AHA! But, to come to that conclusion/setup, you needed to have security concerns, correct? And, still have them, otherwise you wouldn't be using that security setup.
security is First everything is second the internet Computer i put security First The Non internet Computer i don't mind security a lot
I'll say this again, lol, security is important. It's not like I'm suddenly too good for security or I think all security concerns are a load of bs. I've been at Wilders for years now, I've tested this, tested that, I've seen the "omg!" malware come and go. I've had to reload my OS far more often because of security programs rather than because I lacked them. I'm not scared of malware or hackers anymore, no matter what new magic they conjure up.
Same here. The last time I got infected was by a pretty advanced keylogger with rootkit capabilities. Such an experience is terrible (it's very different from finding out a ridiculous "kazaa-like" adware), so I can't say I'm not scared of malware anymore, that's the reason why I periodically run on-demand scanners such as Hitman Pro and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware.
At one time, that was the case for me as well. That's also one of several reasons why I don't "update" to newer or supported security apps. The security apps I use now have had no problems since they were in beta and have performed flawlessly. There's no reason that a PC can't perform well, be relatively easy to use, and still be a fortress. Same here. For quite a while I was collecting new malware, exploit code, POCs, etc and using it to test my defenses. The results were always the same. The code had no chance unless I specifically allowed it to run. Even when I did allow it to start, my security package almost always intercepted its next action. With a default-deny policy in place, the initial execution never takes place and the code accomplishes nothing. It got so boring that I just stopped. Nothing ever happened, nothing changes, which is fine as it lets me work on some other privacy and encryption related projects.
Development on the security apps I use (Kerio 2.1.5, System Safety Monitor, and Proxomitron) ceased quite some time ago. All of these are mature apps that don't depend on signatures or other updates to keep them effective. They're all quite able to stand on their own. Although they don't work on Vista or Win-7, my operating systems are XP and older, so compatibility is not an issue for me. On operating systems they were designed to run on, each is just as effective now as they were when they were supported. If there were present day equivalents for them, I'd try them out, but each one is in a class by itself that no one has ever duplicated.
This is exactly how I feel. I enjoy testing new software but I feel that my security setup is overkill if anything. I went for a month with no UAC and no antivirus. My only setup was a router firewall, windows 7 firewall, updates, host file, and chrome. No virus or any malware despite running many many programs -- surprisingly not so much as a false positive.
The fact of the matter is that today you have to consider computer security if you don't want to be "bothered". You define bothered, whether that is identity theft or account theft, or whether it is just an inconvenience until you restore an image. Even if you are not online, the threat of USB drives exists, and with how common thier use is, you can no longer just "pull the plug" and have no worries. That being said, there are those of us who make computers and possibly "security" a hobby, and there are those who just want to be secure and not have issues. I think all of us want a both aspects of this poll, especially on this forum in particular. Doesn't it come down to perceptions though? I am acutely aware of what runs on my box, and don't like anything taking up excess resources, even if I don't "feel" it. Others, they might put a multitude of tools on, and for what they do, maybe they don't notice it either. And still others put so much on that they definately notice it, but stick with it. We each have our own "perception" of what "secure" is and what "performance" is. Since there is no defacto standard for either security or performance, we are left to "roll our own" so to speak. I also believe that the whole security issue runs a certain course, and IMO where you are at in that timeline easily pinpoints what you know - to a large degree anyway. From what I have seen, usually a person becomes aware they are "insecure", for whatever reason. Then, if they have the interest, they begin to find out why and how to become "secure". This in turn leads to much experimenting and learning, until they find the tools that works for them in order that they might take control of the situation. After a certain amount of time, they have gained enough infos to better understand what they are doing, and in general empoly fewer and fewer security tools, and also normally scale down just how aggressive/consuming those tools are. It isn't because they need less security, but rather they understand the ins and outs, and have realized there are many tools to use and many approaches to take to gain enough security for what they do. Think about it, how many here have been down such a road, or one very similar? Sul.
For me its performance first. If something impacts my systems performance noticeably then its out of here. I've used computers for long enough to know that i can get by safely on a minimum security setup.
You are correct. Everyone (or nearly everyone) here at Wilders has security as a priority. The problem is with the way the poll is worded, as pointed out by J_L ...
not for me. i put convenience first, then performance. security comes third. if security was a priority for me i'd be either in the Malware or Firewall forum, playing 'whack-a-mole' with the Allow/Deny buttons of my HIPS along with the other 'inmates' there.
priority = OS that give me peace of mind right now running fedora 13 as my main OS and ubuntu 10.10 as second windows vista as 3rd once in 2 months to update it
For me security is not alpha and omega. I do not want a Fort Knox but a flexible system were performance, security and ease of use is equally divided between them. And if anything should go wrong, a rollout of a driveimage can save the day.
Without security it would be hard to keep your private files private and your passwords to private and your computer computer would be overrun by viruses and Trojans.
performance first and a updated OS and software and then some light small security apps. last some good common sense equals less image restores and BSOD.
Anyone saying "security first" and proceeding to install Windows are kidding themselves. I'm using Windows 7 for functionality, compatibility, usability, and performance. I secure it afterwards because it's the smart thing to do.
This question/poll is flawed. It reminds me of the question have you stopped forging cheques? If I say yes, it means I did before but now have gone straight If I say no, it means I'm still doing it.
Not really lol If you say yes, security is in fact the first thing you look for in a product If you say no, security is not the first thing you look for in a product
