Free antivirus

[Hammer]

I'm after some opinions here. We had some "ethical hackers" in at work today to show how rubbish we all are at keeping safe online and how easy it is to do naughty stuff if you want to. (BTW, did you know you can use Siri on iOS5 to make calls, send texts etc even when the phone is locked???).

Anyhow, they recommend against using free anti-virus software. Apparently the software itself is fine but it's the other non-free stuff that's well worth paying for. Link-scanners and the like.

I've always used free stuff and never had a problem, but what do you guys reckon?

[AlBags]

I always pay .. and it's always the current MY version.
Only thing I do pay for .. mind you : )

I have always said on AB that the best AV software is usually the paid for stuff.
If it is a responsible company .. like Symantec .. then you are paying the wages of developers and analysts.

[Buenchico]

The free stuff includes Microsoft Security Essentials, which is generally well-reviewed (and much praised by our own ChuckFickens).

Freebies from other sources are simply part of full commercial programs anyway. For example, AVG sells a security suite which it seeks to make as good (or better) than anything else. [Whether it succeeds, or not, is of course open to argument!]. To tempt people to use that commercial software, AVG gives away a small part of the full suite (i.e. the anti-virus component) which is exactly the SAME as you'd get if you paid for the whole suite.

Similarly, Avast! (in the full version) is a 'paid for' product. The anti-virus program they give away is just part of the full suite. If you only want an anti-virus program (and not the other stuff) you won't get anything extra by paying for it.

Again, ZoneAlarm's free firewall is exactly the SAME firewall software which you'd get if you purchased their full security suite.

So it's ridiculous to suggest that free software is automatically inferior to the 'paid for' stuff, because it's exactly the SAME software as you'd get if you were paying for it as part of a larger product.

That doesn't mean that one security solution is just the same as any other, but it does mean that there's no logic in the maxim that "paid for beats free every time".

Chris

[VHG]

I think the key thing is that the free stuff from people like AVG, Avast etc is only "part" of a full security solution.

Running ONLY AVG anti virus or Avast anti virus is only partly protecting your computer.

You also need a firewall, malware/spyware protection and so on.

[AlBags]

AVG free will probably not be for much longer.
There are features in paid-for versions that form an important part of PC protection.
Free products are often not as well developed technically .. and may have a larger resource drain on your PC .. slowing it. Avast is like this, unfortunately.

[gingejbee]

Don't forget you may be able to get "paid-for" security free with your bank or building-society. I have Kaspersky internet security 2012 full suite for nothing from Barclays.

[DTCwordfan]

any views on Bullguard.....thats free on my pc for 540 days and then I pay....

[AlBags]

Yes ...
My Barclays was dishing that out. Also good .. Kaspersky.

[gingejbee]

DT - Bullguard does very well in this Computeractive magazine review:


http://www.computerac...ard-internet-security

[Mobius1]

Everyone can "chime in" with their advice of course but what you really have to consider is independent testing of such products and what you're using your PC for.

Take Avast! for example. The free version includes antivirus, anti-malware, Link scanner, sandboxing mode, email and P2P scanner, network scanner and other things. What, exactly, is inferior about any of that? Well, the paid version also includes a password manager, identity fraud protection, online shopping protection and other features. Non of those extra features were part of "standard" antivirus solutions 5 years ago. Competition amongst free versions of products has driven AV manufacturers to give you more for nothing.

Anybody who tells you that the free version of an AV product is technically inferior to the paid version is talking out of their behind. The code for those features is practically the same in both versions - it would be massively expensive for a company to maintain two separate code-bases for same software. The difference is often in granularity of settings and additional features, as well as paid support.

Basically, if you're online and you're not file sharing with other people and you use good practice for online transactions then you're as safe with a free (well known) antivirus/security product in conjunction with Windows Firewall as you are with something you're paying for.

Some people feel that if they pay money, they're better protected and if that's how they feel, then that is fine. Ultimately, unless some independent company shows a statistical breakdown of malware infections demonstrating more people using free security got infected compared to paying users, the answers you're going to get will be skewed purely by opinion. "I've always paid, never got a virus". Well I've never paid and never got a virus either. So what next?

I also don't pay for CD Burning software, yet my CDs work fine. I don't pay for a media player, yet I watch loads of content on my PC. I don't pay for office software yet write many a document. All free alternatives offered online. When you're doing something professionally then yes, you sometimes have to pay to get the best or what you need but I would argue that that is definitely not the rule.