security strategies that are too big a pain?

[acr1965]

Which security strategies are too big of a pain to implement? Check all that apply...

PS- I realize you may recommend whole heartedly to your friends, family, etc to use some of the above strategies. At the same time I am aware that what we say and what we do can sometimes be two different things. So just vote for what is a pain for you, not what shouldn't be too big a pain for others.

Also be sure and add any pains I have missed.

[blacknight]

All my hate is for limited user account and web site restrictions (DNS service, sites blockers: ie. WOT): never used.

[dw426]

HIPS, restriction policies and LUA are the big ones in that list, the rest cause no headache at all or are tolerable as is/can be made easier.

HIPS. It astounds me to see LUA in first Obviously a lot of people still don't get it. And yet, antivirus running real-time that likely does more overall to cripple a system than the combined impact of malware infections one might get with a common sense approach gets 0 results. Baffling indeed.

[Sadeghi85]

For me an antivirus in real-time is the most annoying!

It's a few days I'm running LUA + SRP with no real-time 3rd party software and I'm really enjoying it.

[Konata Izumi]

Originally Posted by Sadeghi85

For me an antivirus in real-time is the most annoying!

It's a few days I'm running LUA + SRP with no real-time 3rd party software and I'm really enjoying it.

I'm with you pal!
I voted for HIPS and Antivirus Programs

[gaslad]

Having used all of the above, I can clearly state that using an LUA gave me the most grief.

[Noob]

I hate using Imaging software . . that's why . . . I SIMPLY DON'T!
HIPS aren't a pain since i enjoy clicking through the pop ups and creating rules

[icr]

From my side I don't like web sites restriction and internet browser add ons as painfuls still very much required

[Osaban]

LUA, SRP. I've tried so many times these strategies with Vista Ultimate, XP Pro, and they have never ever worked properly for me. I'm also sick and tired of some people's attitude whereby if you don't run LUA or SRP you are not in your right mind. I can understand the logic behind it, but for some it is just not practical.

[CiX]

Oops, I clicked on a wrong poll

[PJC]

Originally Posted by dw426

HIPS, restriction policies and LUA are the big ones in that list, the rest cause no headache at all or are tolerable as is/can be made easier.

+100% Agree!!!

[acr1965]

The LUA is a pain for sure. I personally thought noscript was the biggest headache I've ever ran across. It has some nice qualities, but overall caused me to hate getting into any conversation about Firefox (and I truly enjoy using FF).

software restriction policies

I don't recommend / like noisy HIPS

[blacknight]

I hope is not an OT: for me security strategies are not a pain, they are a fun.

[moontan]

i hate pretty much all of them except on-demand scanning and imaging.

i'm running pretty much "naked" these days, except for what's in my sig.
i'm the only one using this machine so i don't need much security.

i'm pretty much convinced that to get infected these days you have to install a malware yourself.

[noone_particular]

I don't find implementing a security policy or configuring the apps that will enforce it to be a pain. AFAIC, a security strategy becomes a pain when it fails, like having to redo your system because the AV didn't do its job. When auto-updated security apps start conflicting with other apps on your system with no warning, or when you go to your PC in the morning and find it blue screened because of an AV update the previous night, then the strategy becomes a pain.

IMO, installing and/or configuring your security package isn't a pain. It's time well spent. Having to take the time to do it over because you didn't do it right the first time is a pain.

[Hungry Man]

A noisy HIPS is by definition annoying, that's what it's meant to do, alert you all of the time. But a HIPS in general isn't that annoying, I rarely see a popup from Comodo Defense+.

Sandboxing is about the least annoying security setup. I had a few java exploits to test out Defense+ and it was a simple matter of deleting the Java sandbox after -- nothing to worry about.

I find antiviruses to be the biggest pain. Bloated, not too helpful, and they often give false positives (making MSE the ideal AV for me when I used to use one.) They provide very little security benefit to me but they take up more resources than Comodo.

I also don't bother with browser add-ons. Too annoying and they can slow down browsing.

And I don't bother with disk imaging, just system restore but that's only for when I mess things up myself.

[Hungry Man]

Originally Posted by moontan

i'm pretty much convinced that to get infected these days you have to install a malware yourself.

This is often how I feel, which is why I don't bother with anything that would be a pain for me or that would hog resources. Security is just so... easy.

[ichito]

* sandboxes
* software restriction policies, applocker, uac, etc

[Hungry Man]

Really? I find UAC so easy to deal with. Same with Sandboxing - though the initial setup can be a pain depending on which program you're using.

[Rampastein]

LUA, SRP, and UAC which I find more noisy than KIS' HIPS while not giving as much control over applications. Scanning periodically with on-demand scanners is useless unless one is infected (and all their drivers etc. make me feel my system bloated).

Which strategies are easy depend on the user. For me it's HIPS and Sandboxes combined with an AV, but for most people I recommend different things.

All of them, the only one I'm tolerating atm is "on demand scanning with 3rd party apps".

[Hungry Man]

I hate on-demand scanning, ugh.

You can never be sure that you reaaaaaallly got everything that was on your system/ that you're not still infected.

Plus it takes forever just for one scan let alone all of the scans necessary for me to feel safe (if I'm running with no other security software) and all that time you'll see huge cpu usage.