Some AV's (or security suites) have very granular interfaces. Others are designed with relatively few options. Perhaps the best example of what I call a blunt interface would be Norton 360. Many features can not be turned off in a straightforward way. To get rid of the anti-fraud bar in IE, the user must use the IE manage programs feature to disable the BHO or active x control responsible. Some of the rule based firewalls like Jetico present extreme examples of granularity. On the other hand, Zone Alarm free users choose either "allow" or "block" a program in its entirety. When in the advanced mode, Avira allows a lot of granular control over what it scans. Nod32 is another AV with much granular control, and perhaps default settings that leave something to be desired, at least according to Blackspear. Avast and AVG in their free versions provide cut down interfaces which hopefully have the correct settings. You can give a blunt interface to your sister, girlfriend or mother with the confidence that they will not mess it up. Of course, your female friend might be an IT manager somewhere who knows more than you do. Some granular products can be set up for the non technical user, but this works best in a locked down environment where no new programs may be added by the user. Do we lust after granular control simply out of a desire to have control? Is it likely we would mess up a granular interface and be worse off than with a well designed blunt interface? How does granularity improve security, especially if the default settings are goofy at best? What do you think everyone? -Ron, a diver who has been out of the sea for too long.