce the propagation of infections by ignorant users - who, hopefully, would become less ignorant. by Harold Stern, 20 November 2008, 21:01 It's great when good software is available for free and computer systems are protected, but even with massive marketing, brand recognition and fierce price competition, OneCare didn't seem "good" to customers so far. http://blog.threatfire.com/2008/11/microsoft-giving-away-live-onecare.html by Kurt, 20 November 2008, 21:39 Very bad idea. Typical MS: Bundle in a "free" function which is much weaker in capability, deceiving users into thinking it is "good" because MS provides it. Remember MS's (incoming-only) firewall? At least with a free offering from a commercial vendor, the user going-in expects that the free version lacks full functionality, and is an incentive to purchase the complete alternative. Furthermore, to keep defenses current against ever more sophisticated infections, requires serious investment, even in new technology - MS won't do that, and users won't know their defenses are weak until after the harm has been done. by Mingus, 20 November 2008, 22:03 Although "something is usually better than "nothing" my experience has been that FREEWARE A/V doesn't compare. Granted that providing freeware versions often provide the best form of BETA testing available. However, if nobody ever piad for A/V then no body could afford to develop newer better engines. by Gunny, 21 November 2008, 02:42 Veneta, Oregon, USA Microsoft's Windows constantly updates its OS online -- why not simply do so " automatically" by use of active software which updates routinely. Would a free OneCare -- Lobo, or is it Morros (the Moors were invaders and the fathers of the Barbary Pirates) -- be incompatible with backup programs or other full secutiry suites? Obviously, if Morro is incompatible with other anti-malware software, it wouldn't do for anyone who doesn't trust on a solo OneCare in the first place! As for price, as some at ZDNet apparently advocate, Microsoft might do better offering Operating System ware on a subscription basis in the first place -- even to the extent of entirely replacing Window code with rewritten and properly concise programming as available. As for providing proactive anti-malware along with other ongoing revisions -- at least there might be optional service, as presently for Vista's Firewall, which could be deactivated in preference to alternate systems currently avaiable. (So far, with fingers crossed, figuratively, my Vipre security suite trial is going very nicely indeed ... why would I want to pull the plug on it?) by Brooks Batson, NP, 21 November 2008, 03:14 Regarding the comment above, I was hit by a very difficult virus while I was running NOD32. It failed to prevent it, and it also failed to recognize and remove it after scanning. I had to download AVG Free to get rid of it. Looking over the history of VB AV product testing, it seems that no one gets 100% on every test. Sometimes one product comes out on top, and other times it's another. by John, 21 November 2008, 07:53 I agree with Paul - it should be an integral part of the OS. OS vendors should test their software better, but of course they're too busy chasing artificial release dates to keep the analysts and shareholders happy. I see no reason why there shouldn't also be paid-for AV products as well, but they'd only survive in the marketplace if the OS vendors weren't doing their job properly - which, ironically, is the only reason there is currently an AV market. by Al, UK, 21 November 2008, 08:40 I have a Mac... That said, I urge the need of a free antivirus for every single person, because the threat is a first grade danger for the world. It's a matter of life or death (computeristically speaking), You shouldn't pay for being wealthy. (Ehm.., I'm in a country where the health system is [nominally] managed by the [Obama is sun-tanned] government. Pity us). Just my 2 (euro) cent. by Ermanno Polli, 21 November 2008, 09:48 Absolutely! MS SHOULD give us exactly what THEY use to protect their systems. Enough said. by Darryl, 21 November 2008, 13:13 The AV industry should try to do a coordinated effort to educate home users, especially students and primary school to secure their computers and Internet traffic in a simple way and at the same time provide free AV, personal firewalls and IPS for personal use while business customers must fund this through their licenses. by Kim Pedersen, 21 November 2008, 13:47 Yes, it should be free, and should be allowed to communicate back to the vendor. It is a benefit for the home user, and becomes a hunting ground for the company to discover new threats. This beefs up their knowledge, improves the product, and comes to industry for us to take advantage of it. by Bill, 21 November 2008, 13:50 Antivirus programs free ? 24/7 analysis and updates and support free ? HOGWASH !!! You get what you pay for! (Do you get your car insured for free ?) by Stan Hill, 21 November 2008, 15:31 Well... free always sound nice, but let's be honest... It takes effort, resources and money to make a good product. Antivirus software is no exception. It should neither be free which WILL compromise the very security being looked for, nor should consumers be robbed by scare tactics and over-inflated prices. (by the way - I don't work for one of them). As for what is best in an AV Product? Everyone has different experiences which reflects - not that a specific vendor's product is necessarily bad - but that it's certainly not perfect. None are - and probably never will be. I would MUCH rather Microsoft stay far away from this and put the resources, instead, into fixing what they already have out there. Let some others have a piece of the market - as of late, they can probably do a better job of it anyway. by Daniel, 21 November 2008, 16:03 A free AVS gives a false sense of security? And if the user doesn't even know better, would they even recognize whether it was on or not? Whether it was free or not? For the home user, a free AVS, like Windows Defender is at least a minimal way to help the majority of users become at least minimally protected. If using a computer had the same requirements as driving a car--testing, a license, etc--then it's quite possible that most people wouldn't have malware/virii problems. But this isn't the case, so for Microsoft possibly offering to bubble-wrap or rubber-coat the Windows part of the information superhighway, then by all means, please do. It's one thing to troubleshoot a computer because of a glitch, it's quite another to have to repair the damage done by someone who won't take the responsibility for infecting *their* computer in the first place. by Randy Abulon, 21 November 2008, 22:07 Yes it should be free! That will be the only way to reduce the amount of systems without AV (and with that reduce the impact of malware on the internet). It is also good that Microsoft includes the full engine that they use in the enterprise products as well, so no cheap subset that you need to upgrade to get te full version. Sure other free products exist and that is good, let there be competition. But aparently these product did not achieve at all to have AV on every computer. Microsoft's move is essentially making AV part of the OS and that is what it should have been from the beginning, just like the personal firewall delivered with the OS. Microsoft is on the right track now (finally). The Linux boys and other OS'es should do the same. Cheers, to Morro! by Bernhard, 22 November 2008, 07:44 Very nasty Question:- Are the anti virus software houses responsable for making new Viruses? by Roberto Sorini, 22 November 2008, 08:55 No one works for free. I get paid to work and I get paid to fix computers - so if you want good protection you have to pay for it. by Alec, 22 November 2008, 23:32 if consumer dont pay for it ,how could the technical person in AV company struggling to update virus? by Josleyn, 24 November 2008, 02:42 Free is always an incomplete titillate to advertise the full, and this incompleteness means many mals will be missed. The company will answer "Buy our full for the complete protection." Good antivirus can never be free. It is too much work involved. Who will pay the salary for the workers? I will never trust free, from Microsoft or any other. by Vito Trelisi, 24 November 2008, 04:40 Maybe the solution isn't in the "anti-"virus or "anti-"malware promrams at all. Follow the money! Who is profiting from the malware out there? Obviously the antivirus community is but let's not talk about that (yet). why don't we (the people) enact laws about spamming that really do something, and that have real consequences for the profiteers. Who benefits from "browser hijackers"? They should pay. Rod Frary rodsjunk@sonic.net by Rod Frary, 25 November 2008, 11:06 As cliche' as it sounds, you do indeed get what you pay for. Either the quality of the AV package will suffer, or the cost of the OS with the "free" AV will rise. What the AV industry needs is more innovation and competition, and a free product does not promote this. by Mike, 25 November 2008, 15:28 Microsoft should not sell their OS that is so easily vulnerable to these viruses and spyware, and then make more money selling a product that tries to protect you from them. It would seem to give them additional incentive (if they need it) to avoid addressing the security problems with their OS. On top of that, in my experience Microsoft is no better at writing the software to defend you from the threats than they are at writing a secure operating system in the first place. When people ask me what AV software I use, my answer is Linux. The OS itself is free, is much less succeptable to malware due to the way it is designed, and thus doesn't need an AV product. by Greg, 25 November 2008, 16:18 Of Course it should... Like Viruses are pretty much free of charge... by Crazy Rabbit, 26 November 2008, 18:14 the future software is freeware!!!!!!!! by SAMUEL, 28 November 2008, 09:58 When you buy software, it comes with a "somewhat" warranty. When you discover a fault, you never know if it will be resolved. When you buy a car, it comes with a warranty. When you discover a fault, the manufacturer fixes it. What's wrong with this picture? by WoodenNickle, 28 November 2008, 22:40 I agree that a virus is not anything but intentional attempts to damage an OS. It means that a virus maker uses known defects of an OS and the only one who should eliminate these defects as well as virus threats is an OS developer. An AV service should be a part of an OS. by The japanese, 29 November 2008, 10:44 2 Bill: We’ve got a different situation. A car insurer unlike an anti-virus developing house is not interested that someone damages your car. And as far as I'm concerned, an insurer returns you money if the insured accident don’t happen. by The japanese, 29 November 2008, 11:48 Viruses keep hundreds of anti-virus programmers in profitable employment, but who is keeping the virus programmers removed from penury, I often wonder? Surely it behoves businesses with their tax deductible computers and programmes, to cover the cost of protecting their machines from a plethora of viruses emanating from the infected machines that poor old farts, such as I, use to pay our bills and contact friends. I was once asked by Avast why I wanted to buy the 'professional' version, for home use only. Now there's a firm to trust. by T.A.Cowell., 29 November 2008, 18:41 I can remember back in the days of windows 3.0 and 3.1 and even 3.11 when Microsoft actually did package a virus scanner with windows. if I remember right it was a product of MacAfee. (not sure though, CRS) But anyway what I could never figure out is why they never attempted to stop virus's at the pipe line level (internet back bone) while many ISP's did start some server level scanning for e-mail this still left fpts, ptp, and many other forms of spreading virus's open. think of it this way, stopping virus/malware at the internet level would stop the script kiddies from even sending out there code and would also leave real time tracks to follow back to prosecute them. Yes this would eliminate most needs for virus scanners on local machines and would devastate most virus scanning companies, but could open another market for them to provide the software to do the job of protecting the internet back bones. I have never understood why we want to try to prevent virus's by attacking the problem at the user level, as we know they can't be depended upon to keep even their scanners up to date, as well many don't have the resources to buy up to date software. this is akin to drug enforcement trying to stop drugs by arresting the end users, It doesn't work! Well that's my two cents worth Wayne by Wayne Foster, 30 November 2008, 02:12 There is a perfectly good reason why anti-virus software (and firewall, anti-spam, anti-spyware, etc.) should be made available to users for free and it is because like a chain a network is only as strong as the weakest link. Every vulnerable computer on this world wide network makes each of us a little less secure. The more computers that are running some sort of anti-malware suite of programs the better it is for all of us. by Fred C, 30 November 2008, 05:12 Of course not, every computer should need an antivirus software for personal use against the growing threats of the massive internet. by Lance, 30 November 2008, 07:37 yes free AV for personal use will make the net cleaner and better for everyone including business. by bdnbro, 30 November 2008, 18:56 When there are free antivirus better than paid ones , why pay and but non-personal use paying is ok. by Andrew, 01 December 2008, 08:41 There are "free" virus handling programs that turn out to be hoax freeware - one has to register, pay $50 or whatever before the system can be cleaned. Other packages require the user to radically upgrade the hardware before the program can be installed. Viruses are everybody's business, not only the guys with deep pockets, by virtue of the speed with which they can spread. I have battled to remove Recycler from my flash RAM, a virus I picked up in an Internet cafe, but without buying a new laptop, I am not having much luck. by Denis B, 01 December 2008, 09:20 With the shift in cyber criminals' focus from creating havoc to profiting from their work you would think that big business and the government would come together to provide free AV for all. They seem to regulate, tax, and interfere with everything else in our lives. by Richard, 01 December 2008, 17:24 yeah they should be avaialble at very cheap rates for personal use.........to avoid piiracy.... by triple hunter, 01 December 2008, 17:48 Let those who explore cyber space come to know that it took a while to create any software. as for the interpreter, we all know that freeware and the such is partially coded. That would be nice to give us the readable code for a price and let is tweek for our own systems. by Mr. freeware universe, 03 December 2008, 08:47 Without a doubt, the internet would be a safer environment if every user had adequate virus/malware protection. I like the idea of AV at the backbone... but at what cost? Wouldn't that severely slow down data transmission? What kind of increase in processor load (to the backbone) would we be talking about? How much electricity would it take to handle the increased processing demand? And the only question that really counts... who pays? Because AV at the backbone is clearly a commercial application, and the licensing for that would be hefty. Eventually, the cost would trickle down to the user via ISP costs (or college tuition/fees, etc). I agree that the OS manufacturer should provide full free AV support, but only for the duration of the warranty period. At some point we consumers MUST take responsibility for our own security (just like we have the responsibility of maintaining our out-of-warranty automobiles). Can the AV vendors (like ESET, Kaspersky, etc) maintain profitability by only charging for commercial licensing? It would be interesting to see pie-charts for each AV vendor that describes their update licenses in terms of free/trial vs paid personal vs commercial/business. Without that kind of information we don't know if the question is reasonable or absurd. We all like 'free', but nothing is free... somebody always pays. by Aaron, 03 December 2008, 16:15 Free software? You get what you pay for. As others have mentioned, it takes manpower and time to make these things work....time is money. Do those folks who think A/V should be free also believe the techs who make these products work should be forced to volunteer 8-9 hours every day? This is the same argument as free healthcare. Unless doctors decide to work for free, and pharmacuetical companies decide to give their drugs away without charge...there is no such thing as free healthcare. And I think its the same way with software. by Morningglory Seed, 03 December 2008, 19:44 Leave a comment |
Poll
Should anti-virus software be free for personal use?Leave a comment
View 46 comments
VB2009
VB2009 will take place 23-25 September 2009 at the Crowne Plaza Geneva, Switzerland.
A call for papers will be issued in December.
Virus Bulletin currently has 144,557 registered users.