Currently many web surfers make the terrible mistake of using one of several paid anti-virus softwares on the market, such as the popular Norton and McAfee softwares. Not only are they not the best anti-virus software available, but if you were to ever take the time to look into it a little bit, you would probably see that they are usually the culprit when your computer is running extremely slow.

Luckily there are several free alternatives that won’t cause you all of the headaches. I personally use Avast and recommend them to most people that are setting up a new computer. Another nice alternative I’ve used is AVG, which is also available at no charge when using it for personal use (non-commercial).

One of the debates that comes along with the recent open source movement is the idea that anti-virus software could at some point go to open source. Chris Pirillo recently looked at whether anti-virus software is the virus. In the post, he looks at the effects open source would have on an anti-virus. The post is very well written, but the most notable part is actually where he quotes Peter Schwankl’s thoughts on the matter:

I like your idea that all Anti-Virus should be free! A company is indeed selling the cure for the poison that appears. It’s just a vicious cycle. But then again, I think open source is a mistake. I would think that an open source version of an anti virus would cause problems with potential hackers having access to the source code of an anti-virus, causing two things to happen:

  1. Impossibly hard-to-crack AV programs
  2. Far more devastating virii

It should be said that an AV program, open or closed, can have a hacker gain access to the source code, but making it easier is like handing it to them. Because that’s what’s happening.

So therefore, I think AV programs do indeed need to be closed source, an open source community wouldn’t have the dedicated resources that a company does to produce consistent, worthwhile, and stable-running AV software. Also, like with the Vista situation right now, open source can have a VERY long turnaround time when crossing to new OSes, leaving people crossing over, especially from OEMs such as Dell, or HP that move to the newest OS immediately, without protection while it’s updated for a new OS, where as companies are given OS Dev kits in advance.

However, while they should NOT be open source, they should on the same note be free. I WILL NOT pay to cure the poison that is omnipresent.

The benefits of open source for an anti-virus are obvious, with thousands of people around the globe having access to the code and trying to improve the product, but I think Peter is correct in his assessment. If hackers can access the source code, then the anti-virus software would quickly become worthless.