Do WS Forum Members Run too Many Security Programs

Discussion in 'polls' started by PastTense, Feb 28, 2009.

?

Do WS Forum Members Run too Many Security Programs on Their Computers?

  1. Yes, too many

    81 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. About the right number

    24 vote(s)
    22.2%
  3. Too Few

    3 vote(s)
    2.8%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PastTense

    PastTense Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Posts:
    42
    Do WS Forum Members Run too Many Security Programs?
     
  2. ThunderZ

    ThunderZ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,459
    Location:
    North central Ohio, U.S.A.
    What is to many? Are you asking about real time, on demand? Are you counting on-line scans?

    There are members that run only one, there are members that run far more.

    Did not vote because I feel it is to wide open a question.
     
  3. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    No doubt about it~ Waaayy too many! It's funny how some setups people have, even allow a person to use the computer as a tool which it was intended.

    :thumb:
     
  4. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    Learning about computer security is a process. Usually a user gets infected, seeks help and piles on the security programs hoping to secure their machine/s. Then they eventually learn more about infection vectors and how to specifically protect against them and ween down their setups according to their needs, habit and computer specs.

    There are some here a Wilders that enjoy trying new programs all the time. Some are trying to find the holy grail of security and to others it's just a hobby. At least it keeps them off the streets :p. Just kiddin'.

    I use 3 real time security programs. Is that too many or overkill? I think so, but I'm still learning. To others, I need way more to protect myself. The important thing is I understand the setup, know it's limitations as well as mine.

    Also understand that you can't underestimate that warm and fuzzy feeling you get when you experience the illusion of being safe online ;). It's priceless!

    I also haven't voted yet like ThunderZ because the question is too wide open.
     
  5. suliman

    suliman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    I´d say yes and no. Yes because for every day use you dont need all that stuff if you run in a LUA. No because as long as you run as an admin you might need it if you dont know how stuff works.
    The tragedy and contradiction is that the people who needs all that security the most doesnt use it. Mostly because the dont know about security.

    Most people here are, as innerpeace points out, enthusiasts who are in a process of learning. In that sence all the software they use help, therefore "need" them (as it did for me once) to learn about computer security.
     
  6. kriebly

    kriebly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    41
    Location:
    Northern California
    Don't you need a personal firewall to deal with internet worms, especially for travel computers?

    I just like to install stuff so that more icons show up in the system tray...I was in heaven with my pre-OSX mac!
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2009
  7. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    Some of them definitely run way too many. At one time, I was guilty of that as well. Had 3 AVs, 2 firewalls, 4 anti-spyware, etc installed on one underpowered old PC.

    Part of the problem with deciding what is too many will also depend on what you call a security program. Example: I have 2 encryption programs, one for e-mail, one for file encryption. I consider them to be privacy tools more than security programs. Another user might consider them to be security programs.

    There's also a problem with the wording of the original post which centers around the word "RUN". Example: Script Sentry. It's technically not a running security app. The only time it runs is when a file using an extension that it's associated with is launched. Then there's the question of "on demand" software. What about tools that are "unzip and use"? They're not actually installed and can just as easily run from a CD? Is a browser other than IE a security program? What about a browser extension like NoScript or FlashBlock? What about tools like NMAP, Ethereal, and Sam Spade?

    There's really 2 separate questions here.
    Do users have too many security apps running?
    Do users have too many security apps installed?

    I have 3 security apps running on all my Windows PCs. On one 2K unit, I have 4, testing Sandboxie to see if adding it would be justified. I consider the 3 to be necessary (Kerio 2, SSM, Proxomitron). Haven't decided about Sandboxie yet. As for how many I have installed, unzipped, available, etc, I'm not sure what to count.
     
  8. tetsuo55

    tetsuo55 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Posts:
    126
    I voted too many because the os should be tougher itself, and one additional security app should be enough.

    Too bad that with windows this is not realistic.
     
  9. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Besides running more apps than we really need we are also guilty of changing programs way more often than needed. But, unlike the majority of computer users, with most of us here it is more of a hobby for us. And others here it is their profession.

    In my own case I still run an av to catch stuff on incoming emails, Prevx more or less because I like it so much, Defensewall for policy because some of the stuff I run on my computer don't like LUA, and Returnil for testing stuff out. It's not that I really need all of these apps but they all have a purpose for my usage.
     
  10. raakii

    raakii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Posts:
    593
    I run nod32 and sandboxie installed , other are portable or run only on demand.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  11. quark59

    quark59 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Posts:
    31
    After all that I have learned here over the years lurking at Wilders, now I am trying to simplify my setups with the least amount of real time programs covering the "most likely" threats!!:D
     
  12. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    From what I read here, the overall average is skewed towards too many. I probably help bring that back towards center with the few I feel the need to run.
     
  13. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    That all depends on why someone is running x amount of programs.
    A layered defense is a good idea so that will account for some overlap.
    Sometimes when I have beta-tested in the past I would keep some redundant programs just to look for possible program conflicts.

    I have three real-time security programs running right now.
    IMO that's not too many.
     
  14. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Canada
    What I have in my sig is more than fine :)
     
  15. Judge Dee

    Judge Dee Guest

    I think noone particular made a good observation.
    There's a difference between running apps, and installing/testing apps. It seems to me that most folks here show good sense in how many security apps actually run.
    Now as far as testing, how could there ever be too much? :)

    Regards,
     
  16. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    I have only 1 running app and Windows Firewall. Couple with some on-demand tools and the occasional download of ComboFix.
     
  17. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    IMO,Some have to much security but to each there own.If memory serves even as a newbie to computers never had more then AV/AS and firewall but there is not much I haven't tried since joining wilders but settled down now and just running my trusty Sandboxie and Defensewall and other then windows wall and my recovery soft,I have No OD scanners of any kind. Since these security programs do not require daily updating, I find I have a very easy to maintaine OS and can spend more time enjoying my pc rather then updating numerous security apps or running scanners.
     
  18. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    absolutely way more than it's required. sometimes when i see the signatures of some membs i can't help but think to myself "damn, they must've forgotten what it feels like using A COMPUTER!"

    just check this out:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1415587&postcount=4153
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  19. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,222
    It's interesting to notice that there is no mention about recovery solutions. I suppose people have what gives them a sort of peace of mind when using their computer.
     
  20. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    In short I mentioned running recovery soft as part of my security setup and your right the most important of all IMO is a recovery solution.cheers
     
  21. progress

    progress Guest

  22. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,634
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Of course.

    This is what helps vendors gauge their products more effectively because of the scrutiny applied to their releases.

    After that, it becomes clear that the LAYERED APPROACH is still a formidable safeguard and the odds are in our favor and only raise the bar even more with additional security measures.

    The fact is, malware has a road map of Windows NT systems and work to exploit those weaknesses unendingly, so while it's not neccessary to HEAP a load of safety apps on a machine, it definitely decreases if not totally eliminates the chances of being overwhelmed by 0-day viruses/malwares of ever reaching the foothold inside systems multi-fenced with today's more aggressive shieldings offered by vendors. Just how many can be a luxury or simply a solid prevention against various methods designed to infiltrate and/or cause maximum disruption in service.

    EASTER
     
  23. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    Good Gosh.LOL
     
  24. Beavenburt

    Beavenburt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Posts:
    566
    I think most at Wilders appear to use what is necessary and what they feel comfortable with. There are however, some setups like siberianwolf has referenced that are absolutely ridiculous. Running so many realtime security apps must feel like having malware on your system anyway. Unless you're tester there really is no need for such setups. I didn't vote as my answer is some do, some don't.
     
  25. pandlouk

    pandlouk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,571
    It depends from member to member.

    For example I use nothing but SRP and firefoxs noscript. More naked than that...;)

    ps. I bought a license of norton for my brother in law and Agnitum security suite for my sister and my parents.

    Panagiotis
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.