Is paying for antivirus a waste of money?

[steven36]

It's been a long time since anti-malware suites have found anything on my computers. Maybe the Windows Defender that comes with Windows 10 is good enough?

 

I always run an anti-malware security suite on my PC. Over the years I've made a point of running a variety of products.

At least for many years, perhaps more than ten, they've found no malware on my computers. None.

 

Perhaps I'm a more sophisticated user and I'm less likely to be taken off guard, but that can't be the whole answer. By the same token of expertise I take certain risks with dangerous files and sites that I would urge others to avoid like the plague.

 

But now comes news that could change the calculus: Independent test lab AV-Test's December tests of Business security suites on Windows 10 showed marked improvement for Microsoft's anti-malware engine, the one that comes free for Windows 10 users as Windows Defender. This program used to be limited to "antispyware," a strange and purposeless distinction from malware generally.

 

Microsoft has long had a free anti-malware product, Microsoft Security Essentials, for users to run on earlier versions of Windows, and it has always been used as a baseline in AV-Test rankings because it was so reliably at the bottom of the pack. Microsoft is also working to improve its protection by adding a cloud-based retrospective analysis service to detect breaches that have slipped through.

 

The results are for System Center Endpoint Protection which is its managed solution. The user experience is different, but the engine is the same and the AV-Test results should be closely comparable to tests on Microsoft's consumer product at the same time (November and December).

 

It's definitely not at the top and it's definitely not "industry-leading," but is it good enough? What do you really get from paying for the full AV subscription? The answer is complicated.

 

Because AV-Test has always shown BitDefender to have very high quality products, I decided to ask them for a response. I spoke with Bogdan Botezatu, senior e-threat analyst at BitDefender.

 

While trying hard not to bad-mouth a competitor, he pointed out that for all its improvement, Microsoft's engine and updates are still behind the leaders of the pack.

 

Until the recent results they were bad, but better than nothing and Botezatu is right about their place in the market. It's not an official position, but I've always assumed that Microsoft was intentionally trying not to use its free anti-malware to compete with the commercial products because its position with Windows would make that an unfair fight, something for which it has gotten in just a little bit of trouble in the past.

 

So Botezatu is right that if you want the best protection, Microsoft doesn't give it to you. It's reasonable to believe that it's still not trying to, but by improving its product it prods the rest of the industry to do so, although it's already a highly competitive industry, one of the most for non-free client-based software.

 

A better point is that the better commercial products like BitDefender's include a Host Intrusion Prevention Service (HIPS) which scans system behavior, including all traffic going to and from the Internet, for threats. If a threat gets through the file scanning it may still be detected by suspicious behavior. I haven't seen any of these detections either, but this is where I can reasonably say that while I might be willing to download malicious files for analysis, I'm not going to execute them (except maybe in a test VM).

 

Many of the good commercial products also maintain reputation systems for Internet sites and files and block or warn the user when a suspicious one is encountered, and I have seen these warnings, most recently from Norton. Most of the time I've considered the warnings false positives and skipped around them, but for the average user perhaps it wasn't too paranoid.

 

I should note that my anti-malware products all do find and remove tracking cookies, a "threat" I personally don't find all that threatening. I suspect they are aggressive with these cookies so they can be seen to be protecting the user.

 

Another factor is the advances in recent years in Windows and the major browsers. Windows and IE have their own reputation service called SmartScreen for sites and files, the latter on Windows 8 and later. Google has a Safe Browsing API that checks links against a blacklist. Google Chrome, Microsoft IE and Edge and Mozilla's Firefox all spend a lot of time scrutinizing web code looking for common attacks and use techniques like ASLR which, while imperfect, make the job of the attacker much harder.

 

Ironically, this technological approach is becoming less relevant in recent years, as the initial vector for attacks is increasingly one of pure social engineering. Botezatu says that at their own offices they have been receiving a barrage of malicious Office documents posing as invoices in emails to back office staff. I suspect that this sort of attack is the main way ransomware, such as that which recently held a California hospital hostage, gets into systems. Security products can try to eliminate the human factor, but those pesky humans keep finding new ways to let the barbarians past the gates.

 

Botezatu also argued for the other security features that come with modern suites, like anti-spam and even password managers. There is something to this. BitDefender's Wallet password manager is a Windows-only product but others, like Norton Identity Safe, are available on Windows, Mac, iOS and Android. I can't say how it compares to standalone password managers but, as they say about Windows Defender, it's certainly better than nothing. As for antispam, it's not a topic I've thought of for a while. I assume most people are using a mail service like Gmail that does a pretty good job of blocking spam.

 

So are the paid suites worth the money? Looking at all these facts, I'm unclear. If I'm only concerned about the scanning engine then I might go with a free product from the likes of AVG or Avira or BitDefender. If you really have a problem with the money then this is definitely your best option. But the full suites usually work out to less than $20 per year per device. That's just not that much. If I'm not sure then I'm not comfortable switching to a solution that everyone agrees is inferior.

 

It's like a motorcycle helmet. Lots of people don't wear them and never have a problem. Some people wear them and still get in fatal accidents. But it can make a big difference. If a real threat comes my way and the anti-malware stops it then it has definitely paid for itself.

 

The Source

 

[namek]

Yes.

[Holmes]

If the paid features are going to be useful for you no if you dont need the paid features then yes some products like eset trial (I dont know if this applies to different products or not eset trial you get updates later if you buy eset you get updates faster).  As for free versions of antiviruses Im pretty sure free versions of antiviruses get updates later if a user wants incremental updates they have to buy the paid version.  The answer to the question depends on what the user wants its at the users discretion.

[steven36]

Eset to this day has a  weak license  system  i been using it since 2014 and used trial keys and retail keys i get updates the same. I used back in the 1st decade some too.

 

 

I'm using a trial key right now and mine stays updated  just fine . There's only been a few times i knew of people having problems getting updates using trial versions since NOD32 v2 most were using cracks not trial keys and it happened when Eset server  got overloaded and i was able  to update using a key. I count the number of times  this happened  in the last 8 years on one hand 2 or 3 times its happened in 8 years. But what do using giveaway trial keys and cracks  got to do with buying and Antivirus ? If you buy it you would get a retail key.

 

 

[davmil]

The more conservative and adventurous the user, the less they need more than MS Antimalware... e.g. If all I do with the computer is work related and real business, you're unlikely to run into trouble.  Since you're reading this, you don't fall in that category - at least install the best of the free AV's of which I like Avast FWIW.  Those in US should keep their eyes open for places like Fry's to run promos on Kaspersky or ESET that make them nearly free (last week=free, B4 it was $9.99).

[luisam]

I find free versions of Avast and PC Tools firewall quite useful to detect some real (and many fake) menaces. I had the complete Avast installed in trial and didn't register even having the proper activation crack because I found it intrusive and it slowed my connection and loading time. I agree that greatest menace to a computer is the proper user,  victim of Trojans while installing dangerous options and opening some obvously fake links.

[steven36]

23 minutes ago, davmil said:

The more conservative and adventurous the user, the less they need more than MS Antimalware... e.g. If all I do with the computer is work related and real business

You must of not of read the 1st post very good even BD home office is being attacked  thorough emails with ransomware . That California hospital was a  business . Most every business do online banking and were most online breaches take place is a known business . Malware makers dont do it for fun anymore they do it for profit  . So why suggest using a second grade Antivirus to the most vulnerable?  Sad thing is most business are like that California hospital  and want get better protection  tell  they get infected.

[Holmes]

They give updates fine I never said they didnt update fine Im saying the trial version doesnt get the updates the paid version does trust me or dont eset trial (alteast they used to) they do later on (I have used eset for years myself and know nod thirty two antivirus).  Antivirus companies do that with updates its how they get the customer (one of the ways) to get the customer to go for the paid version.

[steven36]

All eset updates ARE public record

http://www.virusradar.com/en/update/info

 

any one can see there no difference now days .

Even with trial keys you can invoke pre-release updates and have newer modules than normal users . The only difference i really see is trial keys leave watermarks  witch i know how get rid of those too. There's different kind of trail keys too . there's 30 day ones not for resale there like retail and dont leave watermarks  and there are the ones you get from free giveaways  then they are the ones that come with nod32 . 3 different kinds of trial keys i know of.

 

Here are the limitations  in the latest trial version of NOD32

Quote

 

LIMITATIONS IN THE UNREGISTERED VERSION

• The trial version is for non-commercial, trial purposes, only
• The trial period is limited to a 30-day period. After expiration of the trial period, NOD32 has to be uninstalled or purchase

 

As far as i know for long time they all keys use the same update servers even. The problem people had with the crack was it was invoking  update servers for v4  it dont use the latest update servers like all keys do now..

 

The person who started this site cracked NOD trial @nsane that's the reason i 1st joined this site in 2007 was to learn more about NOD32 activation.

 

But still i dont see how this pertains to this topic ? No were in OP  does it say to use trial versions  it says to use a free scanner that's not WD  if you dont have the money to buy a good one .

[rahulgi]

3 hours ago, steven36 said:

 

... The only difference i really see is trial keys leave watermarks  witch i know how get rid of those too. There's different kind of trail keys too . there's 30 day ones not for resale there like retail and dont leave watermarks  and there are the ones you get from free giveaways  then they are the ones that come with nod32 . 3 different kinds of trial keys i know of. ...

 

 

Kindly share the technique, to remove the trial watermark

Thanks in advance

 

[CODYQX4]

They all suck. If you know what you're doing, they're just a waste of resources. If you don't know what you're doing, you're relying on something that is going to miss all the real world threats (to hell with those 99% tests, I've never seen AV stop any legit new viruses, just false positives and ancient viruses).

 

Had a work laptop get ransomware, Windows Defender didn't detect it. Sent the exe to VirusTotal, only 4/44 AV detected it for the malware it was.

 

Meanwhile, Windows Defender tried to stop me from running other tools to remove the virus (there were no actual files of value on that machine so simply purging the malware was sufficient).

 

PS: The tool in question was AutoRuns. That is a Microsoft program getting shitbinned by Microsoft Anti-Virus, while non-Microsoft viruses pass on through.

[steven36]

1 hour ago, CODYQX4 said:

Had a work laptop get ransomware, Windows Defender didn't detect it. Sent the exe to VirusTotal, only 4/44 AV detected it for the malware it was.

 

Quote

 

How to avoid becoming a business hostage to ransomware

If there’s one security threat that strikes fear in the hearts of companies of every size and kind, it’s ransomware. One of the fastest-growing types of malware today, ransomware uses encryption to lock you out of your data – and then forces you to pay a ransom to have it decrypted. We wrote in a previous post about some common-sense steps to take to reduce the risk of being victimized. Now let’s look at the specific endpoint-security strategy we recommend to block ransomware, including the technologies that are part of that strategy.

Three-layer security to keep you safe, safer, safest

There are three types of endpoint-security solutions that protect against ransomware attacks. We recommend combining them to improve your chances of being able to repel an attack.

1. Definition-based anti-virus

Make sure your security strategy includes definition-based anti-virus software, which works by detecting patterns in files and attachments that indicate the presence of known security threats. Consider products from top vendors like Webroot (our go-to choice), Bitdefender and Kaspersky, or McAfee offerings from Intel Security.

2. Behavioral-based anti-malware

As the name suggests, behavioral-based protection detects security intrusions by watching for unusual system or user behaviors. With this type of software layered on top of your anti-virus solution, you have two levels of protection. We use anti-malware from Malwarebytes; you’ll also find choices in this category from f-secure and ESET.

3. Content filtering

While anti-virus and anti-malware solutions protect against threats in email and email attachments, content filtering software detects malware on websites that have been set up for the very purpose of spreading infections. Our top choice is OpenDNS (To learn more about OpenDNS, check out this post from our Director of Operations). WebSense, Barracuda and WebTitan are other options.

You may find that some vendors offer two types of protection – or even all three types – in one solution. It may be tempting to simplify by pursuing one of these, but we recommend that you stick with the three-layer strategy. We believe it’s your best chance of getting the most effective solution possible within each category of protection.

Taking every precaution to minimize the impact of ransomware

Remember that one holiday season when you got a flu shot, washed your hands in hot water every 30 minutes and avoided parties like the plague so you wouldn’t get sick? And remember how you got sick anyway? Unfortunately, that can also happen with ransomware (or any type of malware). There’s just no protection against it that’s 100 percent effective. But as with the flu, there’s something you can do to make the experience a lot less miserable.

Think of a robust backup solution as Tamiflu for a ransomware attack – something that can help you recover quickly and with minimal pain and suffering. Look for backup software that can not only back up and recover your data, but also restore your operating system, applications and configurations. That way, you won’t have to spend time and money getting everything back to the way it was before.

The threat is evolving – fortunately, so is the response

It’s in the nature of malware to evolve and mutate into new threats, each worse than the last. The latest stage in the evolution of ransomware is extortionware, in which the people holding your data hostage also hold on to a copy of it. Then, after you’ve paid them to decrypt your data, they demand another payment to stop them from exposing sensitive information using the copy they’ve kept.

The good news is that security responses are evolving, too. One approach that security experts are starting to talk about is for organizations to proactively encrypt all data so that it can’t be encrypted by ransomware. Other approaches will continue to emerge as the battle to keep data safe goes on. We’re here in the trenches doing our part, and we’re happy to advise you in any way we can.

http://www.myitpros.com/how-to-avoid-ransomware/

 

No were does it say WD would be of any value to stop it

[Holmes]

They must have fixed it I read a article that says they ended up fixing it.  You get the same updates with trial as you do with paid version now.  I joined nsane because I downloaded box mara through torrent and nsane url was in the readme.  I mentioned trial because what nod thirty two did was the same as what free antiviruses do now (it wasnt off topic it was relevant).  I learned all about installing cracks from playing with so many of them.  I know right now eset cant help to much with ransomware that could change I have always loved eset always have always am going to (If I can save money and use box mara fix to get eset permanently Im going to do that if I have the money Ill buy it (support the developers)).

[straycat19]

I haven't run any AV program on my main computers and I disable Defender.  I do have my system locked down with group policy and a good firewall.  Occasionally I will scan it with a boot ISO such as Kaspersky or run Malwarebytes on it.  But, between all the security settings I enable in my  browsers and the above mentioned protections, I do run nothing else on the system.  I have retail keys for BitDefender, Kaspersky, and Norton but only use those on test systems and one forensic system that I use to test malware on.  If you are computer literate (and that doesn't mean knowing where the power button is) and you are familiar with the internal coding and administration of Windows then you shouldn't have any problem securing your system.  BTW, I don't install any updates after June 2015 either, just to keep the MicroCrap off my system.  The bottom line, it's whatever you prefer to do, however, the list of malware that AV programs will not detect/block is twice as long as what they do.

[davmil]

11 hours ago, steven36 said:

You must of not of read the 1st post very good even BD home office is being attacked  thorough emails with ransomware . That California hospital was a  business . Most every business do online banking and were most online breaches take place is a known business . Malware makers dont do it for fun anymore they do it for profit  . So why suggest using a second grade Antivirus to the most vulnerable?  Sad thing is most business are like that California hospital  and want get better protection  tell  they get infected.

Fair.  Point taken.

[OrbingStorm]

Windows defender for popular malware,Malwarebytes for the stubborn ones,Anti exploit for the unknown ones,and hosts block keeps me covered.

[namek]

It all depends on the user. There are malwares which none of those Antiviruses will detect, and false positives drive users crazy. I did deep testing using Kaspersky, NOD32, Norton, Bit Defender, MS Security Essentials. And every one failed at one time or another. Ransomwares, scamming softwares find the way to turn all security off, Antiviruses don't detect many of them. And sometimes legit applications get broken due to false positives in heuristics engine. All anti-malware software heavily impacts system performance some more some less. Some anti-malware software isn't configurable enough to avoid it's interruption at the worst moments. The way i see it:

 

If you are advanced user, you'll never need an anti-malware at all, because you don't launch harmful/unknown executables, you don't use bizarre dynamic link libraries and you can read scripts.

If you are basic user, even if you use anti-malware software, you'll grant administrative permissions to harmful/unknown executables, because you can't accurately distinguish between harmful and safe executables and dynamic link libraries you can't read scripts. What can anti-malware software do if it is tempered by malware? Or not detected at all?

 

Sure, advanced users are humans and makes mistakes, get unlucky sometimes, and not all executables are easy to distinguish. But simple malware which are easily get caught by anti-malware software, are easily get caught by advanced user. Advanced users know the naming of legit processes and their paths in their system, can detect an infection and remove it manually if it happens.

 

Then why to use anti-malware at all? Advanced users use just deep scan to clean most noticeable malwares on infected system in conjunction with other administrative tools to speed up the process of manual cleaning. I'm pretty sure that advanced users don't get infected in years and if basic user gets infected using antimalware software it won't help them and might even prevent easy malware cleaning.

 

What's the way to not get infected? Educate yourselves, learn about your system, how it works etc. There aren't any simple solutions.

 

Be safe.

[pc71520]

Sandboxing & Imaging Security approach, here.

I use several on-Demand Tools; not a Real-Time/Resident Anti-malware.

[steven36]

7 hours ago, namek said:

It all depends on the user. There are malwares which none of those Antiviruses will detect, and false positives drive users crazy. I did deep testing using Kaspersky, NOD32, Norton, Bit Defender, MS Security Essentials. And every one failed at one time or another. Ransomwares, scamming softwares find the way to turn all security off, Antiviruses don't detect many of them. And sometimes legit applications get broken due to false positives in heuristics engine. All anti-malware software heavily impacts system performance some more some less. Some anti-malware software isn't configurable enough to avoid it's interruption at the worst moments. The way i see it:

No anti malware is 100%  effective but nether is any test anyone does would any user subject themselves too in the wild .. No one would download  a 1000 pieces of malware and subject themselves to it.

 

With NOD32  i really not had a problem with  false positives much other than some websites if i trust the site and know its a false positive i exclude it

 

7 hours ago, namek said:

If you are advanced user, you'll never need an anti-malware at all, because you don't launch harmful/unknown executables, you don't use bizarre dynamic link libraries and you can read scripts.

If you are basic user, even if you use anti-malware software, you'll grant administrative permissions to harmful/unknown executables, because you can't accurately distinguish between harmful and safe executables and dynamic link libraries you can't read scripts. What can anti-malware software do if it is tempered by malware? Or not detected at all?

  If everyone that was a advanced  user  didn't  use anti malware the internet would be like the early 2000s again and virus  would infect almost every single machine  ..Most old virus Antivirus  wiped  them out years ago .

 

7 hours ago, namek said:

Then why to use anti-malware at all? Advanced users use just deep scan to clean most noticeable malwares on infected system in conjunction with other administrative tools to speed up the process of manual cleaning. I'm pretty sure that advanced users don't get infected in years and if basic user gets infected using antimalware software it won't help them and might even prevent easy malware cleaning.

The question  is why not use them ? By not using them you're just protecting yourself  less .. But the key to using one is to always treat them as you dont have one at all. Don't act as it can protect you 100% because nothing can not even using you're brain can .While no antivirus can detect new malwares sooner or latter it will get the signature to protect you. Its a on going library of signatures.

 

Security should be  used in layers.. use you're brain , antivirus  , block ads , block known malware sites,block scripts,  that serve no use., use a good firewall , encrypt  you're traffic.  Man should not live by bread alone..  I've not been infected  since 2008  because  i do all these things .. I use a Antivirus  just incase  . I'm not changing my routine of what works for me because someone claims i dont need something ..

 

I seen people come on this very site who went years not using and  Antivirus because they thought  they were smarter than real time  protection  and ended up infected and a Antivirus most likely could have prevented it. 

 

A lot of protection is a lot of chances you dont get infected . Some protection is some chances you dont get infected. And no protection there's very little chance you dont get infected  when the real thing comes along . Prevention is 10 times more powerful than a cure .

[Akaneharuka]

My father pay around 5000 Japanese en each year for trend micro

[namek]

1 hour ago, steven36 said:

 

My job is to restore systems after malware damage and infections. Anti-Malwares sometimes prevents you to clean infected files/malware exes, i always uninstall all anti-malwares first before proceeding any cleaning/repair. Most infected computers are those which use Avast, Norton, Avira, NOD32, least are Kaspersky, BitDefender, McAfee based on my own work with infected systems. Those statistics must be taken with grain of salt, because different users downloads different files etc.

 

Quote

With NOD32  i really not had a problem with  false positives much other than some websites if i trust the site and know its a false positive i exclude it

 

Lucky.

 

Quote

The question  is why not use them ? By not using them you're just protecting yourself  less .. But the key to using one is to always treat them as you dont have one at all. Don't act as it can protect you 100% because nothing can not even using you're brain can .While no antivirus can detect new malwares sooner or latter it will get the signature to protect you. Its a on going library of signatures.

 

System performance degrades substantially. I'm not telling that i'm 100% secure, that i'm genius who can detect any malware. No! What i'm saying, that i'm better without it. You have to pay to use Anti-Malwares, those free are nothing but computer slow down tools. I run a scan once a year on my own computers, and never ever anti-malware software found any infections, just a bunch of false positives (packers). Usually i find malware before software finds it.

Also it disturbs low level programming or interfacing with external devices, it's really frustrating. Try to update your bios, or any microcode while using an anti-malware.

 

Quote

If everyone that was a advanced  user  didn't  use anti malware the internet would be like the early 2000s again and virus  would infect almost every single machine  ..Most old virus Antivirus  wiped  them out years ago .

 

Umm. No. That's just plain wrong. It's because software were patched with security updates.

 

Quote

Security should be  used in layers.. use you're brain , antivirus  , block ads , block known malware sites,block scripts,  that serve no use., use a good firewall , encrypt  you're traffic.  Man should not live by bread alone..  I've not been infected  since 2008  because  i do all these things .. I use a Antivirus  just incase  . I'm not changing my routine of what works for me because someone claims i dont need something ..

 

I wasn't talking about firewalls, ad-blockers because it isn't the topic. Of course these things are necessary. And I'm not telling anyone to change their habits, i just wrote my opinion about Anti-Malware software. If you're happy I'm twice as happy.

 

Quote

I seen people come on this very site who went years not using and  Antivirus because they thought  they were smarter than real time  protection  and ended up infected and a Antivirus most likely could have prevented it. 

 

I think they wouldn't admit to be outsmarted by a software. It all depends on persons knowledge. If person knows too little about these things he/she will get infected for sure even with Anti-malware. Trust me on this, I've cleaned a lot of infected systems.

 

I understand what you are saying - more security is better than less. Yes, but by how much better? Tiny bit or most of it? After so many years working with computers i can easily say that if I'll get infected, anti-malware will be useless. I can easily develop a malware no anti-malware will detect it. And I'm not genius programmer, but i know some stuff.

[gipsy]

58 minutes ago, Akaneharuka said:

My father pay around 5000 Japanese en each year for trend micro

about 50 bucks per year...not too big for safety illusion.

did not pay for this stuff & won't.

btw.can save next your old man fifty,u know what to do

 

[steven36]

24 minutes ago, namek said:

Umm. No. That's just plain wrong. It's because software were patched with security updates.

The 1st  rasomware  for Mac was spread  though a program for p2p that's updated a lot while patching software is good its a losing battle because malware writers will always find new backdoors in . They patch all software month after month  just to do it again . So relying  on this just a false sense .

 

24 minutes ago, namek said:

I wasn't talking about firewalls, ad-blockers because it isn't the topic. Of course these things are necessary. And I'm not telling anyone to change their habits, i just wrote my opinion about Anti-Malware software. If you're happy I'm twice as happy.

If they would make windows more secure I would not need antimalware  unlike Linux Microsoft seems to think you need it there version comes built into windows now . And trust me Microsoft would never pay to keep up a antivirus if they didn't think it was needed . The fact is even though  they patch it they have a antivirus. why not use better than there's ?

 

You trying tell me you know more than all the ITs an security experts in the world ? im sorry i just cant buy it from one mans opinion on a forum .

[jamesDDI]

3 hours ago, Akaneharuka said:

My father pay around 5000 Japanese en each year for trend micro

 

Trend Micro? Seriously?  Let me talk with your dad please. Not in Japanese obviously. 1 hour, i need only one hour, to the end he will use ONLY Eset stuff  

[namek]

6 hours ago, steven36 said:

You trying tell me you know more than all the ITs an security experts in the world ? im sorry i just cant buy it from one mans opinion on a forum .

 

Again...if stuff that i know means i know more than all IT experts combined, that means they know almost nothing. It's just plain opinion, don't take it, buy it, personally. There are so many things for me to learn, that sometimes i feel i know so little...but I'm not saying things blindly, I'm expressing my opinion honestly. Without any intention to make you do things differently.

 

6 hours ago, steven36 said:

The 1st  rasomware  for Mac was spread  though a program for p2p that's updated a lot while patching software is good its a losing battle because malware writers will always find new backdoors in . They patch all software month after month  just to do it again . So relying  on this just a false sense .

 

Same thing with anti-malware. You have to change a tiny bit of code to make malware undetectable again.