New 'Protect Your PC For Free: No-cost Anti-Virus and Other Software' discussion

A_Clock

For anti virus i use

Avira
http://www.free-av.com/

I got fed up with avast missing stuff, and hated the new AVG!

Spyware etc

superantispyware
http://www.superantispyware.com/

Spyware Blaster
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

I found spybot was rubbish for getting rid of anything more advanced than a cookie, and kept getting false positives

superscaper

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

That's a common suggestion made on forums such as this. However, it's refuted in the following Register article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

An article that's almost 5 years old. It may still be the same situation today but considering the fast paced field we're talking about, 5 years is a few lifetimes ago.

Robin_T_Cox

That's a common suggestion made on forums such as this. However, it's refuted in the following Register article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/

An article that's almost 5 years old. It may still be the same situation today but considering the fast paced field we're talking about, 5 years is a few lifetimes ago.

Nothing has changed, as far as Windows security is concerned. See, for instance:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-windows-vista-no-more-secure-than-xp-report.html

[Deleted User]

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

Nothing has changed, as far as Windows security is concerned. See, for instance:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-windows-vista-no-more-secure-than-xp-report.html

That last article can be ignored.

CRN's research and reporting is obviously anti-Vista from the outset, not to mention that article being 14 months old and therefore is not accurate due to the security updates that have followed and the release of SP1.

Robin_T_Cox

Nothing has changed about Windows security.

Ask Microsoft: as of yesterday.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms07-064.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-033.mspx

So it goes on.

superscaper

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

Nothing has changed about Windows security.

Ask Microsoft: as of yesterday.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms07-064.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-033.mspx

So it goes on.

What does that actually prove? Apple's plugging security holes in OS X all the time and has just as many security updates as Windows (they just don't advertise it as much). E.g. http://secunia.com/advisories/30802/

Surely the fact they're actively looking for and plugging security holes is a good thing?!? I'd rather have that than a claim it's infallible and no security/bug checking. No piece of software can ever be proven to be bug free.

[Deleted User]

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

Nothing has changed about Windows security.

Ask Microsoft: as of yesterday.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms07-064.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-033.mspx

So it goes on.

Here's a list of current security flaws in Ubuntu alone, some going back to 2005:

http://www.ubuntu.com/usn

No operating system is perfect, what is important is the vunerabilities are put right as soon as possible..

Robin_T_Cox

The issue that no OS is perfect is dealt with in the article I quoted.

Security is, as we all know, a process, not a product. So when you use Linux, you're not using a perfectly safe OS. There is no such thing. But Linux and Mac OS X establish a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows, one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place, but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the process. When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

As for your assertions that the articles I have also given are somehow 'out of date', I think that I have shown that the facts are as up to date today, based on Microsoft's own information.

The basic problem with Windows, and why it suffers from continued insecurity problems, is that it is insecure by design in comparison with Apple and Linux alternatives. So it makes money saving sense to consider those alternatives, instead of merely accepting Windows when you buy your next computer.

If you do, you will not have to install extra programs in order to compensate for the insecurity of WIndows, and possibly incur the extra costs of loss of performance, additional costs for anti-malware software, or costs of additional power consumption for high-spec hardware to run it all.

superscaper

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

The issue that no OS is perfect is dealt with in the article I quoted.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

As for your assertions that the articles I have also given are somehow 'out of date', I think that I have shown that the facts are as up to date today, based on Microsoft's own information.

The basic problem with Windows, and why it suffers from continued insecurity problems, is that it is insecure by design in comparison with Apple and Linux alternatives. So it makes money saving sense to consider those alternatives, instead of merely accepting Windows when you buy your next computer.

If you do, you will not have to install extra programs in order to compensate for the insecurity of WIndows, and possibly incur the extra costs of loss of performance, additional costs for anti-malware software, or costs of additional power consumption for high-spec hardware to run it all.

Don't know where you're getting this idea from that security software is a huge expense (the whole point of this thread is in using free software) and as for performance impact, it's very little on my machine. My backup monitor takes up more memory than my entire security put together. As for "money saving", I can see the point in Linux for that (although it's a false economy because of all the extra time/man hours you have to put into it, and I say that as someone who likes Linux), but as much as I'd like an Apple the one thing preventing me from getting one is the expense, not to mention uneconomical "rebuying" of the computer instead of a gradual upgrade path.

All of which is a moot point for a main computer because at the moment there's no alternative at all to Windows as far as my requirements go (i.e. software). Neither Linux nor OS X can do what I need as an absolute minimum so if I could afford it at best they'd be secondary machines. And unlike people who promote an OS because they're a fan of it, I personally don't even consider Windows my favourite or preferred OS. It's just the most practical and economical. I really just don't buy the whole "security" issue somehow being money saving in changing an entire working platform. It doesn't have that large an impact and as far as I can see becomes overwhelmed by other far more important factors.

Robin_T_Cox

I really just don't buy the whole "security" issue somehow being money saving in changing an entire working platform. It doesn't have that large an impact and as far as I can see becomes overwhelmed by other far more important factors.

No problem with that. Except that if you use Apple or Linux you may be able to run the Windows software you desire on them without incurring the security risk that you run with Windows itself. Your choice.

However, this thread is about protecting yourself online whilst saving money, and it's doubtful that Windows is best able to offer you the necessary security at the most economical price.