Bummed-out users give anti-virus bloatware the boot One in four users turned off their anti-virus protection in response to performance problems after they installed security software, according to a survey by security software firm Avira. The poll of users of the German anti-virus outfit, which like AVG and Avast offers free security software to consumers, also found that more …
It's becoming almost impossible to find AV/AM software which isn't bloated. I'm using AVAST at the moment which is nice and invisible (once you turn off the "I've updated" voices). I used to swear by AVG but that went real nasty, performance wise. Before that (a long time before) it was Norton - and we all know that that was the first performance killer.
Too true.
Used to use AVG myself. In fact, when someone in the family inevitably bought a peeceewurld laptop, my first job would be removing Symantec/Norton and installing AVG.
However, ever since AVG started causing my old Toshiba "Centrino" laptop to emulate Vista performance in XP, I used Avast as an alternative and found it to be much less bloated.
The "Avast Virus Database has been updated!" sound makes it sound like a computer out of 24, or one of those mission-critical systems :)
You should try Eset NOD32. It isn't bloated at all. And it is very good on malware and worms. It does have a problem cleaning viruses, although it has no problem detecting viruses. NOD32 also doesn't detect rootkits. Despite those problems, it has been my experience with all malware and worms that if NOD32 doesn't stop it right away, it will remove them within two days when the definitions update. The nice thing about NOD32 is the on-access scan is as good as the on-demand scan, which really means you never need to schedule an antivirus scan.
every time my pc stops responding I look at the anti-virus and usually find it's updating. Some of the fingers should be pointing at corporate IT departments if they're anything like ours - every desktop (500+) attempts to update itself between 14:00 and 15:00. Network is swamped and no-one can do anything!
...of the shit that comes bundled with their machines. I have seen McAfee cripple machines to a crawl but people like my parents are so stuck in their ways, they sooner buy a new machine than switch anti-virus software. I really despair at this widespread false belief that computers get slower with age. Even after telling my Dad repeatedly that McAfee does more harm than good, he still not only uses it but gives them money for the "privilege" !
Sadly I have seen this sort of behaviour as well.
Currently Tux is my answer as its harder to subvert and much less of a target. Sometimes I contemplate taking away admin rights, as even a hypothetical 'perfect' system is only as secure as the fool, er family/friend, who is able to make system-wide changes.
Much as I dislike Google's power-grab of the net, there is a lot to be said for ChromeOS for users who just want web/email and light wordprocessing as you don't get the option of local store/changes.
... not too trusting, just ignorant. Most I know install a program and never tweak it in any way. They simply have no concept of tailoring a product to their needs. They think the box is like a hammer and works only one way. Can you imagine that ... so stupid and backward that they actually expect the machine to operate as depicted on TV and on various forums they may mistakenly visit.
They also are so boorish as to never clean and dust, defrag or scan for spyware. Such dolts, they think the things actually are simple and all you have to do is keep it plugged into the wall socket like a radio.
But then, they do know the location of every computer mechanic and fixit shop within a 10 mile radius so they don't worry. "Taking my kid to ball practice; I'll be back in two hours to get it. Thanks for the help. Yeah, it's not working right. See ya."
A mate of mine had his PC die a few years ago, so I rummaged around through his assorted piles of crap and found a decade old pentium running windows 95. From switching it on to running office was literally about 10 seconds. The thing was like shit off a stick compared to what we put up with now, and as far as my mate was concerned he had a brand new PC.
I'm on my third anti-virus software this year. First one was way too much hassle to install, maintain and update. Second one attempted to police too much, whined continually about being the free version and I should upgrade, and was a resource hog.
Latest one is Microsoft Security Essentials. Early days yet, but it could be that finally Microsoft have got an anti-virus package worth using.
...I have a bad feeling about Microsoft AV. I really don't like the way IE has its tendrils embedded in deep my system, so I don't use it. I'm wary of MS's own AV offering just in case it becomes ubiquitous (like IE used to be), and hence very popular with security software disabling/hijacking malware writers. With its tendrils potentially penetrating the inner sanctum of my OS, I'd be happier with a third party- probably just paranoia, but it doesn't feel right.
Seconded / thirded / whatever.
I'd like to think that the advent of MSE would be a massive boot up the backside of the A/V vendors to slim down their bloatware, improve efficiency and eliminate the upgrade nagging on the free versions.
However, it looks like they are going for "Plan B": Cry foul, moan about anticompetitive practices and sue MS for daring to park its tanks on their lawn. Bastards and they deserve to fail.
Note to the incumbant market leaders: MSE is actually taking your market share by the simple expedient of being a damned sight better at what it does than your shit is.
From what I read - can't seem to find the article now - part of the reason MSE has been doing so well in the AV testing is that it's able to hook deeper into the OS and is more difficult to disable.
Disclaimer: this is not a "dey took our jobs" post. Proprietary protocols and APIs in Windows has been a gripe of mine or years (ref: Samba and AD)
I installed MSE on my old lappy which runs XP, is a bit long in the tooth but runs pretty well for the use I put it to, IE a bit of web serving and the occassional torrent.
I found that MSE increased the boot time of this machine from a sprightly 2 minutes to an amusing 45 mins.... yes you read that right!
Currently using Avast free on it and all is well in the world.
After finally giving up on AVG after many years due to excessive bloat (the 2011 Free version involved an enormous additional download) I switched to MSE, and am quite happy so far (this is of course only a solution if you have a valid Windows install).
Of course, when I must use Windows I surf from a limited user account and never use IE or OE, which helps a lot to start with.
Anyone would think they NEVER have to use a machine with an AV installed!
We have Kasp installed at our place and it does exactly what it says on the tin... while at the same time making the machine run like an utter dog.
Like the article says, most people end up disabling it, which has been the reason for the last four outbreaks...
morons!
In some companies (like the last one I worked for) IT don't get much choice, "VIPs" demand and get local admin, and write access to stuff they don't need write access to...
The three outbreaks we had came from the President (2), and the VP, who's full write access to everything caused the loss of that days work for a lot of people when all their data was deleted and I had to restore from the overnight backup.
You got paid. That's your job. If you don't like your job, leave. If you're going to take their money, do your job, make your eight hours (or whatever) and then go home to your real life. Of course if your real life IS your job, weeeellllll, you have a far larger problem than stupid company officers.
... users just need local admin rights. Most of them in software development or validation. You just need an AV that cannot be turned off without a master password known to the IT dept only.
For personal home usage I had no problems paying for an AV, being ESET NOD32, which comes out of tests as thrustworthy and is blazingly fast.
Mine's the one with the money those friendly people at ESET gave me in.
It's like Tom 35 says, we don't have any choice - management demand that level of access.
Plus much of our infrastructure is old and we cannot afford to replace it in the current climate, so whilst the likes of the AV is new the hardware it runs on could use an update.
It comes down to the age-old battle between security and usability.
Are you one of the "idiots" who puts that much crap into builds that NOBODY can use it?
Can't you tweak their profile using policy manager or somesuch to allow them to do what they think they should do without being admin-level access?
It is my experience that management (especially the more clueless higher uppers) ask for the moon on a stick because they think they can. The P and VP probably want full access because "it is their company" without entirely understanding what this means (and, as demonstrated, the exact reasons why they shouldn't have that access). It'll be a delicate juggling act between restricting their access while permitting what they think they want to do.
And remember, as the IT guy, not only are you treading on eggshells with them, the rest of the company will be pointing their fingers at you the next time they screw up and a restore from backup nukes a day's work. <sigh>
No. Why do you imagine I am?
The solution with "need admin access" people is two accounts. FredBloggs and FBAdmin. FBAdmin is either a local account on the box or a domain account that is a member of no groups beyond Domain Users and a group called "Local Access Only" which has deny privs on all shared libraries, printers etc.
Fred therefore _has_ to use the FredBloggs domain user account to access network resources. He can use FBAdmin, possibly via runas, when he needs to do admin-y things. He cannot claim he doesn't have full control of his box because he does, just not when wearing his network user hat. You will of course need to use Group Policy to control the local admin group so that FBAdmin can't add FredBloggs to the local admins group...
You justify this by saying it's not about not trusting him to run his own computer, but _protecting_ him against zero-day malware attacks.
Developers running as local admin all the time are a menace - it's this practice which is responsible for half their crap not working properly for limited users once they release it. Definitely should have the FredBloggs/FBAdmin setup. If it doesn't run as FredBloggs you haven't got it working yet.
All software does, doesn't it? In general the motivation to upgrade to the new version of anything is driven by new features rather than cleaning-up and enhancing the raw performance of the existing version - cf. Office, every print-driver I've ever seen, WiFi helper apps (50Mb+ for the drivers for mine? Come on..)
Perhaps the best way to reduce the need for complex AV is to reduce the chances of the bad guys to get in and do something. Of course, this means we should consider a more secure environment - but we all know that every time Windows gets more security conscious, users bypass the model because it's a pain to live with!
You pays your money and you takes your choice. Yes, I'm frustrated with my AV dragging my machine down - but no more than Office et al for doing the same!
Imagine: a s/w industry that releases new versions with the promise that 'nothing added but we've removed all that legacy code that made it run like a pig'. Good luck selling it 'cause very few consumers will 'upgrade' without seeing new features they (mostly) don't need.
<quote>
Imagine: a s/w industry that releases new versions with the promise that 'nothing added but we've removed all that legacy code that made it run like a pig'. Good luck selling it 'cause very few consumers will 'upgrade' without seeing new features they (mostly) don't need.
</quote>
and thats exactly what Apple did with Snow Leopard over Leopard. Admittedly their was "much" behind the scenes work stuff like Grand Central, but it wasn't a major UI overhaul like the previous point release versions, it did however remove a lot of legacy code.
Noe i just wish they'd finish the job and get iTunes into better shape.
Installed a Printer Driver for a certain brand recently (rhymes with Pewlett Hackard), the install of the printer driver took longer than the install of Windows 7 or Mint Linux!
It also consumed a good few hundred MB!
Also, the difference in space between the usable Office XP and the latest Ribbony nonsense!
I remember the day an office 4.3 install seemed almost apologetic for hitting the 100MB complete install mark!
I had to call HP support to find out how to install the driver without all the associated bloatware - it was disguised as a link on the installer screen. Why can't we return to those nice setups which asked what you wanted to install, with a "minimum install" option? Why should I install applications to print school papers when I have no children around? Why should I install lame image editing software when I have professional one?
People often complain about the fact that linux has very little *official* software/drivers, and most stuff is written by third parties...
A lot of the vendor supplied drivers ship with all kinds of garbage as you point out, printer drivers, wifi helper apps etc... The official clients for things like aim are typically bloated, plastered with ads and never support more than one network etc.
On linux you usually get much better, cleaner software and especially drivers, drivers that will do what they're supposed to and not installed whole heaps of unrelated crap.
In my opinion, the highest performing free AV is Ariva. Any of the other free offerings, including MSE, will bog your system down. Avira also consistently has one of the best detection rates.
The highest performing paid AV I think is either Avira Premium and Norton AntiVirus (not Norton Internet Security). Symantec have really reduced the footprint and increased the performance of their client with the 2010/2011 offerings.
However, Avira Premium is cheaper and tends to consistently score higher than Norton on AV Comparatives tests.
Try checking out various different industry AV tests, and see where Avira Personal Edition comes in those tests. In most of them, it's normally damned near the top in terms of raw detection/removal/lack of false positives.
On top of that it's straightforward, fairly light and fast, and nags you *once* a day about the full version.
I used to use it all the time before I switched to Linux, and I used to keep tabs on the AV comparison tables back then quite regularly.
Not everything is the cause of fanboys and shills, you pleb - some products are actually just rather good.
Steven R
"In my opinion, the highest performing free AV is Ariva"
If you use a bus[1] company for your Audio/Visual needs it's really fast. On a big six-wheeler, scarlet-painted, London transport, diesel-engined, 97-horsepower omnibus...
[1] As long as you don't get a SIGBUS error, of course...
I recently discovered a malware on my system. Some sort of dormant IRC controlled trojan that had spread to, like, three programs in the unknown time it was on my system. Avast didn't notice it. My FTP host did.
I chucked the file to http://www.virustotal.com/ and of the 40-or-so products that eyeballed the file, only THREE recognised it.
I have given my system a once over with ClamAV (which is intolerably slow) and then back to Avast.
There's more to life than scanning speed.
..what you should have realized is that Virus Scanners are very much like a Bank Without Locks on the Doors and Safes with a company of Security people checking every person against a bible of criminals. If a new criminal shows up or if one of them has a new haircolor, they are stuffed.
That's why banks use locks. And Unix. Like Linux or MacOS X. And they don't run as Admin if they ever use Windows.
But I have to:
1) Have a copy of clamav on linux to check and scrub any files I give to or get from windows victims.
2) Same on bootable linux usb for scrubbing infected windows systems
3) MSE on the dual booted systems that I run windows on for my own purposes
I share the general tech consensus that MSE is as good as anything, better than most, but any monoculture is dangerous. But windows itself is a monoculture.
MSE is a damn sight better than the 90's MS Anti-Virus product.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
