Safe'n'Sec Opinions...

Just downloaded the trial of Safe'n'Sec, and it seems pretty good, apart from it seems to use a fair bit of RAM snsmcon.exe 15,760 and safensec.exe 17,268.

Does anyone have any experience/opinions on Safe'n'Sec?

 

ive always thought of it as a good product.
if i remember correctly BlueZannetti has tryed it in the past and liked it. sorry if i mistyped your user name Blue.
ok quote from website time,
quote: Efficiently uses system resources
- occupies minimum HDD (20 Mb)
- uses no more than 2% processor resources
- requires 5MB RAM only?
does that mean if you have like 32mb of ram you can use it on your pc?
or does that mean it should only use 5mb of ram itself?

lodore

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=156141&highlight=egghead

Digitaly yours

 

I am using Safe'n'Sec 2.5 in my Windows 2000 partition. Personally, I like it more than SSM although SSM is more configurable. Popups requiring user's decision in Safe'n'Sec 2.5 is mid-way between OnlineArmor and SSM. Safe'n'Sec is quite stable in Windows 2000, along with BOClean, SUPERAntiSpyware, NOD32, ZoneAlarm, A-Squared and AVG AS. Safe'n'Sec can live in harmony in this crazy combination (for special purpose). Although I like to be asked for a decision to make, but there are too many for SSM.

SSM is used in my Windows XP partition but I didn't use it all the time. Without the addition of Vista some time later, I will use OA in Vista, when OA is Vista compatible.

 

Except for the longer boot up time when running with Safe'n'Sec 2.5, I find it to be running very nicely with other security applications. Similar to Chubb, I am running SNS AV+ 2.5 with A-squared, SuperAdBlocker, Norton AV, Antivir Security Suite, Sandboxie and Geswall. I am not sure whether the new Dr Web AV engine is better or worse in terms of speed and detections than the old BitDefender AV engine.