you have to notice that some companies using dual-engines (one in-house and one borrowed) do it mostly for financial reasons, their infrastructures are small and they can't hire external (higher skilled) developers , so they do a partnership with another company , using their engine until they can rid of it when they attains the necessary skills to do their own.
Anti-Virus & Malware = Myths and Facts
- Thread starter Nico@FMA
- Start date
The associated guide may contain user-generated or external content.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
the best example is Emsisoft: big by reputation , small infrastructure, few developers
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
That really depend on what level of security you seek and require.
But private firewall is a ok product and Avira is not bad either.
Norton is a home product line and they are less tuned for security then for example Symantec which is their very sophisticated business line.
Kaspersky KIS is also a home tuned product as their enterprise versions are way more effective and more sophisticated then their home products.
Personally I would say that the products you have paired up would be more or less close to the average home security product and probably sufficient to your needs.
In terms of raw security and my extensive knowledge about Symantec products (Due to the fact I use it at work and at home)
I would say that it the only product that can clearly match Symantec Endpoint Protection is Sophos Endpoint Protection.
The gap between other rivals is way to big. But this is pure based upon their business line and specific towards endpoint and enterprise solutions.
Now I do know that Kaspersky is VERY solid and does provide some really good security software packages, and the same can be said about Norton and their home products, so if I do the math here and look at the results then I would say yes the level of security given by Norton and Kaspersky is more comprehensive and more sophisticated then PF + Avira.
But one needs to understand that both Kaspersky and Norton do not shine on specific fronts but they shine across the whole spectrum of their package.
So individual tools might be less powerful then your combo, but as a combined package it provided way more protection.
That said private firewall can be tweaked as they have a lot of functions so I am sure you can raise the firewall protection level a pretty bit.
But with default settings its not that powerful compared to KAV and Norton build in Firewalls (Taking into account the whole package)
But at the end of the day if it works for you then stick with it.
Do not fix, if its not broken.
I hope this explains.
Last edited:
golden rule : " dont seek the best weapon, seek the best of what you can do with what you have"
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
In my opinion, there is no proof that paid security software can protect users any better than free security software.
Paid security software does have more protection features but users can get infected just as well. Paid security software also has a lot of bloatware and unnecessary features. Paid security software is also more likely to have more false positive detections of safe files.
In the past, I have had some customers with more infections using a paid security suite over other customers just using using free AV.
All security software can do is protect users who care, are cautious and want to learn. It doesn't make much difference which security setup they use. From my experience, I could say that I have not found one product which would protect all users better than the rest.
Some of my customers can just use Microsoft and never get infections while others will pay for Bitdefender Internet Security, Norton Internet Security, Eset Smart security and other paid software and their system is running over with several hundred infections.
Which proves to me that user actions plays the largest factor when it comes to protecting a system.
You can choose to either use paid security software or free security software and if you are not a cautious user, you will still get infected.
So the choice is up to you, would you rather pay for a software and still get infected or just use a free software?
If you did get infected just using a free software at least you can say, I didn't have to pay to get an infection.
Thanks.
Paid security software does have more protection features but users can get infected just as well. Paid security software also has a lot of bloatware and unnecessary features. Paid security software is also more likely to have more false positive detections of safe files.
In the past, I have had some customers with more infections using a paid security suite over other customers just using using free AV.
All security software can do is protect users who care, are cautious and want to learn. It doesn't make much difference which security setup they use. From my experience, I could say that I have not found one product which would protect all users better than the rest.
Some of my customers can just use Microsoft and never get infections while others will pay for Bitdefender Internet Security, Norton Internet Security, Eset Smart security and other paid software and their system is running over with several hundred infections.
Which proves to me that user actions plays the largest factor when it comes to protecting a system.
You can choose to either use paid security software or free security software and if you are not a cautious user, you will still get infected.
So the choice is up to you, would you rather pay for a software and still get infected or just use a free software?
If you did get infected just using a free software at least you can say, I didn't have to pay to get an infection.
Thanks.
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
In my opinion, there is no proof that paid security software can protect users any better than free security software.
Paid security software does have more protection features but users can get infected just as well. Paid security software also has a lot of bloatware and unnecessary features. Paid security software is also more likely to have more false positive detections of safe files.
Thanks.
Can i use ESS with window defender? I searched in google & knows that WD is not a fully antivirus.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Microsoft Windows Defender is a program that comes enabled by default with Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8.
- Windows Vista/7: All ESET products are completely compatible with Microsoft Windows Defender. Windows Defender does not contain any antivirus functionality, so you will not need to uninstall or disable Microsoft Windows Defender when installing your ESET security product.
- Windows 8: If you receive a "Detection of installed security software" notification while installing ESET on Windows 8, disable Windows Defender before you continue the installation process. To do so, follow the steps below:
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Call me biased, but I would recommend Eset on it's ownthanks :3 so do u recommended me to use WD with ESS
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Call me biased, but I would recommend Eset on it's own
I will have to agree, Windows Defender on Windows 8/8.1 is a full anti-malware product unlike Windows Defender on previous Windows which just basically just anti-spyware product which was replaced by Microsoft Security Essentials.
Usually when you hear members talk about Windows Defender they are referring to the anti-malware product included with Windows 8/8.1.
Thanks.
- Feb 1, 2013
- 971
The reason I did the question about mu setup was for education reasons. So, littlebits and n.nvt have opposite opinions.
It seems that paid products are less buggy, have better removal capabilities, and provide further features than just detect/remove malware for example backup and more. About prevention and detection I have difficulty believing paid offer more. However I am not a professional and that's why I ask you.
Are engines in home paid av's less effective than those of enterprize products? Are emergency updates faster & more accurate in enterprize products? I really want to know that.
It seems that paid products are less buggy, have better removal capabilities, and provide further features than just detect/remove malware for example backup and more. About prevention and detection I have difficulty believing paid offer more. However I am not a professional and that's why I ask you.
Are engines in home paid av's less effective than those of enterprize products? Are emergency updates faster & more accurate in enterprize products? I really want to know that.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Actually littlebits and me have exactly the same view, and everything I said is spot on and everything he said is spot on.
Now I am not going to explain again the same thing as I did explain before, but both free and paid will keep you save and protect you and both are doing a comparable job in doing so.
But when it comes to highly advanced malware and very deep infections (I am talking industry money wise where millions of dollars in terms of data loss is at stake) there a paid antivirus specially major brands like Sophos and Symantec, Kaspersky offer onsite and very dedicated and very sophisticated technical expertise to undo the damage and to control data loss and guarantee continuity and there is one example where free antivirus just cannot keep up. But also the tools available within paid software is just way more sophisticated and very well rounded. So judging paid AV just by if it can protect you more is not accurate you really have to judge it across its whole package and the entire spectrum of the tools they make available for you.
But for you as a home user protection A versus protection B is not going to make much difference.
Last edited:
- Feb 1, 2013
- 971
I maybe misunderstood but I caught the whole meaning. About deep infections, I understand it as mostly is a matter of removal (If you mean this). About highly advanced malware, what do you mean? Do you refer to malware different from all those things come to millions of home PC's?
What I wanted to compare, was only the application and it's tools capabilities, not the whole service quality with further support etc that a vendor may or may not offer. Maybe it was a fault of mine not to make this clear.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
In one of my other guides (Your mouse click matters) I made a serious effort to explain things regarding viruses and user behavior versus protection.
I suggest you take some time and read it. This will give you a full reply on most of your questions regarding this.
Its a very good read and if you pair it up with what I wrote here then you see what I am trying to point out.
Last edited:
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Before I forget, its a double edged sword, as free antivirus does offer you a minimal up to average level of protection.
And even tho littlebits is totally correct I must say that those infections he is talking about are more user behavior errors.
Afteral most of these people fail to stick to common sense and online practices.
I am sure you do know Symantec Security Response right? For this example I took Trojan banker as a example:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2011-052405-0550-99
You will see that Symantec does classify it as LOW risk.
But do you have any idea how many people did class this Trojan as a true menace?
Remember Trojan Netsky? it made world wide news as one of the most dangerous Trojans on the planet (From a user point of view.)
it was still classed as a LOW risk up to its most dangerous version medium risk.
Now when I am talking about medium / high risk malware then you will see that getting infected by those is a bit more complicated, as it does usually require weaknesses within your OS, Network, Firewall, Individual software, injection and hacking attempts to plant these viruses.
Or you just allow the file as it was hidden within a seemingly legit program.
Now where free antivirus very much has a problem with detecting, removing and undoing the damage caused by these types of malware.
But then again these malware are not just infections on their own, they are planted so there is a whole chain of events which traditional free antivirus cannot deal with.
And the average paid solution has just a bit more tools and is just a bit more sophisticated to deal with these dangers, both in detection, removal and cleaning up / undo the damage.
I know its not entirely accurate what I just said, because it would require another 5 books to explain it in detail but the general sense is spot on within the short reply.
- Apr 19, 2011
- 1,264
Is it too late for me to hop in and share my opinions?
Kidding aside, whether free or paid, as long as it's made to keep your system clean and safe, WILL WORK as long as you KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I have tried a whole lot of products over the years and none of them have failed to protect me since I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING. Like I've said before,
It's all a matter of preference.
Kidding aside, whether free or paid, as long as it's made to keep your system clean and safe, WILL WORK as long as you KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I have tried a whole lot of products over the years and none of them have failed to protect me since I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING. Like I've said before,
It's all a matter of preference.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Is it too late for me to hop in and share my opinions?
Kidding aside, whether free or paid, as long as it's made to keep your system clean and safe, WILL WORK as long as you KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I have tried a whole lot of products over the years and none of them have failed to protect me since I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING. Like I've said before,
It's all a matter of preference.
correct
Similar threads
