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

thomas01155

Two Other Free apps i like
ThreatFire:
http://www.threatfire.com/
Spywareterminator:
http://www.spywareterminator.com/

thomas01155

Norton have a beta on there 2009
http://www.symantec.com/norton-beta/internet-security/
and pc tools have a free mac anti virus http://www.iantivirus.com/

Robin_T_Cox

It's hardly moneysaving if Apples cost more in the first place. There is loads of free AV (and everything else) available for Windows.

But in running those free AV, anti-spyware etc to compensate for the insecurity of Windows you have to either sacrifice CPU performance or pay more for a more powerful machine that will run an insecure Windows system plus anti-malware software, plus the extra energy costs necessary. Whereas if you used an Apple or Linux system you would not need to.

Not to mention the extra time you need to spend using anti-malware software scanning your machine, cleaning your system and registry, updating that software etc in order to keep it up-to-date with a current list of malware to protect you against. It becomes a time-consuming nightmare, and even then at the end of the day you will probably find that your system has been hijacked by someone who is cleverer than you or your software provider.

It's really a no-brainer: choose a system that's more secure by design.

superscaper

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

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.

Mac = hundreds of pounds in cash for new machine + 1000s of pounds for equivalent software (for the software that exists)
Linux = hundreds of pounds in time getting it to work with my hardware requirements (and even more if hunting for alternative apps and time to get them to play nice with each other)
windows= £20 for negligible impact security software with existing hardware (can upgrade for sub £100)

As for the "moot" software question, the answer is no the software I need will not run on either linux or mac and some will not run even if using Boot Camp etc.

superscaper

Robin_T_Cox wrote: »

But in running those free AV, anti-spyware etc to compensate for the insecurity of Windows you have to either sacrifice CPU performance or pay more for a more powerful machine that will run an insecure Windows system plus anti-malware software, plus the extra energy costs necessary. Whereas if you used an Apple or Linux system you would not need to.

It's really a no-brainer.

I think you're using a lot of hyperbole. I mean my current pc is very very low spec yet the resources dedicated to security are negligible. Even my keyboard uses more resources (just checked task manager this moment) and yet I'd hardly say my keyboard usage had a measurable financial impact on the running of my computer. Even if what you imply had any reality to it, the amount "extra" it costs would still be way below the expense of buying and running life cycle of a mac.

shambolics

I'm surprised the article didn't mention Avast I think it's becoming the front runner in free AV software now AVG users are having issues with version 8. I myself changed over from AVG which did very well for me for a long time.
A word of warning to anyone thinking of installing that bloatware known as Norton. The number of times friends have said they are going to get a faster computer because theirs is so slow. I go round and with considerable effort remove Norton and Voila a smooth running machine. It is so heavy on system resources and a nightmare to remove completely

optiMISER_3

One notable omission in the web-based free scanners section of this article:

http://security.symantec.com


The question of computer security is always of vital importance but I am particularly interested in the new terms in the banking code.

The "reasonable care" clause seems it might be OK, but would need defining in the courts with the help of computer professionals and indeed consumer representatives (because reasonable care exercised by users is not the same as reasonable care exercised by IT professionals - indeed programmers in general would be held to a different standard than dedicated security experts).

The specific "Use up-to-date anti-virus and spyware software and a personal firewall" seems a too prescriptive while at the same time being too vague (even though more specific than "reasonable care") and unreasonable. Why should a personal firewall be used as opposed to a router based firewall? I presume it means a firewall installed on your desktop, but that could be of many different kinds. It says nothing about the "level" that the firewall is operating at, nor about the knowledge/skill required to configure it properly.

Likewise with virus and spyware software (would just virus be enough by the way as most should get damaging spyware?). They don't mention trojans specifically which are the most important thing to prevent for online banking! Is it sufficient to do a regular system scan or do you need to have a memory resident program? What about skill/knowledge in the conifguration and use of internet browser which is surely the most common way for viruses/trojans to get in?

It doesn't seem to mention that your browser and OS itself have to be up to date. While this would be good in some ways it would be bad in others as you can use out of date OSs and browsers to not use as many resources and reasonably securely if you know more about how to keep them secure through settings.

Do you have to have an entirely clean system or are certain kinds of spyware allowed (I'd bet some banks have spyware)?

As for the discussion between Linux and Windows. No, Linux is not immune to viruses. And it would be wise to run anti-virus software on it. I believe it does have better security for those who know how to set it up properly. In any case, whatever OS, as above, I believe that setting up and using your system securely in terms of the services that you allow and the freedom that you give websites via your browser to view/modify your system is more important than just running up to date anti-virus software and personal firewall software. I just hope the IT community can make it clear that use of Linux, although it can't be directly comparable to Windows use patterns, can be used in a way that discharges reasonable care requirements. I also hope it can be accepted that old versions of windows such as XP and 2000, even old versions of browsers, can be used reasonably securely, such that Microsoft don't have yet another excuse to force users to upgrade.

Banks could help by making their sites operate with no java, active x etc, and giving an example that useable sites can be made without needing to install sofware in clients' browsers. Perhaps clients should have one computer system for normal webbrowsing/computer use and another (perhaps an eeepc type thing) with a locked down browser (maybe even provided by the banks) for access to online banking, then all the banks get together and make sure that they need minimal client-side intrusion in their web-based apps. I for one would be prepared to pay £200 for such a system that the banks could maintain (subscription so much a year - £20 ??or if you have a current account it could be part of the services that usually provides). It would be more inconvenient but would still beat going into branches and the banks would have to take responsibilty again, assuming you didn't use their system for other purposes.

(Note I know there is a bit of a conflict in this post as the first link is a good example of a site dowloading an active x control through a browser to run software with alot of access to your pc)

optiMISER_3

Also there is www.grc.com

for some free security apps and sound advice at a relatively basic level.

The "shields up" tool is like the symantec security scan (not virus scan) which tests your pc/network's resistance to incoming security attacks (good to try this out when connected in various locations if you have a laptop).

It is a bit dated but the "leaktest" program is meant to do some basic tests on personal firewalls at the application level. His discussion (albeit dated) of the lack of quality in many personal firewalls (for example the ridiculous default automatic settings of the Symantec one - I can't remember whether they have changed this but it was definitely the case a few years ago) makes for interesting reading in light of the banking code's requirements.

optiMISER_3

Yes, to all those complaining about Norton/symantec's use of system resources: couldn't agree more, it's ridiculous.

But all real-time scanning software has an effect.

That is why I don't use any, even though I encourage others to. I mostly trust my judgement and use my common sense when visiting websites and adding them to my trusted sites list, and having IE relatively locked down for other sites. I believe I know when files are being downloaded by me and I manually scan them on download.

I'm sure there are many holes in my system (I use IE which alot would complain about, and even an old version) but I believe it to be more secure than the vast majority of people who use realtime virus software. I am happy in my computer use that it is a reasonably secure system. I have seen quite a few systems riddled with malware where up to date virus software is installed.

But my method would not look normal to the banking code and therefore I am thinkign about using a memory resident program just for bank indemninty.

BTW how do they prove you haven't been using virus software. Are they going to forensically examine your computer(s) to (hopefully) see dates you've been running or not the anti-virus software, or else just see the receipt or registration details for your anti-virus subscription? They already probably (I hope) keep a log of IP addresses that you log on to their systems from so they would know if you are using different locations - and maybe different computers, some of which may not have virus software. The article mentions the burden of proof is on them but I'm not sure it is from memory and having read the code. So then, how would you prove you had used the virus software and taken reasonable care?

hethmar

Ive got the complete Zone Alarm suite - as a freebie for a year by buying a tenners worth of ink from inkclub on the trialpay site.