Internet Security

[George]

I currently use AVG 8.5 Pro and Spyware Doctor, too, but like I said I am
not really happy with them for various reasons not to do with security
itself, so I am looking for a new package to try. The old Ad Aware was
better than Spyware Doctor IMO. I would rather use an all-in-one than
separate, too, if it does good enough for what I need. I also used to use
Norton's but their software totally invades and hooks into your system and
conflicts with some other apps, and it will not allow you to uninstall it
because it is so hooked into your PC, it even uses a rootkit for gods sake;
I finally got it totally gone and I would never use it again (I have found
many others who feel the same way).

Pete B,

Even the experts agree that suites are not really a good thing. Read here
and learn some things. Just trying to be helpful.

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/090326/
Readers share their Security Baseline nominees

This article says the same thing you are reading in this newsgroup!

George

 

[Pete B]

George, I am not saying everybody is wrong about the pick-and-choose method.
But as the article you linked states right out of the gate:

"Windows Secrets readers have been giving me their feedback loud and clear:
they hate Norton all-in-one products [amen, brother!! PB] and love
standalone antivirus, antispyware, and firewall apps.

That's me... the no muss, no fuss guy.

Further on, I note that some of the reasons they prefer to pick from the
bunch seems to be because they like free apps, at least that is what they
note as plus factors. Well, I am not rerally worried about paid vs free, in
fact I prefer the pro, paid version almost always.

I used to do just what you and the article says, one brand AV, another brand
spyware detect, another brand malware etc. But not having seen that much
real difference between ther individual brands (all the AVs detect viruses,
more or less the same; all the spyware apps detect spyware, more or less
the same, etc.) I just decided that I would get the best overall package
and be done with it, since what I am most interested in, the effects of the
package on my system and its performance, are likely to be more consistent
with one brand than with three or four.

So I will be aware that suites are not the ideal, but then I am happy just
getting the second-shelf stuff instead of the top-shelf stuff. And perhaps,
unlike you all, my view of all this is that a security suite is something
that I should not ever really have to think about once I have it up and
running; security is not an end in itself, if I do have to bother with it,
something is wrong with it. I will install a suite and hopefully that suite
is what I will end up with, and I will only have to do it once rather than
three or four times and I'll be done with it. Even if it is not a Cadillac,
I can live with a Chevy that has four wheels and runs, you know? And no
matter what, it beats building the perfect car from scratch all to hell and
gone....

My $0.002 worth, anyway....

 

[George]

George, I am not saying everybody is wrong about the pick-and-choose
method. But as the article you linked states right out of the gate:

"Windows Secrets readers have been giving me their feedback loud and
clear: they hate Norton all-in-one products [amen, brother!! PB] and love
standalone antivirus, antispyware, and firewall apps.

That's me... the no muss, no fuss guy.

Pete B,

You do realize your are talking about PC's don't you? You MUST muss, if you
will, with your PC to keep it safe, just how it is today.

I wish you well in your pursuit of happiness with your security suite!

George

 

[Alister]

Pete B wrote:

<snip>

Hi Pete,

Ok, so you are happy to go with a suite, that is your choice, but I
would like to comment on something you said:

security is not an end in itself, if I do have to bother with it,
something is wrong with it.

Oh dear. Security /is/ an end in itself and you do have to bother with
it, that's the whole point. Do you really trust /any/ piece of software
enough to let it get on with protecting you without any intervention on
your part? I don't, and I doubt many people would on this newsgroup.

That's why people have suggested going with a multi layered solution
from different companies.

You, as a computer user, need to be involved in the security process,
particularly with regard to what is allowed to run on your machine and
what isn't, as no Antivirus suite can possibly know all of the software
you want to run on your machine, some of which may do weird things to
your registry, or connect to the internet on strange ports, so if a new
one crops up you have to rely on the software recognising a possible
intruder and asking for your decision as to what to do with it.

Alister

 

[Pete B]

security is not an end in itself, if I do have to bother with it,

Oh dear. Security /is/ an end in itself and you do have to bother with it,
that's the whole point. Do you really trust /any/ piece of software enough
to let it get on with protecting you without any intervention on your
part? I don't, and I doubt many people would on this newsgroup.

Let me turn that question on its head, and ask you: Are you **really**
claiming that, say, Kaspersky's Security Suite, the AV engine of which
powers perhaps dozens of other AV software apps worldwide, is a piece of
junk? That this suite, one of the most popular and highly rated security
apps in the world, has been deceiving all of its millions of users for years
on end throughout Europe and now the US too, allowing ungodly vicious hack
attacks everywhere in the world it is used?

And finally, exactly what attention do **you** give to your AV software, and
your antispam software, and such on a daily basis that requires your
constant attention and monitoring? Do you actually spend time every day
**doing things** with your AV software to check up on its -performance, or
fine-tune it, or the like? If so, what exactly is it that your AV software
lacks that necessitates you doing things that the AV software is supposed to
do for you: do you have to adjust its parameters, or test its reliability,
or watch it work to make sure it is up to par every day? Do you go watch
your firewall check and intercept stuff, put up a display that actively
monitors its activity second by second, observe each hit and actually go
find out what it was doing when it, say, blocked that "amrlvd" incoming ping
from reaching your PC?

Not me. Contrary to your claim, I indeed DO pay attention to security --
that is what I have been doing with this thread here and in a few other
forums, seeking advice on which products perform their functions adequately
for my needs. But once I arrive at a solution, I will install a security
software app, do the initial checks that such software does for one's first
run on a new system, and that will be it. After that software is in and
working, the extent of my interaction with it will be to monitor my PC
startup to make sure the software is up and running first thing every day
and is up to date with the latest info.

Beyond that, I will go about my computing, never giving it a thought,
because that is what I am paying the company that sold it to me to do. It
will be as out of sight, out of mind as is the Win API routine that
continually runs my Windows shell. Unless something goes wrong that
indicates my software has failed in its task, well, no, I will not give it
the slightest thought. That software is most definitely NOT an end in
itself, it is actually the very antithesis of an end: like I said, if I do
have to pay attention to it beyond one startup moment every day, then it is
not doing what it is supposed to do. I do not operate my PC at all to see
how well I can guard against and prevent security attacks, I operate it to
do other things. Indeed, I have to make sure it is secure, just like I have
to make sure there is gasoline in my car in order to run my vehicle, but
unless my engine sputters and dies or starts to clank and groan, I do not
think about it at all either, because I did not buy my car to monitor its
performance all day, I bought it to transport me with no need for me to
worry about it being able to stop and go each foot I travel.

Now I have seen all the comments about everybody saying you must "mix and
match" to get the right applications to secure your PC. But funny thing is,
no two people seem to agree on exactly what that combination should be. So
I really fail to see why it is **necessary** to individually select each
such component. AFAIAC the AVG software I use now keeps my system as secure
as it ever could be, and it is an all-in-one. I have used individual apps
in the past, as I said, but I saw no big benefit from doing it that way that
I do not get with just AVG doing everything, so why should I go back to
picking and choosing? And AVG does what it does without me paying it the
slightest attention from one day to the next, which is what I say a security
app should do; if I had to constantly mess with or monitor AVG to keep my
PC secure, it would have been gone long ago. It is only its performance
interacting with my PC that makes me want to change it out; it secures my
system just fine, but then, so does McAffee or any of the others I have used
on this and other PCs; they all **secure** a PC more or less equally, it is
just how they affect the system they are running on that is an issue, but
that is true of any other software as well.

I use the built-in IE internet browser with Windows, even though some claim
that other third-party browsers are better, and I don't feel I have suffered
for it one damned bit: IE 7 gets me where I want to go on the internet, it
does everything I want it to do and little if anything I do not want it to
do, so hey, why get another individual component when the packaged one built
in to WinXP will suit me fine?

Likewise, I use IE Express for my mail client, even though there are dozens
of other clients out there. IEx fetches my email when I want it, sends my
outgoing messages off to the world without complaint or attention, filters
out the stuff I want it to throw away, so why would I care if there is a
"better" one out there? IEx does me fine. I have Office with MS Outlook
that I could use, and it is more bells and whistles for sure, but who needs
it? Not me.

The list goes on and on. Maybe you enjoy being overly engaged interacting
with your system's security every moment you are on the net, I don't. I
don't use my PC to see how well it is protected, I use it for the good stuff
on the net that I enjoy. So I am happy with a security suite running in the
background, it will do me fine as it has done for all the past two decades.

So shoot me... life on the edge is my bag...

:=)

BTW I think I have decided to get Kaspersky's Internet Security 2009:

http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_internet_security

 

[John A]

Kaspersky Antivirus, Superantispyware Pro and Windows native firewall.

 

[Kayman]

I do not disagree or claim what you posted is wrong. It is simply not what
I asked about, and IMO is far more appropriate for a business environment
machine than for a simple home user. Nothing you posted about is new to me,
I am aware of all those security measures you wrote, and used most in the
past but I do not need all those things now. I am not trying to protect the
Keys To The Kingdom, I simply want to avoid an annoying intrusion on my PC.

For example, I practiced that procedure faithfully about avoiding running as
an Admin user, protecting passwords, etc. at my business before I retired,
when I was working as a data analyst and software engineer. As well, most
of the other suggestions you posted were part of our business practice for
our workstations.

But now I am retired, I use my PC at home as a stand-alone system for
completely non-business purposes, and I am the only user that ever touches
this PC. The only data of value on my system here are my passwords, which
are contained in an encrypted file managed by a very robust password
application which itself is encrypted and requires a password, and my
financial data, but since my whole financial system is also very well
encrypted, I doubt if any intruder could do anything with it even if they
did manage to hack in, since I store all my vital personal data on an
encrypted removable data drive, which I only power on and use when it is
needed (and I back up that data often). Furthermore, I am one of those few
who actually have subscribe to a credit watch service for many years, so
even my financial affairs outside of the computer are protected very well,
and I check what is going on there quite often to make sure nothing is
changed.

And because I do frequent image and data backups (I use Acronis TrueImage),
even if some hacker did manage to bust in and demolish my operating system,
I would not be devastated or totally suicidal; I would simply wipe out the
HDD and restore the image and carry on.... but having to do so would piss me
off for the time it would waste, that's all.

Like I said, I have actually run my home system the way I do now since the
days of the first personal computers back in the '80s, and even did so for
many years early on with no security at all on my system. I only started
using security when I began doing things at home that needed to be secured,
but I have never actually had my system successfully hacked in all the years
I have used it because among other things, I am careful what I do on the
'net, and I now use a commercial internet security package which so far has
protected me totally (and I know it has because I can read the logs it keeps
showing exactly what it did all the time I was running).

I have found that a commercial software internet security package suits my
needs just fine. I know there is always a slim chance that some evildoer
will still get in somehow, but the chances of my system being the individual
target of some miscreant out to do me actual financial or real personal harm
are virtually nil; as I also stated earlier, those guys are interested in
the big corporate, government, and commercial database info, where they can
get millions of records at one swoop. And nowadays, I would venture that it
is virtually impossible for any hacker to intercept my communications as
they go over the 'net by hacking the WWW itself, so I also do not get overly
concerned about that. All I want is something that will keep an eye on
things while I am running my system here at home, and a commercial suite of
software will do that good enough for me; not perfect, for sure, but good
enough.

My biggest concern in asking about this was not whether such software was
the absolute pinnacle of invincible security protection, which I know it is
not; nothing is, including all those measures you posted. Any hacker that
is truly determined to get into any PC will be able to do it if he has the
skills and ability, there is no perfect protection, period, and that applies
to all the various platforms, not just my good ol' WinXP. But I am
concerned primarily with the performance effects of such software on my
system AFA slowing it down and so forth, and about compatibility with my
total PC software and the speed the security software runs at and so on.
That is what I sought advice on, and that is why I replied to you as I did.
It is not that i do not appreciate your advice, it is just not what I am
really concerned about for my home PC. I can live with the security
provided by such internet security software. Something may happen some day,
but it will not be The End Of Life As I Know It. I will survive no matter
what happens. And in fact, I am sure I have done worse things to my PC all
by my stupid self over the years, worse than any hacker could ever dream of,
things that literally took me days to rectify; I survived that, good enough
for me if I just have software that looks out for the bad guys out there.

So thanks again--

YW.

My suggestion are *specifically* suited for an average homeuser with a
stand-alone system!