Symantec VP: Antivirus is Dead

[nicehat]

 
 
 
Brian Dye, Symantec's senior vice president for information security sat down with the wall street journal and declared the company's cash cow dead. He went on to state:
 
"We don't think of antivirus as a moneymaker in any way."
 
Antivirus products aim to prevent hackers from getting into a computer, but the utilities now catch less than half of all attacks, according to the executive -- to him, the focus is on minimizing the damage whenever there's a successful hack or infection. To that end, Symantec plans to reinvent itself that reflects a broader shift in the $70 billion industry - sell both recovery services and threat briefings to corporate customers. In the long run, it should also have technology that finds malware trying to imitate other apps.
 
Basically, rather than fighting to keep the bad guys out, new technologies from an array of companies assume hackers get in so aim to spot them and minimize the damage. This is where Symantec sees itself providing services in the future. 
 
However, the developer can't give up its original cash cow just yet. Antivirus packages like Norton still make up more than 40 percent of the company's revenue, and the new services won't safeguard your PC at home.
 
I thought it was interesting to note that Mr. Dye estimates antivirus now catches just 45% of cyberattacks. How much confidence do you put in your Antivirus? What Antivirus solution do you use? Do you think this "damage control" business mentality is the right one? Or do you believe in keeping the door locked and the bad guys out as is the case now (which isnt that effective)?
 
 
 

 
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303417104579542140235850578

[Mo5]

AV is a powerful tool if you use it along something called common sense. Personally I use Avast.

[Nineshadow]

I use BitDefender cause I'm a patriot!Supporting Romanian people,you know .I'm pretty sure a dude who cracked NASA , SUN,Google,Youtube,ESET,FBI and a lot of other giant servers/sites works there.Now he's joined the white side .

Still,in this antivirus world,the best people you could get are ex-crackers/hackers/whatever you call them.

[Accudio]

The thing is, why not use both? I don't understand, if he claims that 45% of viruses are not caught (assuming that figure is correct), that still means 65% (a majority) is. That is 65% less virus to have to deal with and protect against damage. Surely a better solution would be a combination of both, not just one or the other.

[Travis]

The thing is, why not use both? I don't understand, if he claims that 45% of viruses are not caught (assuming that figure is correct), that still means 65% (a majority) is. That is 65% less virus to have to deal with and protect against damage. Surely a better solution would be a combination of both, not just one or the other.

The article said 45% are caught. Not 45% AREN'T caught.

I hate to be that guy, but 100 - 45 = 55 not 65.

[SaulGoode91]

I've used many: Avast (both paid and free), Norton, Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE), and am currently using Webroot. In addition, I use the free Malwarebytes for any stray things left behind. Though, common sense is much more effective. Anybody can hide behind anything and still do something dumb and get something nasty. It happens. His claims that only 45% of attacks are caught sounds, to me at least, much more alarming than it really is. We would like to think that AV is much more reliable than it is but it makes sense that it's pretty much a 50-50 (45% caught, 55% missed) crapshoot. With zero hour threats and folks that don't update their AV (I assume lack of the latest definitions may inflate the "caught number" but the 45% may assume the most recent defs, that I am unsure) it's not surprising that the number is that high. AV is like car insurance, just because you have it doesn't mean you shouldn't care about doing dumb things.

[Moosie]

This has been true for a while. They talked about it on the Tek a while back, iirc. Antivirus is no longer armor (which it's particularly ill-suited to be, anyway), it's medicine. It's for finding problems that are already in your system, and doing basic cleanup when it does. It's definitely not unnecessary, particularly since most home users don't have any other protection (either reactive or proactive). But I agree that it's no longer a truly viable business model, at least in the consumer space. There are too many viruses that are changed too often. The development and maintenance costs are astronomical for an outcome that's margin of error different from your competitors, and which cannot really be differentiated by the average consumer.

So, as weird as it is to say that something that isn't viable as a paid product should be given for free, I think that's what needs to happen. Microsoft Security Essentials, or whatever they're calling it these days, needs to be beefed up. It should be at least as good as the other free alternatives like avast!, or AVG (which seem to be what most tech-savvy people use on personal machines, anyway). As part of the OS, it'll have the funds necessary to be maintained, but profitability won't be an issue. The real hurdle then is convincing the uneducated masses that still buy Norton subscriptions that they're no longer necessary.

[Misanthrope]

There's a nice symmetry between the decline of common folk pc usage and the decline of apps targeted at common folk: Sure they might have business solutions but with VPNs and more strict IT departments, not to mention cloud based solutions, individual antivirus as a program will go the way of the dodo.

[FlakeyBanana]

As many people already say common sense is the best defence, trademark the banana company

[KakaoDj]

I use Common Sense 2015     

Nah, but srlsy, i actually use Norton

[vandread4330]

Even if antiviruses were all the same, and all of them protected you from just 45% of attacks, it's still better than no antivirus. Plus as others stated above, use a little common sense. I see people all the time "oooo that on the side! what's that?" and then they click it. No. Just stop. They will mention ads to me then on my computer, and I have to ask what they are talking about. I just don't notice the ads or anything weird on the sides or tops or wherever. Then while surifng, don't click everything you see. Ugh so many people I know do that kind of stuff. Just stop lol. Anyways, I use a combination of Comodo, Malwarebytes, and Spybot. I find those 3 together work very well. 

Recently, my girlfriends mother bought herself and my girlfriend laptops at staples without me being there. The guys there suggested they were "professionals" and laughed that I could handle the laptops when my girlfriend and her mom got back. They swindled them into buying an $80 Norton 360 antivirus and paying them to "set the computers up". Well needless to say, they did all sorts of crazy things to their settings and other crap including that Norton she bought. Then a week later, my girlfriends mom's laptop was hacked. Norton. Ugh. I had fixed my gf's laptop up, and added in different antivirus. Hers is fine. 

[archip]

I tend to use Malwarebytes and ESET

[Vaios]

yeah common sense and after years of free usage/testing i now go along with paid versions of Vipre internet security and malwarebytes antimalware. Very happy so far.

[StingBull]

I used to use all kinds of free antiviruses until I got sick of them. All they do is eat resources or give me false alarms and generally get in the way. So I now have Microsoft Security Essentials only since that doesn't get in the way or slow down the computer.

[tharvey]

As the assistant manager at a PC repair shop, I know that antivirus programs don't catch everything.  The main problems that we see everyday is semi-legit software like Conduit, Search Protect, tool bars, registry cleaners and other "speed up my PC" software that doesn't work.  We offer bitdefender to our customers and have found that it does block a lot of malicious programs and helps our customers by alerting them to pages that have been known to be infected.  Common sense however works almost all the time.  For everyone who does not know better, anti virus software is a must.   Just not Norton or McAfee...  

[SangeetKhatri]

I use Linux. It does not have viruses, so there is no chance of a virus and yes, there is no Antivirus hogging my RAM in the background.

[pixeldensity]

I use AVG free edition, and Malwarebytes, i do agree with you guys the best antivirus is common sense.

[Jason Purkiss]

If only Norton  Avast could buy out Malwarebytes, combofix, CCleaner and incorporate it into there system as that's what I do as I'm on this PC 18hrs a day  and with weekly cheeks I rarely finding anything

[Grimsfire]

I used antivirus in the past on multiple machines and depended on it religiously, but now I've been on Windows 8 for about 9 months only using windows defender (with once a month cleansing with Ccleaner) and haven't caught a single virus. I've checked with Malwarebytes, Avast and AVG before I reformatted when bought Windows 8 legitimately a short while ago and didn't have a single problem other than a false positive by Malwarebytes. Just know what you are doing and how windows allocates permissions and you're good to go.

 

Naturally if you get targeted and hacked by someone there's probably little hope that antivirus can save you at all but I have no experience with that haha

[WereCat]

I use BitDefender cause I'm a patriot!Supporting Romanian people,you know .I'm pretty sure a dude who cracked NASA , SUN,Google,Youtube,ESET,FBI and a lot of other giant servers/sites works there.Now he's joined the white side .

Still,in this antivirus world,the best people you could get are ex-crackers/hackers/whatever you call them.

Your content cracked me up.

[sof006]

I use Linux. It does not have viruses, so there is no chance of a virus and yes, there is no Antivirus hogging my RAM in the background.

You're an idiot of you believe that 100%. I can assure you, Linux does have viruses. 

[hobby203]

You're an idiot of you believe that 100%. I can assure you, Linux does have viruses. 

Yep, this is like the Macs not having viruses BS. Are they as common as windows? No. Are they still there? Oh hell yes. Not to mention viruses aren't the only flavour of malware, Linux can be susceptible to other attacks too without proper knowledge.

[Misanthrope]

I use Linux. It does not have viruses, so there is no chance of a virus and yes, there is no Antivirus hogging my RAM in the background.

 

I actually want to try the virtual windows experiment: Run a windows desk from Linux and do so without any antivirus on the client and with 100% disregard for common sense: Click on all penis emails and contact all nigerian princes, explore even the most devious porn sites and install every single toolbar known to man, see how long the install lasts.

[Misanthrope]

Yep, this is like the Macs not having viruses BS. Are they as common as windows? No. Are they still there? Oh hell yes. Not to mention viruses aren't the only flavour of malware, Linux can be susceptible to other attacks too without proper knowledge.

 

OSX depends on exactly one company to get security updates: Apple. Linux depends on a large community of some of the most dedicated (often to a fault) nerds you might encounter and it's very nature allows patches and fixes for vulnerabilities to be detected and patched. Yes shit happens, that's the nature of the beast but without an open source community we could have gone on for another 2 or 3 or 5 years with nobody uncovering heartbleed. 

It's not perfect, but his assessment that there's no need for an antivirus on Linux right now it's actually correct. As LInux becomes more mainstream several antivirus will no doubt be coded and updated accordingly.

[sof006]

OSX depends on exactly one company to get security updates: Apple. Linux depends on a large community of some of the most dedicated (often to a fault) nerds you might encounter and it's very nature allows patches and fixes for vulnerabilities to be detected and patched. Yes shit happens, that's the nature of the beast but without an open source community we could have gone on for another 2 or 3 or 5 years with nobody uncovering heartbleed. 

It's not perfect, but his assessment that there's no need for an antivirus on Linux right now it's actually correct. As LInux becomes more mainstream several antivirus will no doubt be coded and updated accordingly.

You do not need an antivirus if you're careful.

 

I have not used an antivirus for 4 years and I am still using Windows. However again... Every single OS made will and does get viruses, no exceptions to the matter. Android, iOS, Linux, Windows, OSX... whatever else out there, all get viruses. They might not be as common as some but they are definitely there. His statement saying that "Linux does not have viruses" is 100% incorrect.