Is free security software worse?

Is free software worst than paid?

The SMH today looks at the pros and cons of free security software. While their conclusions are fair, that free software often requires more work from the user and sometimes lacks features, the comments from vendors are breath-taking.

I particularly like the Computer Associates spokesperson saying "They think they have something that's fully protecting them, when in reality they don't protect in a way they might need."

Priceless.

It's actually the commercial, full featured packages that leave users with a false sense of security. The number of times we discover users with damaged, disabled or out of date brand name security products is depressing.

The simple fact is the worst offenders are McAfee and Symantec.

Symantec suffers mainly because it relies on the Windows Scripting Host. This means a spyware infection will often drag a Norton product and Windows down with it. Their products is too complex and their licensing puts users at a disadvantage.

McAfee's problems start with their licensing obsession. Their registration system is so convoluted and prone to failure that many users are never properly covered. Like Symantec, their products are too complex and are even more difficult to fix when a problem arises.

While free products do have drawbacks and require more user intervention, most of them are far simpler and less prone to failure.

Software is always going to be complex, but the problem with most large software houses, including Microsoft, Symantec and McAfee, is they make their products even more complex than is necessary.