i am not too happy about security apps???

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by jmonge, Nov 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i am not too happy about security apps this days,why if is not compatiblitie isues it is the lack of security options or bloated,problems with your taste.

    note:the only 2 that are so far close to satisfy my needs are DefenseWall and EQSecure:thumb: :thumb:

    some times i feel disapointed to see the lack of good customer service in some security companies or sort ofo_O

    the problem this days is that malware makers are getting ahead of security vendors and some of them only interested in money making and not care about securing people's files,etc.
     
  2. Seer

    Seer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Posts:
    1,596
    Location:
    Singidunum
    A personal rant jmonge?

    If you have problems with your taste, change the taste. There is nothing wrong with security apps, it might well be the case where the problem is on the "users side".

    All these issues you mention - lack of customer support, money (people have to eat, you know), and such will always be there. With different vendors to different extents.

    If you found security applications that suit you (DW & EQS) use these and stop complaining.

    Cheers,
     
  3. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,404
    jmonge, you have chopped and changed security programs so much, after starting to just learn how one works, you've changed it. Your brain must be ready to explode.

    I second Seer's advice, keep what you have now (for a few months at least). And relax buddy. :cool: :D
     
  4. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Hello jmonge

    I share in some of your frustration going way back to even when XP first came out. For one very simple example. At a time when script viruses were at their apex apps like ScriptDefender were very effective in intercepting file associations disquised or just plain microsoft scripts, however the makers must have intended for us to keep their app inside our PC forever because unless you first backup and save those default associations in a reg file, and you decided one day to remove SD, you find your vbs/reg, etc. files quit functioning altogether. I dunno, maybe that was an oversight on their part at the time but still when you look at the overall picture, it would been but a small effort to make a uninstaller easily restore those associations back to their original functionality. A main reason member ErikAlbert went ballistic over that app when he discovered that problem after uninstalling.

    More ON topic though, we have to make the most of whats available to us irregardless of our valid and easily obvious problems when it comes to securing our good machines from the underworld of malware devils and their disruptive crafts.

    You might look at it this way though. Some security developers, really good ones at times, do just enough to keep up interested and in anticipation of better protection to come, but then there are those makers who like us are on a mission to razor wire malware creations in whatever form they try to throw at us (and them), and those makers are to be greatly commended for their efforts and mind boggling talents.

    Over the years i've grown weary of security apps that go half way then leave things stalled for a time while users get slammed hard and in some cases either greatly disrupted from their work or totally destroyed. For me that is completely unacceptable, and because of that it becomes strikingly clear just who or what product maker is fiercely slashing back with their own expertise in our favor compared to the ones who become complacent (for whatever reason) and fall woefully backward into a fog of defeat for both themselves (company + reputation).

    But don't be dismayed. If theres any consolation in this circus of competition between the attackers and defenders, it's that the defenders have grown progressively more alert & strong and in some products is undeniable, whereas others just crawl along little by little.

    Threatfire for me is a good example. I got so furious and fed up with issue after issue, or FP's from PCTools TF i even reached back in history and found even old so-called obsolete apps like CyberHawk outperformed these new programs (under a different name), untill now at least, ThreatFire is back on course IMHO to becoming a useful contender again.

    The same could be said for about any security application thats actively in current development, they either conquer and reap rewards and respect from their customers or they lose ground and reputation to other more aggressive developers who stop at nothing untill they get it right for both theirself and us.

    EASTER
     
  5. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i know people:D i guez i have to settle down for what its best for my pc and my litle knowledge:) anyway so far the only security aproach that really convince me is a combination of a hips and policy base sandbox:D and most important the i have alot of respect for programers that make H.I.PS application cause they are very close to perfectly protect your os when properly configure without the need of antivirus or antispyware:D
     
  6. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    endorse that but I :doubt: Jmonge will do that
     
  7. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    uppps you know me well kees:D
     
  8. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    The computer arms race has been going on for a long time. Privacy and security have always been in catch up mode. It's just the nature of the problem when both the users and their PCs operating system use a default-permit mentality and design. Default-permit is all the average user knows. They want to be able to install and run whatever they choose and expect their security package to stop everything that's malicious. On these terms, real security is impossible, but this is what most users want. Security vendors that don't cater to these customers have a hard time staying in business, unless they have some other source of income. Take SSM for example. In the hands of a skilled user, SSM can make a PC nearly bulletproof without the need for signature updates or a steady stream of new versions. For some skilled users, it's a gold mine. For the average user, it's way too complicated. The result is a powerful product that's suitable for a small percentage of users and is a one time sale for the vendor. Not enough market for the vendor to survive financially. The vendor added a learning mode in an attempt to make it more friendly to the less skilled user. The learning mode did make it easier to set up SSM, but it also made it easier to make rules that opened up attack vectors and allowed malware to run. The vendor could add a database that would configure SSM properly for different applications and could identify stuff the user shouldn't install. That would turn SSM into a bloated security suite that again relied on signatures, which is what it was designed to avoid. They'd also have to hire employees to keep up that database which gives them the same problem the AV vendors have, never complete or completely up to date with constantly increasing expenses for the vendor.

    I've been fighting malware since the days when AAW and SpyBot were the only options and apps like SSM, Process Guard, and Comodo didn't exist. I've watched both malware and security apps evolve, seen good ideas and security apps come and go, and have come to one conclusion.

    As long as the users and the PCs design stay in this default-permit mentality, there's no simple answer or long term answer. Just an unending arms race.

    If you're looking for software or security apps that will secure your system for you and make it secure against everything you might encounter, you'll never find it. That said, you can get out of the arms race, if you want to. To do so, you have some decisions to make.
    • You have to decide what your PC is to you. Is it a toy or a tool? Define its role(s). It can fill more than one role, depending on what they are. Some roles can't go together. It can't be both a secure data storage and a platform for trying new games and software (or malware testing).
    • Your biggest security asset is your knowledge of your system, its OS, the software you use. Are you willing to invest the time it will take to learn it, what each does, how it works, what each needs?
    • Getting out of the arms race means you have to give up the default-permit mentality. If your PC is a tool, equip it with the software you need and use. Configure it to do what you need from it, then lock it down so that only those apps can run. If it's unknown or new to you or your system, it doesn't run. From a security perspective, the known is not a problem. AVs catch known malware. It's the unknown that gets you, and default-permit allows the unknown..
    This is the foundation for a default-deny security policy. Default-deny is one the most effective security policies you can use, and one of the most limiting. It works very well on PCs with defined roles because it restricts the PC to that role. Default-deny prevents changes to your system, whether good or malicious. Updating and installing become the duties of the system administrator, not performable by the user or from user mode. When properly implemented, the user never notices the security policy or the software that's enforcing it, as long as their usage remains within the defined role of that PC. When they try to go beyond that role, "access denied" is what they see.

    Except for the example of SSM and financial viability, you'll notice that I did not mention any particular security software. That's because the security policy is what protects you, not the security software. This is not just a game with words. It represents a change in the overall perspective and a shifting of the responsibility from the software to the system administrator, you on your system. The security apps are enforcement tools, implementing your decisions. After you define your security policy, then you configure the system, user software, and choose/configure the security apps to enforce that policy. You alone can decide if this is for you.
     
  9. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    This is very interesting info. Thank you !
     
  10. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    thanks for the wise explanation i like the last 2 colums part of your coments thanks for the reply,today you were like tylenol for me:D taking my headche away.:D
     
  11. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Don't worry Jmonge, I think almost everyone here went thru what you are going thru when they first started to get into computer security and Wilders. :D

    In the future, hard to say whether near or far future, your bouts of security paranoia will start to ease. You will become confident that you don't need 50 security apps all running at the same time to protect you from stuff that you may not ever run into. You will be able to start to explore other things on your computer besides security apps. Or....you will decide you don't need the hassle, take a sledge hammer to your computer, and take up Golf or some other non-computer activity. All I can offer is my wishes to you for a speedy recovery and journey back to normal computing life. :p
     
  12. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    yeap,i will hear all of yo,i bet at the end i will end up by only using a hips or a firewall(comodo)with hips and gain my confident again and still be protected:D
    as cogito says peace and gratitude:D
     
  13. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Thats good. Golf season has pretty well ended in Calgary for the year. :D
     
  14. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    it is winter here also
     
  15. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Yeah, and since i live downwind from Alberta, we're catching a pretty good portion of your downdrafts.

    But who's complaining anyway, seasons change and seasons go, been happening for eons. :D
     
  16. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    are from the states?anyway if you dont get a virus in your computer here in wintercalg will get a virus from the cold:D
     
  17. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    easter is eqsecure 4 ready for prime time?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.