Is This Too Much Security?

[Gabriolone]

Please let me know if you think this is too much security. I'm running Windows XP SP3:

1. Firefox,
2. F-Secure Anti-Virus 2012,
3. Malwarebytes Pro,
4. Zemana AntiLogger,
5. DefenseWall, and
6. Shadow Defender (trial)

I was also using Malwarebytes but when I downloaded F-Secure a message appeared stating that MAB is not compatible with F-Secure. I therefore removed Malwarebytes Pro. If it is thought that this is not too much security is is thought that I should replace Malwarebytes with either HitMan Pro or Zemana antimalware?

Thanks again.

[kjdemuth]

I would ditch zemena antilogger. You could even ditch your AV if you feel comfortable. defensewall and shadowdefender is a very secure combo. I think adding hitman pro for download and occasional scanning would be good. You could also add a DNS filter ( Norton, openDNS, comodo) and maybe something like linkscanner or panda URL filter. If you have the time look into adding EMET too. There are a few articles on here that you can read about it. Other than that you are good to go.

[kupo]

Pretty much overkill. . With Defensewall alone you'll be fine. If I were you I'll use Malwarebytes Pro (realtime), Defensewall. That's it.
EDIT: What he said ^. lol

[Dark Shadow]

IMO for a wider range of coverage in reatime with out over kill or overlap then F-Secure for AntiVirus-Antimalware and Defensewall for rights restrcitions and partial virtualization -Done.

[CogitoTesting]

Yes it is overkill, actually it is an obliteration of your computer. Let me suggest the following: F-Secure Internet Security and Malwarebytes (real-time).

P.S.: Malwarebytes should be installed after installing F-Secure.

Thanks.

[Bob D]

Originally Posted by Gabriolone

...you think this is too much security...

Yes.
Do you have an abnormally high risk / threat profile?

[Amit]

Originally Posted by Gabriolone

Please let me know if you think this is too much security. I'm running Windows XP SP3:

1. Firefox,
2. F-Secure Anti-Virus 2012,
3. Malwarebytes Pro,
4. Zemana AntiLogger,
5. DefenseWall, and
6. Shadow Defender (trial)

I was also using Malwarebytes but when I downloaded F-Secure a message appeared stating that MAB is not compatible with F-Secure. I therefore removed Malwarebytes Pro. If it is thought that this is not too much security is is thought that I should replace Malwarebytes with either HitMan Pro or Zemana antimalware?

Thanks again.

Believe me pal I'm saying this from personal experience this is overkill. I recommend you use DefenseWall and Shadow Defender(I see you are using the trial version) and keep HitmanPro and MBAM(without realtime/on-access module) as on-demand scanners with an imaging software to seal the deal.

Now you should try to harden your primary security- your browser. I see you use firefox. Use AdBlock Plus with Fanboy Ultimate List and Malware Domains as subscriptions, NoScript, RequestPolicy and WOT.

Use Norton ConnectSafe.

You do use a password manager, right? If not then go for either LastPass or KeePass. I strongly recommend you use LastPass add-on for Firefox.

And you are done. Safe surfing.

[jmonge]

Gabriolone you just need Defensewall and hitmanpro

[Tomwa]

I don't think there can be "Too much" security really as no security setup is 100% absolute, the real question is "Are any of my security solutions redundant?". The only thing you can do is mitigate your risks for attack.

Reduce your attack surface. Are all your applications up to date? Your OS? Potentially vulnerable runtimes (Flash, Java, etc.) and vulnerable system processes can leave plenty of room for attacks. EMET is a great tool for this (It's really easy to setup) and I've made metric TONS of executables on my computer use it. It is important to remember however, that EMET can cause problems. For example, Skype won't function properly with my headset with EAF enabled. Remember to test your programs as you add them to identify issues before they arise. If you know what you're doing you can disable Windows Services that you do not need.

Limit your rights, Are you running as an Admin? This is a major security flaw. You should run as a limited user and elevate yourself when necessary (This ensures applications run with the least amount of power). If malware succeeds at running as a basic user less potential for damage exists. Least User Access (LUA) is a great way of mitigating the risk of attack.

Sandbox your applications. Sandboxing is limiting an applications rights so that it ONLY runs within a certain area. No modifications are made to the system. I highly recommend Sandboxie (Even the free version is great though the paid version is amazing) and at least sandboxing your browser.

Firewall. I see you have F-Secure which is a great security product IMO (I prefer kaspersky myself as it lets me fine tune my protection) and one which we receive for free as Charter customers. Do you connect your computer directly to the Modem? If so I'd suggest adding a Router to get the extra NAT protection you wouldn't normally have. I consider this to be an absolute necessity for security purposes.

Secure your browser. Use addons such as AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and Ghostery to help protect yourself from malicious ads, scripts, and trackers. NoScript is a great addon as it also mitigates the risk of XSS attacks.

Other than that try not to go overboard. Find a balance and stick with it. Oh also avoid getting multiple Realtime Scanners they kill system performance and more than one can cause system instability and compatibility issues).

Good luck.

[tomazyk]

Your setup has little "too much security" for my liking. I would remove F-Secure, Malwarebytes and Zemana. Then I would add HitmanPro and Adblock for FF.

Should you want to use real-time AV then leave F-Secure on if it doesn't slow down your computer.

[Tsast42]

What I would say is that your system is extremely well secured: with anti-virus, rights restriction, and light virtualisation you have absolutely all bases covered and do not need to add anything. There are many ways of securing a system, some more effective than others and what you have is as watertight a setup as it gets. I would only call it 'too much security' if you were wasting resources by running several programs that do the same thing. The only example of this still in your setup is the Zemana Anti-logger: this is unneccesary as Defensewall covers that already as far as I know.

As for Malwarebytes Pro/HMP/ZAM, in my opinion uninstalling that was a good move as having two signature-based anti-viruses running side by side will do very little to improve security as the signatures are mostly the same anyway. Imagine your processor using 5% to run one anti-virus that picks up 95% of malware, and then having to use another 5% at the same time to run another anti-virus that catches maybe another 2% to push the total up to 97% caught for 10% of resources used. 5% of CPU for 95% of malware is worth it (maybe), 5% of CPU for 2% isn't. So if you really want to replace MBAM with another anti-virus, add something that works in a different way from F-Secure, such as Prevx/WSA, which checks for abnormal behaviour rather than signatures and consumes almost no resources.