Which might be more secure, and why?

Which of these firewalls might be more secure / effective, and why (on a Vista 32 Business standalone laptop)?

a) NOD V3 with Online Armour V3
b) Eset Security Suite

The impression I have gained from reading lots here is that:

a) may be considered a better outbound firewall, and with good application HIPS functionality, but is partially compromised by the NOD proxy (corrective action - as understood from here - would be to choose "Apps only" under protocol filtering in NOD's set up, and then select only browser and Outlook on NOD's Web / e-mail protection; and also to use intercept loopback in OA; and that this issue may cease even to be one by NOD V4). Has advantage of being a layered approach for two apps that have good reputation for working well together.

b) F/W may have less functionality than OA and less security over the outbound process (than OA purely as a F/W), but has some advantage of integration with the AV (in total), and hence obviously no proxy issues to consider.

I am looking for out of the box simplicity (although happy to make any proxy tweaks as above), but that I can then add to, as knowledge is gained... ie I like the idea of a set of rules etc already set up coming with the app that one knows will work well, but also interested to learn more precisely what and why, and how to tweak and improve going forwards.. The application white list concept in OA also appeals.

Some here and elsewhere appear to suggest that the OA / NOD proxy may still render the OA outbound F/W less effective, despite the tweaks above? I guess I do not know enough as to what the real strengths and weaknesses are (other than as I have attempted to summarise above), particularly as regards real usage, but I am keen to know more. I do not want to "try them both to see what works best", as 1) I am not an IT specialist, and 2) this machine is mainly a business tool, and whilst I am genuinely interested in all of this, trying different products purely for research is (probably) a step too far - and hence, I want something that, if it works well, I will simply stick with and work with lots to understand better.

Currently, using Vista F/W but have always disliked not having outbound - and hence have not used this machine for say banking (or anything crucially confidential) for that single reason.

I do like the look and feel (and lightness / lack of FP's etc) of NOD AV, so no immediate reason to change that as part of this process. Other security is Super AdBlocker (includes SAS), UAC (Standard user) etc, Windows Defender (without spynet), and usual data backup etc..

Any thoughts?.. not looking for any aesthetic preferences, but just thought this might be the place for any informed "why's", if applicable at all..? Or is there no obvious real life advantage between these?

Peter

 

The simple answer would be a.

Why? Because ESET Security Suite rely s on only detection technology. Therefore, your vulnerable to leak tests, and more unknown malware (if a malware isn't in a malware database, your toast). Online Armor on the other hand has the prevention to stop more unknown malware, and you then have NOD32 as a detection solution.

 

OK, I understand, and thanks for your input...

Have now done quite a bit more reading, and I think I understand better how the tweaks in a) remove the proxy weaknesses - by comparison to the advantage of the integrated suite.

I do like the look of OA.. I think I'll try it and see where I get to...

 

Have you considered using NOD version 2.7 with OA? It is still available and supported with new malware definitions identical to V3 (although am sure its not quite as advanced in other areas). Does not have the proxy issue.

That's what I'm using at the moment and all is working smoothly. I have an AV from a well respected AV company and a firewall from a well respected firewall company. Not sure I could say that if I was using ESETS suite.

I am though hoping that NOD32 V4 sorts these issues out so I can make the jump free of worry.

 

Yes, that would be good, but I am using Vista (hence NOD V3), and which is why OA wasn't a F/W contender at the start.. Won't go into the "why Vista" etc, however valid that might be..!! We'll see how OA gets on with NOD V3 - it looks (from others on here) to be a good combo - and, when NOD V4 comes out, hopefully that will be an improvement re the proxy...

 

Been using Vista for 18 months now with 2.7 without any issues, there's nothing there to stop them working together.

2.7 is being kept alive because it supports older Windows OSs but it still works well with the new ones. In fact it was one of the few programs to work with Vista from almost day 1. Like you, I've been waiting for OA to make the jump for some time now.

 

OK... my memory is failing..!!

I put V3 on from the start - before I was aware of the proxy issue. It was the first time I had used NOD, hence just assumed V3 rather than V2 at the time (latest version etc). And some time since then some neural rewiring has wrongly logged 2.7 as non Vista!!..

That's interesting, although my gut tells me that it may be simpler to stick with V3 just for now (I've got use to it), get OA to work with the tweaks, and await outcome re V4 before looking at changes to NOD.

Thanks for the heads up, all the same....