Security Suites

[Luke]

Hey

Never really used AV or Firewalls except for the built in Windows one. So I'm looking for security suite (antivirus, firewall, possibily antispam) that uses minimal system resources.

Paid or Free - not fussed.

Cheers
Luke

[matt$]

I've got Avast, the free version and its quite good (1 year free i believe) but there's also a paid version it does its job so yea i'd recccomend that. :)

[Apolva]

Kaspersky is one of the best commercial ones, along with NOD32.

Malwarebyte's AntiMalware is also pretty good as just a standalone AV.

Stay clear of Norton and Mcafee.

[Smits]

I'd highly reccoment NOD32 as i use it myself. Kapersky is also of similiar high quality.

[xxMATTGxx]

Hey

Never really used AV or Firewalls except for the built in Windows one. So I'm looking for security suite (antivirus, firewall, possibily antispam) that uses minimal system resources.

Paid or Free - not fussed.

Cheers
Luke

ESET NOD32 Antivirus
ESET Smart Security
Kaspersky
Microsoft Security Essentials

[Recursion]

ESET Smart Security has been proven to be the best out there, and it's a full suite.

I don't pay for my security anymore, I use two seperate products, MS Security Essentials and COMODO Firewall, although I'm probably going to go back to ESET SS at some point :/

[Stephen]

I got microsoft security essentials. Tis good

[Stephen!]

I have a Nod32 subscription, but I use Microsoft Security Essentials instead.

[marriott0.01]

I've always preferred Avast. I even use it on my mac, which is pointless :rolleyes:

[Luke]

Hmm, out of MS Security Essentials and ESET SS, which uses less resources?

[Jordy]

Hmm, out of MS Security Essentials and ESET SS, which uses less resources?I think they're both pretty low on resources hence they're so popular. MSE is an anti-virus, ESET SS is a security suite so chances are MSE is lower on resources. But the bottom line is you can't compare the two and they're both low on resources :)

[Luke]

Fair doos, think i'll just go with MS then.

Cheers everyone
+rep to all *if i can*
EDIT: Sorry Tom and Jordy, gotta spread (N)

[Apolva]

Hmm, out of MS Security Essentials and ESET SS, which uses less resources?

I'd rather trust a different company, other than the one with the security holes in the first place.

[Stephen]

I'd rather trust a different company, other than the one with the security holes in the first place.

Errrrr what?

[Apolva]

Errrrr what?

I'd rather ESSET/Kasp. over Microsoft.

[GommeInc]

I'd rather ESSET/Kasp. over Microsoft.

That's pretty naive :/ Security holes vary with software, you do realise? The OS is just one part of a problem. An OS company cannot insure software companies can protect their software to use with their operating system. Take Firefox for example, users pick up viruses all the time and Microsoft hear of these attacks, so it's quite wise of them to create an anti-virus of their own because they understand where the vulnerabilities are. Firefox, or more clearly, Mozilla are to blame for any vulnerabilities that may harm the user, which is why Mozilla also release patches and security updates. It's probably why Windows 7 is quite a secure OS compared to older operating systems or the competition, seeing as Microsoft are now looking into vulnerabilities and understand how they work. I think they may also keep in close contact with other anti-virus companies, sharing information with them and vice versa.

[Recursion]

I'd rather trust a different company, other than the one with the security holes in the first place.

You do realise, Linux, MacOS, FreeBSD, Windows, DOS, whatever, you name it, it'll have security flaws.

Everything humans make has a flaw somewhere.

[Apolva]

I'm not talking about vulnerabilities in other software, clearly it is the fault of the software vendor for these.

No software's perfect, but seeing as Microsoft don't exactly have a clean record for addressing bugs as they are found (IE for example), I would think twice about using their security software.

[Stephen]

Your thoughts are quite funny. Glad you aren't a software reviewer.

"This software is going to be buggy as hell because they made this other software which was buggy
1/10"

[Recursion]

I'm not talking about vulnerabilities in other software, clearly it is the fault of the software vendor for these.

No software's perfect, but seeing as Microsoft don't exactly have a clean record for addressing bugs as they are found (IE for example), I would think twice about using their security software.

Unfortunatly Apple are the same, so the two major software vendors are as bad as each other.

Apple left an issue where using the guest account would wipe your other user account files for months on end, they also had the first machine to go down at the Pwn2Own hacking competition

[Apolva]

OneCare was their last attempt at providing virus protection software, which was mediocre. That in mind, I'd rather stick with something trusted.

End of.

[Agnostic Bear]

OneCare was their last attempt at providing virus protection software, which was mediocre. That in mind, I'd rather stick with something trusted.

End of.

MSE is trusted and a fairly fantastic free solution. Go read reviews instead of just being hip and cool and "durr lets hate on microsoft lolllllllllllllllllllllll"

[GommeInc]

MSE is trusted and a fairly fantastic free solution. Go read reviews instead of just being hip and cool and "durr lets hate on microsoft lolllllllllllllllllllllll"
What she said ^

MSE is trusted. AVG and Norton, both independent companies are okay, but have their flaws and your logic would suggest these will definitely be better, when they aren't.

Also, Microsoft are very good at fixing flaws in Microsoft Office, or that's what the updates suggest :P

[peteyt]

When it comes to security it all depends on what you want. People always seem to want as much as they can, the problem being the more secure you make your pc the more slow it will be and the less fun it will be.

I've been using BitDefender Total Security for a while - it seems to not be a resource hog, and offers quite a lot, but like all secruity suites it has its fair share of problems.

I'm not a fan of windows firewall.

[Flisker]

I use Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Firewall. Oh as well as the normal firewalls on the routers.

[Recursion]

Setup an Ubuntu linux box as your router, then it can be your firewall and scan traffic with ClamAV without slowing your PC down ;D

[Luke]

Setup an Ubuntu linux box as your router, then it can be your firewall and scan traffic with ClamAV without slowing your PC down ;D

I'll pass :P Sounds..difficult :L

[peteyt]

One thing ive never understood when it comes to security suites. Apparently the two most popular security suites, Norton and McAfee, often fail the most in tests and professionals will also try to make you stay clear of them.

So the question is why doesn't it work. I've heard Norton is actually a lot better, but still can have issues. I have used it years back so can't say much now. A lot will still try to make you stay clear of it, but they are judging it on bad past experiences that might have now been fixed - e.g. apparently norton is a lot more lighter on resources than previous versions. But with all the people still hating it, why all the sales.

Is it due to a lack of advertising/marketing from other suites? I mean if Norton and McAfee are still at the bottom, why aren't people going for others. Maybe its pricing, although I've seen some highly reccomended ones cheaper. Maybe its just the deals they have with manufacters, as often Norton comes free with computers and laptops, same with McAfee. Often people just take these reccomendations and don't change.

Anyone got any gueses?

Also a lot of securtiy experts say that having multiple security programs is the way forward. Its true that no security suite/program is perfect, and so experts beleive using multiple can be effective, but then experts mention the problems of running multiple security programs, mainly problems with them crashing with each other.

Finally what I find interesting is a lot of people beleive they are protect from human error. Its been proved a lot of infections could be easily avoided. Security suites try as hard to protect you as possible, but you also need to know how to spot suspcious looking sites and avoid dangerous downloads.

[Recursion]

One thing ive never understood when it comes to security suites. Apparently the two most popular security suites, Norton and McAfee, often fail the most in tests and professionals will also try to make you stay clear of them.

So the question is why doesn't it work. I've heard Norton is actually a lot better, but still can have issues. I have used it years back so can't say much now. A lot will still try to make you stay clear of it, but they are judging it on bad past experiences that might have now been fixed - e.g. apparently norton is a lot more lighter on resources than previous versions. But with all the people still hating it, why all the sales.

Is it due to a lack of advertising/marketing from other suites? I mean if Norton and McAfee are still at the bottom, why aren't people going for others. Maybe its pricing, although I've seen some highly reccomended ones cheaper. Maybe its just the deals they have with manufacters, as often Norton comes free with computers and laptops, same with McAfee. Often people just take these reccomendations and don't change.

Anyone got any gueses?

Also a lot of securtiy experts say that having multiple security programs is the way forward. Its true that no security suite/program is perfect, and so experts beleive using multiple can be effective, but then experts mention the problems of running multiple security programs, mainly problems with them crashing with each other.

Finally what I find interesting is a lot of people beleive they are protect from human error. Its been proved a lot of infections could be easily avoided. Security suites try as hard to protect you as possible, but you also need to know how to spot suspcious looking sites and avoid dangerous downloads.

I'm basing my opinions on 3rd party statistical data, an the fact that when McAfee screwed up their Enterprise AV database update I had to go around a school manually booting every PC into safe mode and installing a patch to roll the database back just to make the system useable, am not looking at the best out there, which is NOD32.

And I have to say, most problems are E(rror)B(etween)K(eyboard)A(nd)C(hair) really.

[peteyt]

Why not use NOD32 then if it is the best?

I mean its not perfect. I've tried it. I've tried multiple ones, AVG Security Suite, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, McAfee Total Protection, BitDefender Total Security, Norton Security, Trend Micro Security etc.

Its interesting how people think security suites shouldn't leave a footprint at all. People seem to want the most protection possible, without realising the more protective you are, the slower your computer will be. A lot of these suites are often set by default to constantly scan your files for viruses, the problem of course being that when its scanning these files, which is often all the time, it effects other stuff. I know of people, a friend of mine comes to mind, who i've put different securtity suites on in the past, and he's often removed them because they have slowed his PC and Laptop. I want something thats lightweight to a certain degree, but people need to realise that in order to have a certain level of security, you'll need to loose some speed and performance. However it is definatley worth it.

I hear of people who don't use antivirus programs claiming they can see when a virus comes on their PC and can remove it manually. Often these people just look out for obvious signs - things not working, e.g. Windows Update, other security programs etc. Things turning up from nowhere, users sure they didn't instal them, things going slow etc. However as viruses become more clever, it can be a lot harder to realise you have one without an antivirus.

What really gets me the most is how people often don't learn. For example we have a family computer, seperate to mine. My dad has lost a loft of stuff mutiple times in the past, because either himself or my brother has got an infection or something, and whatever it was got too deep and ended up needing a reformat. He would always complain, often saying he'd lost stuff he'd have to start from scratch and so on. Yet everytime I told him he should back up his stuff he's just ignored me. I have an external - everything gets backed up, so if my PC breaks, I've got all I need. I often put large files/downloads onto my external to - then remove them from my PC. So if I need to re-install it I've got it on my external and the download itself isn't taking any space on my main pc. However you don't need an external - a disc or even a small pen drive can hold quite a few documents.

It just seems a lot of computer users don't learn from their mistakes. My brother would never look after the family PC, and I was always called to fix it. What really annoyed me is when there was a virus he wouldn't let me on his computer, as it was still working at the time. He wouldn't try to fix it either, in other words just wanted to play on his games, even when I warned him he might not be able to play on them soon if the infection got worse. Each time it did, and he'd complain. Why don't people just learn from their mistakes lol?

[Luke]

Why not use NOD32 then if it is the best?

I mean its not perfect. I've tried it. I've tried multiple ones, AVG Security Suite, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, McAfee Total Protection, BitDefender Total Security, Norton Security, Trend Micro Security etc.

Its interesting how people think security suites shouldn't leave a footprint at all. People seem to want the most protection possible, without realising the more protective you are, the slower your computer will be. A lot of these suites are often set by default to constantly scan your files for viruses, the problem of course being that when its scanning these files, which is often all the time, it effects other stuff. I know of people, a friend of mine comes to mind, who i've put different securtity suites on in the past, and he's often removed them because they have slowed his PC and Laptop. I want something thats lightweight to a certain degree, but people need to realise that in order to have a certain level of security, you'll need to loose some speed and performance. However it is definatley worth it.

I hear of people who don't use antivirus programs claiming they can see when a virus comes on their PC and can remove it manually. Often these people just look out for obvious signs - things not working, e.g. Windows Update, other security programs etc. Things turning up from nowhere, users sure they didn't instal them, things going slow etc. However as viruses become more clever, it can be a lot harder to realise you have one without an antivirus.

What really gets me the most is how people often don't learn. For example we have a family computer, seperate to mine. My dad has lost a loft of stuff mutiple times in the past, because either himself or my brother has got an infection or something, and whatever it was got too deep and ended up needing a reformat. He would always complain, often saying he'd lost stuff he'd have to start from scratch and so on. Yet everytime I told him he should back up his stuff he's just ignored me. I have an external - everything gets backed up, so if my PC breaks, I've got all I need. I often put large files/downloads onto my external to - then remove them from my PC. So if I need to re-install it I've got it on my external and the download itself isn't taking any space on my main pc. However you don't need an external - a disc or even a small pen drive can hold quite a few documents.

It just seems a lot of computer users don't learn from their mistakes. My brother would never look after the family PC, and I was always called to fix it. What really annoyed me is when there was a virus he wouldn't let me on his computer, as it was still working at the time. He wouldn't try to fix it either, in other words just wanted to play on his games, even when I warned him he might not be able to play on them soon if the infection got worse. Each time it did, and he'd complain. Why don't people just learn from their mistakes lol?

Who made a mistake here?

[peteyt]

Who made a mistake here?
Sorry?

[Luke]

You posted that as if someone was complaining in this thread?

[peteyt]

I didnt mean it to sound like that I was just posting observations