Suite vs layered approach

Hi all. I'm not all the versed in security software, but I will admit I do know a little about it and I would consider myself a pretty safe user. Today I got to wondering, who are security suites really for? Are they really for me? I ask this because I have access to and have used Norton Security Suite provided free of charge to me from Comcast. I haven't had any problems with it other than Windows 8 Action Center reporting that it isn't turned on when in fact Norton itself shows that it is protecting me. I have never been infected while using it and have only seen once or twice that it actually blocked something on a page I visited in the past. The one thing it does, or shows that it does is removes a few tracking cookies every now and again. I turn the backup portion and the performance monitoring portions of it off because I don't use them. There is another person in this household that isn't well versed in computers at all and likes to click on random links online so maybe it is better for that kind of user?

The reason I bring this up is because I tried a little experiment a week ago. I removed Norton Security Suite from both computers and decided to use the default Windows Defender that comes with Windows 8 as the primary AV. I installed and configured EMET, WinPatrol, Zemana AntiLogger Free on the computers and configured them as a standard account as well. I, and the other person in the household visited the websites like we normally do and then after a week long period (I know probably not long enough to make a 100% accurate determination) ran scans to see if any malware was on the machines. Not a single thing. Tracking cookies of course, but other than that, clean as a whistle. So I ask, do I really need a Security Suite? Would going the layered approach provide the same amount of protection as the suite and be a faster solution? What do you guys think?

 

AIO (All in One) suites are usually set and forget while layered protection usually requires more tinkering and depending on what software you choose, you need to configure them properly and know how to use it. (Also keep in mind that sometimes a layered approach can cause problems)

If you are interested in learning, then the layered approach would be the best one. If you just want good protection and not bother with it, get a good suite and i'm pretty sure you will be fine.

 

Some suites are layered. Bullguard uses I think 6 different licensed technologies at last count? Each one is a different module, loaded as a suite.

 

lol
now i get it why my pc crawled to death
and still sucks in hips tests (you can hate matousec but their test says a lot of interesting things).

 

Prior to 2013, it did. Now it doesn't, in fact BG is one of the lightest on systems in terms of drag I have tested. Apptimer, DPC, and other benchmarks affirm this. I am very very picky about AV's, they cannot add noticeable system drag, and most do. Bullgard is one of the few that doesn't, it's actually slightly lighter than Eset in my benchmarks, and Eset is one of the few ones I would consider due to low system drag. The primary strength of BG is the BD engine and Commtouch resources, very very powerful web blocking.

 

Now a days most suites are layered. Kaspersky among others have a firewall, application control, system watcher which I think is like a hips & of course an A/V. I used to run an a/v by one company & firewall/hips by another. Sometimes they got along & sometimes they did not, especially after one or the other went through a major update.

 

Strange issue i had.
I used comodo which was using roughly 10mb and it slowed my computer.
Now using kaspersky which averages 60mb on my computer and it is extremely snappy ...
I hear a lot of bad things being said about kaspersky..it slows things down etc.
Well not in my case .

 

Personally I prefer to layer my security setup, suites are just not for me, currently I'm in testing mode, changing and rearranging if you will.

 

I prefer the sweet layered approach.

 

Layered. Hands down. I don't like being tied down to one security option.

 

I couldn't agreed more.

The set and forget things is very attracted to me, but i am paranoid, i just don't want my protection rely on one company only.

 

Hahahaha
Although tons of AIO suites nowadays have different modules they do not offer as much granularity as a setup with multiple dedicated programs to a specific task.

 

You can get screwed either way you go. Suites don't necessarily offer the best overall protection. So it might have a decent firewall or anti-virus, but trail in other functions. Likewise, you might choose your own applications based on performance reviews, and compromise your security because of application incompatibilities. Sure when you set it up they worked, but that last silent update to application B just through a wrench in to your plans. If you don't follow the update logs, you might not notice it until an event like a Trojan trips your defenses and the computer hangs or crashes. Worse the incompatibility impedes both programs from doing anything. That's equivalent to having a malicious agent knock out your anti-virus before the company can push out a signature update to detect it.

 

Waste of money #1, very useless and pointless #2 and really doesn't protect you or defend you at all against a targeted attack #3.

Sums up my feelings.

I do how ever respect Kaspersky first and foremost for malware & botnet research, Dr Web second for uncovering botnets and malware, Norton & Bitdefender also should get a mention for the research they do into malware.

Sadly I consider most of their software JUNK.

 

My advice: Windows 8? keep WindowsDefender or buy any standalone antivirus solution, it's your choice. No SecuritySuite really worth your money.

 

good one

 

I think a suite is a good option for someone who doesn't want to tinker much with settings and compatibility/rules. Many suites today are pretty good at what they purport to do: I have personally had good experience with BullGuard, G-DATA, Kaspersky, Norton and PC Tools. It depends a lot on the underlying technology: A suite with good technology is going to do well in the real world for most users.

Years ago, I used to prefer a layered approach, but today's suites have changed to the point that they provide good protection and even less knowledgeable folks are able to easily use the product and understand the alerts. As such, I don't prefer a layered approach anymore.

(As for why I didn't mention AVG: Well, it's a good anti-malware product, but it's firewall needs work IMO).

 

I prefer layered approach. And to make things better suites are layered as well.

 

both methods have advantages and drawbacks,with a suite you can be pretty sure all the modules will work together with no conflicts/problems(unless its an early "final" release of Kis!)with a layered approach you can encounter issues at times BUT with a suite if a malware writer does discover a weakness and a way to exploit it all of your security goes out of the window,that is less likely to happen if you use different vendors for each of the different modules you install

 

Thanks for the tremendous feedback, I appreciate it! Is Windows Defender + EMET + WinPatrol + Zemana Antilogger Free a solid combo? Would you add anything to the mix?

Good advice, but the Norton Security Suite I have access to doesn't cost me a dime if I wanted to go that route.

 

Your question is basically "should I keep all of my eggs in one basket?"

 

Somewhat. Is it really best to keep them all in one basket or does a simple AV with some layers provide the same or even better protection than an AIO? Something along those lines.

 

You always get good feedback on Wilders'...you might as well have asked...which do you prefer...briefs or boxers? Both sides represented well!

 

I agree with you 100%

 

Its becoming far more difficult now to achieve a good layered approach.
good free firewalls are sparse and its the usual ones you have to choose from.
Comodo.
Online armor.
Privatefirewall.
Pairing these up with a good antivirus is often hit and miss and a lot of trial and error is involved.
Ive always found online armor and avast to be a good combo although there will be various combinations that could be employed in this respect.
As i said there are plenty of good free av,s but not enough free firewalls to choose from.