what suite has surprised you

As in from going from good to bad or from bad to good, this is an opinion only type thread no comparison. Personally I am surprised at Norton for me to use it , it has come aways for me to do that...

 

bitdefender and gdata were the suites that surprised me, good surprises though.

ess disappointed me a little.

while Norton 2007 was a massive welcomed surprise, 2008 i feel has fallen below the raised standard of 2007.

MS Onecare, although improvements made... think i will hold me judgement on them for maybe 12 months.

 

AVG and F-Secure..........F-Secure surprised me with above average functionality and AVG surprised me with good performance (but not so good features).

 

No Security Suite can surprised me! Why?
They may offer functionality, but

1) Their Firewall has been Traditionally weaker than the stand-alone Firewalls.
Even the free Firewalls, like COMODO and Online Armor,
are more effective than the built-in Firewall of the Security Suites.
(Matousec.com)

2) Stand-alone AntiSpyware scanners, like AVG (former Ewido) and
a-squared Anti-Malware (just to name a few) offer more accurate
Anti-Spyware detection & protection than the built-in AS scanners of the Security Suites.
Usually, the companies of the stand-alone AntiSpyware products, like CounterSpy and
SUPERAntiSpyware offer much more informed spyware updates than the ones offered by
the Security Suites. Fighting Viruses is one thing and fighting spyware is another.

So, if a user's pocket can stand it, he/she must buy stand-alone products
(i.e. seperate Firewall, AntiVirus, and AntiSpyware) for better Security.
Of course, matching them in terms of compatibility/integration is an issue.
That's why many novices prefer Security Suites over the stand-alone solutions.

ALL the above refer to the ones who continue to follow the traditional-path of PC Security
(Firewall+AV+AS).
There are others who have adopted a different approach: Sandboxes, ISR etc.
But that is different story...

 

No Security Suite can surprised me! Why?
They may offer functionality, but

1) Their Firewall has been Traditionally weaker than the stand-alone Firewalls.
Even the free Firewalls, like COMODO and Online Armor,
are more effective than the built-in Firewall of the Security Suites.
(Matousec.com)

2) Stand-alone AntiSpyware scanners, like AVG (former Ewido) and
a-squared Anti-Malware (just to name a few) offer more accurate
Anti-Spyware detection & protection than the built-in AS scanners of the Security Suites.
Usually, the companies of the stand-alone AntiSpyware products, like CounterSpy and
SUPERAntiSpyware offer much more informed spyware updates than the ones offered by
the Security Suites. Fighting Viruses is one thing and fighting spyware is another.

So, if a user's pocket can stand it, he/she must buy stand-alone products
(i.e. seperate Firewall, AntiVirus, and AntiSpyware) for better Security.
Of course, matching them in terms of compatibility/integration is an issue.
That's why many novices prefer Security Suites over the stand-alone solutions.

ALL the above refer to the ones who continue to follow the traditional-path of PC Security
(Firewall+AV+AS).
There are others who have adopted a different approach: Sandboxes, ISR etc.
But that is a different story...

 

i disagree with both 1 and 2.

 

Hello

I do not think this is very traditional. Outpost or ZA firewall in their respective suites are more 'competitive' than many standalones. Some may also say that ESS is a better AV than, say, VBA32. It really depends on what part of suite developer concetrates it's efforts, AV, AS, or FW.

Well, you must not forget that not everybody is a security freak (like Wilders posters ), there are people out there with real life who just want their protection to simply work so they can do other stuff with their PC. So, the market for suites is pretty big, I know as I was once in that category... Creating a suite is simply a marketing move to attract the 'other' type of customers, like the case of recently released ESS or OA2.

But I generally agree with you, as I was never really a suit(e) man. I too prefer the freedom of choice.

Cheers,

 

Bitdefender surprised me in a positive way, as it has become very light and quite good. KIS surprised me in a negative way. They have gone from light and quite good to really bogged down and now having issues with their test scores.

ESS would be on the negative side too, but there is nothing to go "from" as this is their first version.

 

F-Secure IS and Avira Suite. Both excelent!

 

avira the most and kis7 probably second

 

Bitdefender for me also after screwing with everything else. Might part with some $ soon.

 

Ditto

 

Back to Avira?

 

im also playing with bitdefender now again as well on a spare pc

 

I don't know if I dare say this, but McAfee has really surprised me in a positive way. I thought I would never admit such a thing. I've only had bad experiences with McAfee in the past. Nevertheless, I thought I would give them a try since I was already experimenting with other AV programs.

The primary factor in my book is resource usage. If it does its job without any appreciable drain on startups, shutdowns, browsing, email, etc., then I'm willing to stick with it for awhile. McAfee has typically been one of the worst in this regard, but so far it has proven to be the best thus far.

That may change. So far, so good. Has anyone else noticed this or am I just in some McAfee Twilight Zone...

 

Who surprised me are F-Secure & Avira.
And I even must admit McAfee

 

I have not used it, but I think AVG has really made some strides to.

 

ESS was a major dissapointment since I've been a NOD32 fan for quite a long time. NOD32 v3 was also a dissapointment.

BitDefender '08 was enough of a positive surprise to get me to lay down some cash for it and stick to it instead of going with Avira's suite like I was going to.

 

You should in no way look the suits in that way . Suits are all in one , their modules work together . COMODO/firewall is generally excellet but when you compare its firewall only to another one . The suit is different . COMODO is made to work even without antivirus , so that a threat may already exist but COMODO is supposed to block it . Suits have anti-malware components . If the antimalware part is working , how many threats/injections (etc) you will need the firewall to filter => the answer is zero. You'll need only firewall's basic functionality

 

None

 

Most of them(if not all), especially the so called 'Vista Certified' or 'Vista Compatible' for 64-bit Vista.

 

I have been using McAfee for a few months now as my ISP offers it as a part of the monthly fee. I have used several other combos made up of individual components but very surprisingly McAfee has been the smoothest running with the least system slowdown of anything else I have tried.

I also still use Sandboxie and browse with firefox/no scripts as well as perform periodic on demand scans with Avira AV, SAS and A-Squared free versions. I also check for root kits with AVG.

 

I wouldn't expect from you to agree with me.
You are the one who had promoted Dr. Web,
changed to F-Secure for a while,
now, back again to Dr. Web,
and who knows to what tomorrow...
-Are you just a user or you get paid for it?
Your preferences prove that you have no stable beliefs.

The ones who said that the Firewall of Suites is equal or better
than the Stand-Alone Firewalls:
1) Let's Reread the last Leak Test of Matousec.com
and
2) Let's wait for the next test and they will see
how good the Firewalls of the Suites are.
3) Outpost Suite: has a strong Firewall, but its AV and AS protection
is much weaker than the one offered by the stand-alone products.
4) ZoneAlarm Pro is NOT what it used to be in the past.
Once upon a time, ZA was the No.1 Firewall.
Unfortunately, some people still do not want to admit it OR
they have interests associated with ZA.

However, I am not here to promote/sell ANY product(s)/service(s)
because, I have NO financial dependence on any vendor.

-Can the ones, who so widely (not to say provocatively)
advertise specific AV/AS products write things against their 'boss'?
-Can these posters be objective?

 

1) Who told you that COMODO Firewall is made to protect even without an AV/AS scanner? Where did you see that?
Did the COMODO team ever suggest such a thing?
Even having the HIPS of COMODO or Online Armor Free, a Firewall
-no matter how effective it is-
can NOT -at ANY circumstance- replace the function of the AV/AS scanners.
A Firewall gives you a way-different kind of protection than the one offered by the AV/AS scanner(s).
-Some users believe the the Active/Real protection of a good AV/AS scanner is enough to
replace the presence of a FW in their Security setup.
-Equally, some users think that a good FW is enough to keep the threats out so... who needs
an AV/AS scanner?
Both issues consists inadequate forms of Security; not to say risky setups of Security!

You cannot compare the way a Firewall works with the one an AV/AS scanner does.
It is not that simple "They both protect us from malware". Why?
It is a mistake is to say
"I don't need a Firewall, because I use the best AV/AS scanner(s)
OR
"I don't need any AV/AS scanner(s), because I have the best Firewall".
No, this is a very risky approach of setting up your Defense!
Many users got so badly infected that they use both FW and many AV/AS scanners now!

The other issue:
2) Having a good AS/AS scanner and a basic FW has been also proved inadequate/risky!
Your protection should actually work the other way round:
a) Have the best possible* HARWARE Firewall,
V
b) Have the best possible* Software Firewall, and
V
c) Have the best possible* AV/AS scanner (at least 2: 1 Regular + 1 On-demand)

*: (=based on your Pocket & your Needs)

Here, the philosophy is to "keep as much threats as you can out/away from your PC"
Act before they get inside your PC.
Therefore, you will need a Firewall (starting with a hardware one)
and then, you ALSO need a software Firewall for the best possible protection.
-Some people believe that a hardware FW is enough; no software FW is needed.
I ask them: Does the hardware FW cover/protect ALL your outbound traffic?
Your AV/AS scanner(s) should be one of your last security resorts
(i.e.to clean what managed to bypass your Firewall(s);
AV/AS scanners cannot replace your first layer of defense (i.e. Firewalls).
Setting a protection mode with only a basic FW and strong AV/AS scanner(s)
is like saying to threats (malware):
"Welcome! Please, have a sit, the doctor (=AV/AS) will be here in a while..."
But the given issue is "How to stay away from the doctor (=AV/AS)
OR
"Go to the doctor (=AV/AS) with just a cough and not with a cancer! (=heavy malware)

For one more time, I will underline that
the above security settings, which have been deployed by most users
-especially the home ones-,
constitute what has been known by many IS academics/scholars as the
'Traditional Security' setup/setting.
-Others prefer another approach of Defense based on Virtualization (sandboxes) and ISR
solutions.
-Others use a combination of the above approaches.


-I always Try A LOT, before I decide on what can effectively protect my settings!
-I learnt not to rely on quick & easy security solutions!


<I am here to SHARE and not to SELL>

 

thanks for proving to everyone that you really dont know ****.

same tip as before, DO A SEARCH you plonker!