Tales of the antivirus forest
“To pay or not to pay for an antivirus?” According to some, this is the question that millions of users face. Here, for example, in the article of Vladimir Bezmalogo in the 12th issue of the magazine “PC World” for 2014, a whole “study” is devoted to this topic. The results of his doubts do not leave: "the miser pays twice." However, the arguments in this article are so controversial that I cannot but speak on this topic. After all, we live in a time when many people manipulate information in order to earn more money. How effective this system is can be judged by the fact that Grandma's Anti-Virus purchased several government organizations. This, of course, is an extreme case, but it shows that when they praise paid products, it is worth considering how unselfish these praises are.
Now let's consider a few myths, which Vladimir Bezmaly, apparently, became a willing or unwilling victim.
First , about the stinginess. Many users have dozens of programs installed on their computers. Some of them are used daily, others every six months, but they are certainly needed. The problem is that even small utilities such as an archiver cost 20-40 dollars, and the price of large packages (office programs, video editing packages, etc.) is hundreds, or even thousands of dollars.
As a result, if you use only paid versions of all programs, you will have to spend more than one thousand greenbacks. Moreover, the authors of many programs live abroad and they do not care about fluctuations of the ruble exchange rate. I do not know for how much you bought your computer, but I am sure that you did not plan such additional expenses. But most importantly, all these programs have free analogues. And very often they are not inferior to paid products. Therefore, the use of free software - this is not stinginess, but completely normal behavior, due to common sense.
')
Secondly , suppose we agreed that if security is so important to us, then you can probably pay for the antivirus once, after all, does a stingy “pay twice”? However, if you decide to use a commercial anti-virus, you will have to pay not just once, but dozens. Antivirus is the type of software where payment is for an annual license. Accordingly, you will have to constantly pay your whole life. Suppose an annual license is cheap, for example, for “Kaspersky Internet Secirity” 1600 rubles are asked, but this means that for 10 years of using my laptop worth 16 thousand rubles, I will have to pay as much again. I am not a businessman, but an ordinary user, and it seems to me insane to give such a lot of money for a single program - a paid antivirus.
Thirdly , for many users, a computer is generally only a playground. And why should they be afraid of viruses that can physically damage the computer this afternoon with fire, can protect a good firewall from stealing passwords. In addition, accounts are often tied to a phone number. And if the system crashes, you ask? For example, on my laptop, restoring to factory condition is done with just one touch of a button. If you do not have this, then just make a backup copy of a special program.
Fourth . For some reason, the author claims that many manufacturers of free antiviruses are “not experts in the field of information security,” he cites as an example Microsoft, which, in his opinion, is the leader among manufacturers of free antiviruses.
Here we see several controversial statements.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft has long been releasing products in the field of information security and it is wrong to consider Microsoft as an amateur in this area. Moreover, the company’s own full-fledged antivirus, Microsoft Security Essentials, appeared from the company after they bought a recognized authority in this area in 2004, the Romanian antivirus developer GeCAD Software, which has existed since 1992. Now “Microsoft”, of course, lags behind the leaders, but it did its job. As the emergence of the free browser “Internet Explorer” led to the transformation of other companies' paid browsers into free ones, the appearance of the free antivirus from “Microsoft” prompted the fact that even more antivirus vendors began to release free versions of their products, which is good news you and me
And if we talk about other manufacturers of free antiviruses, then most of them are not just professionals, they are the leaders of the antivirus market. In fact, we see a new trend, when well-known anti-virus companies release free versions of their products for home users. Of course, this is not done disinterestedly, but the fact remains that a free antivirus for home is the norm. And two well-known domestic companies that have no free versions for protecting home users in real time now look like an anachronism.
Further, the popularity of antivirus from "Microsoft" is already in the past. Another product from Microsoft, Windows Defender, is built into some of its operating systems, and is also often installed as a recommended update. But to say that Windows Defender is the leader of free antiviruses is like saying that Notepad is the leader of free office suites. No one in our time seriously considers Windows Defender as a competitor to other antiviruses. Its task is to provide basic protection of a freshly installed “Windows” against the most common threats until the user installs something else.
Fifth , let's talk about security. The author of an article in the magazine “PC World” gives test results where Kaspersky Internet Secirity is ahead of AVAST, AVG and Microsoft Security Essentials products.
To begin with, we note that the author does not at all what will answer the question in the title of his article. Speaking of tests, he would have to compare free products with those of the same company. Instead, we together with him slipped to the usual disassembly of "which antivirus is" cooler ", which are completely full on any forum. Well, apparently we will have to play by its rules, but first we note the fact that the majority of free antiviruses are released by the same companies as the paid ones. There are few tests comparing paid and free products of the same companies, but there are some.
So let's take a look at them.
Here, for example, “AV-Test: The best antivirus for Windows 8.1 (64 bit)” for September-October 2014.
In it, the free AVG Free antivirus shows exactly the same result as the paid product of the same AVG IS company. But the VB100 test in August 2014, in which the paid product Panda Internet Security 2015 in the WildList test suite showed the same results as the free Panda Cloud Antivirus Free, and in the Reactive and Proactive test it went out incident: free product showed better results than paid.
If you look at the comparative testing of antivirus programs on the COMSS.TV channel in the first quarter of 2014, here we see that the paid Avira Internet Security Suite and the free Avira Free Antivirus cope with the detection of viruses in the same way.
I think that I cited enough examples to confirm another fact - free antiviruses in detecting viruses are no worse than paid ones. This is logical, because for many companies a free product is the same as a paid product with reduced capabilities that do not affect security. Of course, in some ways free products are inferior to paid ones, otherwise no one would pay for anything at all, but these differences are often leveled by installing additional programs.
Now let's return to our author, who, instead of actually comparing different products, is engaged in actions more like an advertisement for a Kaspersky Lab product. For some reason, the author compares only three other antiviruses with Kaspersky. I have already said about “Microsoft Security Essentials”, it has long been an outsider, in tests it is used as an indicator of the base level. “AVAST” and “AVG” are not bad antiviruses, but this does not mean that you should definitely choose them. Personally, for example, I use AVIRA free antivirus, and it often shows better results than AVAST and AVG. There is also a very good free cloud antivirus from Panda Software and a great integrated product from Comodo. But for some reason, we don’t see these products in the above test results. Whether the tests are not complete, which is unlikely, or the author of the article gave only those results that confirm his ideas. That is, of all the free antiviruses, I chose only those that in this test gave way to the Kaspersky product. This is no longer an innocent prank, but an impermissible oversight, unacceptable for professional research. It is impossible to draw any far-reaching conclusions about the inconsistency of free antiviruses based on this biased sample.
Let's find and see for yourself the complete results of these tests and find out how other free products have manifested themselves in them.
Here, for example, the first test "AV-Test. The results of testing antivirus for home. January-February 2014 " . What do we see? "Microsoft Security Essentials" security test did not pass at all, zero points. “AVAST” and “AVG” actually showed results below average. But the reason is simple, these two free antiviruses were compared with products of the “Internet Secirity” class, that is, the test is not entirely correct. Nevertheless, the test shows that many manufacturers of free antiviruses are not inferior to Kaspersky Lab. For example, Avira Internet Secirity, Bitdefender Internet Secirity and Qihoo 360 Internet Security scored the same number of points in the protection tests as Kaspersky Internet Secirity. Both Avira and Bitdefender have free products in their product line, and Qihoo 360 Internet Security is initially free. Other free products from Panda Software and Comodo were just a little smaller. It was a test under Windows 7. Under Windows 8.1, the results are similar.
In the tests for September-October, the results are different, but note how many products in the protection test scored the maximum 6 points. There is no reason to talk about the superiority of paid products over free ones for this indicator, they have exactly the same results.
In addition to protection, antivirus self-defense is important. According to the tests of self-defense of the AV-Test laboratory, published at the end of 2014, the product of Kaspersky Lab is only on the 7th place, and among the leaders of AVIRA with its paid product (but it is not difficult to guess that its free antivirus would take the same place), overtook "Kaspersky" and the free "AVAST", and the free "AVG" gave him a little bit.
However, the “AV-Test” light did not come together with a wedge, let's see other tests. The author presents the test results of the independent laboratory AV-Comparatives for March-September 2014. But it's December now and let's take a look at more recent results. So, "AV-Comparatives: Dynamic Antivirus Testing: August-November 2014" . What do we see? In the test of the detection level in second place is a free product from Qihoo. Kaspersky is only in third place, and it shares it with two more manufacturers of free products AVIRA and Bitdefender. “Panda”, “AVG” and “AVAST” are a bit behind, but at the same time they bypassed the paid product from the well-known company “McAfee”. Comodo did not participate in this test. The product from Microsoft ranked last, showing a protection level of 83.5%.
Here is another test of this laboratory - a test for the treatment of active infection, which was conducted in March-October 2014.
The product of the company “AVG” is rehabilitated and shares the 1st place with “Bitdefender”. The latter, by the way, not only has a free product in its line, but delivers its engine to a huge number of other, both paid and free antiviruses. But Kaspersky is only on the 2nd (or 3rd place, depending on how you count) along with the Indian anti-virus eScan, followed by Panda, Avira and Avast, but not much.
At the beginning of 2014, the Softonic portal, based on the authoritative tests of the VB100 lab of Virus Bulletin, prepared its 2014 antivirus rating. And in it, in the total ranking, the product of Kaspersky Lab ranked only third. At the same time, in the safety rating its results are even lower, it was even overtaken by “AVIRA” with “PANDA”.
In VB100 testing in August 2014, in the “Reactive and Proactive” test, Kaspersky had 88.5%, “AVAST” - 91%, “AVG” - 94.4, “Quihoo 360” - 95.9, and Avira -96.2. "Panda" part of the tests failed. Comodo did not participate in these tests. The product from Agnitium was slightly inferior to Kaspersky. In the same test in December 2014, the AVG antivirus took the first place, followed by many other free products, and the paid products of Agnitium and Kaspersky Lab are at the bottom of the list.
Sixth , continue with the tests and give a few lines of performance. The author of the article lists the results of the AV-Test test, in which Kaspersky Internet Security is ahead of AVAST, AVG and Windows Defender products.
That's right, only here the gap in half a point is about nothing.
Let's look at the results of antivirus performance tests of the independent Polish laboratory “AVLab” for the month of November 2014:
Kaspersky Internet Security has not risen above the middle of the list. But the supposedly bad “AVAST” and “AVG” took the first 2 places (paid products), the free “AVAST” was only one point behind them, and the free “Panda” and “Avira” also overtook the Kaspersky product. Only the free AVG let us down, losing 3 points to Kaspersky.
In the performance rating of the Softonic portal at the beginning of 2014, the Kaspersky Lab product is also not the best. For example, AVG has a score of 7.08, while Kaspersky has only 6.2 (the more, the better).
Seventh , the author of the article, referring to the results of tests of the proactive defense of the laboratory “Matousec”, writes that:
A) Kaspersky Internet Security is the best;
B) Free products tests failed.
To put it mildly, the statement that “all products distributed mostly free of charge have failed” is simply not true.
Take a look at the tests "Matousec". "Matushek", as they are tenderly called by many users. Honestly, I did not figure out which, most likely, the author used very ancient tests. Especially since he generally gave the wrong link, which is a page with a test of performance, and not tests of proactive protection. It is not clear, this is a mistake or a forgery. But let's just go to the "Matushek" site and see the latest ones .
So, in the first place in the test "Comodo Internet Security Premium 7.0.317799.4142FREE" the word "Free". Did you notice? So it is, a free product on the 1st place with an "excellent" rating! But “Kaspersky Internet Security 2015” noticeably lagged behind the leader and took only the third place with “very good” rating. The free product “Privatefirewall 7.0.30.3FREE” lost to Kaspersky by just one point and ranked after him with the exact same “very good” rating. As a result, it is a free product that provides the highest protection. But if for any reason you don’t want to install a comprehensive Comodo package, you can choose a free antivirus that you like (for example, AVIRA, which proved to be well), and add it to it with a free Privatefirewall firewall, getting protection at the best level. paid products. Personally, I did.
Eighth , the author as a terrible lack of free antivirus indicates that bundled with them often is an advertising extension to the browser. But as he himself admits, no one forces the user to install it forcibly, you can refuse it at the installation stage. The question is, and now that you have read it, do you still want to pay dozens of dollars every year for a paid antivirus, instead of once making two extra mouse clicks? Or maybe you do not have anything against advertising, and you will not refuse it? In any case, the argument against free antiviruses is highly dubious.
Ninth , the author points out that the free antiviruses are updated once a day as a flaw. This is simply not true, for example, Microsoft Security Essentials is updated three times a day, which, incidentally, does not help much. But in principle, the argument itself is ridiculous. A regular user comes home in the evening, turns on the computer for a couple of hours and it is at this point that the antivirus is updated. If it has a paid antivirus, it will also be updated once a day for the simple reason that the computer will be turned off most of the time. Of course, there is a possibility that the paid anti-virus signatures will be fresher. But it’s still the grandmother who said in two who knows where exactly the anti-virus company is posting a new update, and what time you most often turn on your computer. In any case, this is not the problem to puzzle about it. If you don’t have a server around the clock connected to the Internet, but a regular home computer, then updating it once a day is enough. By the way, as I wrote above, in tests free and paid antiviruses of the same company usually show the same results, so frequent updates are more of a publicity than an urgent need.
Tenth , at the conclusion of the article, the author finally admits that ordinary antiviruses are not a couple of products of the “Internet Security” class and uses this as an argument in favor of paid products. However, for some reason he forgets to say that it is worth complementing your free antivirus with a free firewall and you will receive the same “Internet Security” without spending a penny. , «Internet Security» , , , , , . , ( ) .
, «Internet Security» , , «Comodo» «Matousec» « ». «Agnitium», , «» , , «Dr.WEB».
- , . , , -, , ? . , , -.
- , , , . : , . « », , . , «» , .
, , . , « » . youtube , - , , . , , , , , , , — . , - . , , , , — 4 . , , ?
, , « ?», .
Now let's consider a few myths, which Vladimir Bezmaly, apparently, became a willing or unwilling victim.
First , about the stinginess. Many users have dozens of programs installed on their computers. Some of them are used daily, others every six months, but they are certainly needed. The problem is that even small utilities such as an archiver cost 20-40 dollars, and the price of large packages (office programs, video editing packages, etc.) is hundreds, or even thousands of dollars.
As a result, if you use only paid versions of all programs, you will have to spend more than one thousand greenbacks. Moreover, the authors of many programs live abroad and they do not care about fluctuations of the ruble exchange rate. I do not know for how much you bought your computer, but I am sure that you did not plan such additional expenses. But most importantly, all these programs have free analogues. And very often they are not inferior to paid products. Therefore, the use of free software - this is not stinginess, but completely normal behavior, due to common sense.
')
Secondly , suppose we agreed that if security is so important to us, then you can probably pay for the antivirus once, after all, does a stingy “pay twice”? However, if you decide to use a commercial anti-virus, you will have to pay not just once, but dozens. Antivirus is the type of software where payment is for an annual license. Accordingly, you will have to constantly pay your whole life. Suppose an annual license is cheap, for example, for “Kaspersky Internet Secirity” 1600 rubles are asked, but this means that for 10 years of using my laptop worth 16 thousand rubles, I will have to pay as much again. I am not a businessman, but an ordinary user, and it seems to me insane to give such a lot of money for a single program - a paid antivirus.
Thirdly , for many users, a computer is generally only a playground. And why should they be afraid of viruses that can physically damage the computer this afternoon with fire, can protect a good firewall from stealing passwords. In addition, accounts are often tied to a phone number. And if the system crashes, you ask? For example, on my laptop, restoring to factory condition is done with just one touch of a button. If you do not have this, then just make a backup copy of a special program.
Fourth . For some reason, the author claims that many manufacturers of free antiviruses are “not experts in the field of information security,” he cites as an example Microsoft, which, in his opinion, is the leader among manufacturers of free antiviruses.
Here we see several controversial statements.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft has long been releasing products in the field of information security and it is wrong to consider Microsoft as an amateur in this area. Moreover, the company’s own full-fledged antivirus, Microsoft Security Essentials, appeared from the company after they bought a recognized authority in this area in 2004, the Romanian antivirus developer GeCAD Software, which has existed since 1992. Now “Microsoft”, of course, lags behind the leaders, but it did its job. As the emergence of the free browser “Internet Explorer” led to the transformation of other companies' paid browsers into free ones, the appearance of the free antivirus from “Microsoft” prompted the fact that even more antivirus vendors began to release free versions of their products, which is good news you and me
And if we talk about other manufacturers of free antiviruses, then most of them are not just professionals, they are the leaders of the antivirus market. In fact, we see a new trend, when well-known anti-virus companies release free versions of their products for home users. Of course, this is not done disinterestedly, but the fact remains that a free antivirus for home is the norm. And two well-known domestic companies that have no free versions for protecting home users in real time now look like an anachronism.
Further, the popularity of antivirus from "Microsoft" is already in the past. Another product from Microsoft, Windows Defender, is built into some of its operating systems, and is also often installed as a recommended update. But to say that Windows Defender is the leader of free antiviruses is like saying that Notepad is the leader of free office suites. No one in our time seriously considers Windows Defender as a competitor to other antiviruses. Its task is to provide basic protection of a freshly installed “Windows” against the most common threats until the user installs something else.
Fifth , let's talk about security. The author of an article in the magazine “PC World” gives test results where Kaspersky Internet Secirity is ahead of AVAST, AVG and Microsoft Security Essentials products.
To begin with, we note that the author does not at all what will answer the question in the title of his article. Speaking of tests, he would have to compare free products with those of the same company. Instead, we together with him slipped to the usual disassembly of "which antivirus is" cooler ", which are completely full on any forum. Well, apparently we will have to play by its rules, but first we note the fact that the majority of free antiviruses are released by the same companies as the paid ones. There are few tests comparing paid and free products of the same companies, but there are some.
So let's take a look at them.
Here, for example, “AV-Test: The best antivirus for Windows 8.1 (64 bit)” for September-October 2014.
In it, the free AVG Free antivirus shows exactly the same result as the paid product of the same AVG IS company. But the VB100 test in August 2014, in which the paid product Panda Internet Security 2015 in the WildList test suite showed the same results as the free Panda Cloud Antivirus Free, and in the Reactive and Proactive test it went out incident: free product showed better results than paid.
If you look at the comparative testing of antivirus programs on the COMSS.TV channel in the first quarter of 2014, here we see that the paid Avira Internet Security Suite and the free Avira Free Antivirus cope with the detection of viruses in the same way.
I think that I cited enough examples to confirm another fact - free antiviruses in detecting viruses are no worse than paid ones. This is logical, because for many companies a free product is the same as a paid product with reduced capabilities that do not affect security. Of course, in some ways free products are inferior to paid ones, otherwise no one would pay for anything at all, but these differences are often leveled by installing additional programs.
Now let's return to our author, who, instead of actually comparing different products, is engaged in actions more like an advertisement for a Kaspersky Lab product. For some reason, the author compares only three other antiviruses with Kaspersky. I have already said about “Microsoft Security Essentials”, it has long been an outsider, in tests it is used as an indicator of the base level. “AVAST” and “AVG” are not bad antiviruses, but this does not mean that you should definitely choose them. Personally, for example, I use AVIRA free antivirus, and it often shows better results than AVAST and AVG. There is also a very good free cloud antivirus from Panda Software and a great integrated product from Comodo. But for some reason, we don’t see these products in the above test results. Whether the tests are not complete, which is unlikely, or the author of the article gave only those results that confirm his ideas. That is, of all the free antiviruses, I chose only those that in this test gave way to the Kaspersky product. This is no longer an innocent prank, but an impermissible oversight, unacceptable for professional research. It is impossible to draw any far-reaching conclusions about the inconsistency of free antiviruses based on this biased sample.
Let's find and see for yourself the complete results of these tests and find out how other free products have manifested themselves in them.
Here, for example, the first test "AV-Test. The results of testing antivirus for home. January-February 2014 " . What do we see? "Microsoft Security Essentials" security test did not pass at all, zero points. “AVAST” and “AVG” actually showed results below average. But the reason is simple, these two free antiviruses were compared with products of the “Internet Secirity” class, that is, the test is not entirely correct. Nevertheless, the test shows that many manufacturers of free antiviruses are not inferior to Kaspersky Lab. For example, Avira Internet Secirity, Bitdefender Internet Secirity and Qihoo 360 Internet Security scored the same number of points in the protection tests as Kaspersky Internet Secirity. Both Avira and Bitdefender have free products in their product line, and Qihoo 360 Internet Security is initially free. Other free products from Panda Software and Comodo were just a little smaller. It was a test under Windows 7. Under Windows 8.1, the results are similar.
In the tests for September-October, the results are different, but note how many products in the protection test scored the maximum 6 points. There is no reason to talk about the superiority of paid products over free ones for this indicator, they have exactly the same results.
In addition to protection, antivirus self-defense is important. According to the tests of self-defense of the AV-Test laboratory, published at the end of 2014, the product of Kaspersky Lab is only on the 7th place, and among the leaders of AVIRA with its paid product (but it is not difficult to guess that its free antivirus would take the same place), overtook "Kaspersky" and the free "AVAST", and the free "AVG" gave him a little bit.
However, the “AV-Test” light did not come together with a wedge, let's see other tests. The author presents the test results of the independent laboratory AV-Comparatives for March-September 2014. But it's December now and let's take a look at more recent results. So, "AV-Comparatives: Dynamic Antivirus Testing: August-November 2014" . What do we see? In the test of the detection level in second place is a free product from Qihoo. Kaspersky is only in third place, and it shares it with two more manufacturers of free products AVIRA and Bitdefender. “Panda”, “AVG” and “AVAST” are a bit behind, but at the same time they bypassed the paid product from the well-known company “McAfee”. Comodo did not participate in this test. The product from Microsoft ranked last, showing a protection level of 83.5%.
Here is another test of this laboratory - a test for the treatment of active infection, which was conducted in March-October 2014.
The product of the company “AVG” is rehabilitated and shares the 1st place with “Bitdefender”. The latter, by the way, not only has a free product in its line, but delivers its engine to a huge number of other, both paid and free antiviruses. But Kaspersky is only on the 2nd (or 3rd place, depending on how you count) along with the Indian anti-virus eScan, followed by Panda, Avira and Avast, but not much.
At the beginning of 2014, the Softonic portal, based on the authoritative tests of the VB100 lab of Virus Bulletin, prepared its 2014 antivirus rating. And in it, in the total ranking, the product of Kaspersky Lab ranked only third. At the same time, in the safety rating its results are even lower, it was even overtaken by “AVIRA” with “PANDA”.
In VB100 testing in August 2014, in the “Reactive and Proactive” test, Kaspersky had 88.5%, “AVAST” - 91%, “AVG” - 94.4, “Quihoo 360” - 95.9, and Avira -96.2. "Panda" part of the tests failed. Comodo did not participate in these tests. The product from Agnitium was slightly inferior to Kaspersky. In the same test in December 2014, the AVG antivirus took the first place, followed by many other free products, and the paid products of Agnitium and Kaspersky Lab are at the bottom of the list.
Sixth , continue with the tests and give a few lines of performance. The author of the article lists the results of the AV-Test test, in which Kaspersky Internet Security is ahead of AVAST, AVG and Windows Defender products.
That's right, only here the gap in half a point is about nothing.
Let's look at the results of antivirus performance tests of the independent Polish laboratory “AVLab” for the month of November 2014:
Kaspersky Internet Security has not risen above the middle of the list. But the supposedly bad “AVAST” and “AVG” took the first 2 places (paid products), the free “AVAST” was only one point behind them, and the free “Panda” and “Avira” also overtook the Kaspersky product. Only the free AVG let us down, losing 3 points to Kaspersky.
In the performance rating of the Softonic portal at the beginning of 2014, the Kaspersky Lab product is also not the best. For example, AVG has a score of 7.08, while Kaspersky has only 6.2 (the more, the better).
Seventh , the author of the article, referring to the results of tests of the proactive defense of the laboratory “Matousec”, writes that:
A) Kaspersky Internet Security is the best;
B) Free products tests failed.
To put it mildly, the statement that “all products distributed mostly free of charge have failed” is simply not true.
Take a look at the tests "Matousec". "Matushek", as they are tenderly called by many users. Honestly, I did not figure out which, most likely, the author used very ancient tests. Especially since he generally gave the wrong link, which is a page with a test of performance, and not tests of proactive protection. It is not clear, this is a mistake or a forgery. But let's just go to the "Matushek" site and see the latest ones .
So, in the first place in the test "Comodo Internet Security Premium 7.0.317799.4142FREE" the word "Free". Did you notice? So it is, a free product on the 1st place with an "excellent" rating! But “Kaspersky Internet Security 2015” noticeably lagged behind the leader and took only the third place with “very good” rating. The free product “Privatefirewall 7.0.30.3FREE” lost to Kaspersky by just one point and ranked after him with the exact same “very good” rating. As a result, it is a free product that provides the highest protection. But if for any reason you don’t want to install a comprehensive Comodo package, you can choose a free antivirus that you like (for example, AVIRA, which proved to be well), and add it to it with a free Privatefirewall firewall, getting protection at the best level. paid products. Personally, I did.
Eighth , the author as a terrible lack of free antivirus indicates that bundled with them often is an advertising extension to the browser. But as he himself admits, no one forces the user to install it forcibly, you can refuse it at the installation stage. The question is, and now that you have read it, do you still want to pay dozens of dollars every year for a paid antivirus, instead of once making two extra mouse clicks? Or maybe you do not have anything against advertising, and you will not refuse it? In any case, the argument against free antiviruses is highly dubious.
Ninth , the author points out that the free antiviruses are updated once a day as a flaw. This is simply not true, for example, Microsoft Security Essentials is updated three times a day, which, incidentally, does not help much. But in principle, the argument itself is ridiculous. A regular user comes home in the evening, turns on the computer for a couple of hours and it is at this point that the antivirus is updated. If it has a paid antivirus, it will also be updated once a day for the simple reason that the computer will be turned off most of the time. Of course, there is a possibility that the paid anti-virus signatures will be fresher. But it’s still the grandmother who said in two who knows where exactly the anti-virus company is posting a new update, and what time you most often turn on your computer. In any case, this is not the problem to puzzle about it. If you don’t have a server around the clock connected to the Internet, but a regular home computer, then updating it once a day is enough. By the way, as I wrote above, in tests free and paid antiviruses of the same company usually show the same results, so frequent updates are more of a publicity than an urgent need.
Tenth , at the conclusion of the article, the author finally admits that ordinary antiviruses are not a couple of products of the “Internet Security” class and uses this as an argument in favor of paid products. However, for some reason he forgets to say that it is worth complementing your free antivirus with a free firewall and you will receive the same “Internet Security” without spending a penny. , «Internet Security» , , , , , . , ( ) .
, «Internet Security» , , «Comodo» «Matousec» « ». «Agnitium», , «» , , «Dr.WEB».
- , . , , -, , ? . , , -.
- , , , . : , . « », , . , «» , .
, , . , « » . youtube , - , , . , , , , , , , — . , - . , , , , — 4 . , , ?
, , « ?», .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/252755/
All Articles