Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Gabriolone, Nov 21, 2011.
Do you believe that Scanners are more reliable than Sandboxing Apps?
I believe both have thier place.
Ideal security, to me, would be at least 2 parts.
1. some mechanism that keeps threats via the network or removeable media at bay. Virtualize, imaging, policy/restrict, uber hips, doesn't really matter. Only thing that matters is that your "environment" is able to be kept control of.
2. some form of scanner or test environment for those times when you do desire to execute unknowns. AV can be used here, or apps like MBAM etc. That is thier use, and provided they are up to date and actually worth anything, can be a good tool.
Using an AV/Scanner only without some means to control your environment is what has been done for many years, and has not solved the problems. IMO most of these tools that stay "resident" are only needed "on demand", but sadly none of the ones I would like to use are truly stand alone scanners, but must integrate into your system (mostly referring to AVs on that).
Well, countless users have stayed Malware-FREE
without having any Resident Scanner.
They have used Only
Sandboxes together with Boot-to-Restore, ISR or Imaging Apps.
Scanners have been used on-Demand Only (here and there... )
to prove (by finding No Malware... )
that the above Security Combination
needs No Resident Scanner(s)...
lol. I am one of those very people.
I use no AV. No resident anything. Only SBIE and OS features.
However, I do have MBAM installed normally to manually scan if needed.
And, I do submit untrusted files to online AV scanners.
This isn't for everyone of course, but proves to ME that I can have good security without all the heavy tools.
I know that you are...
I've also jointed the Club since 2007...
I fail to see what is so silly about wanting the ultimate in set-it-and-forget-it security?...
Having Sandboxie being able to connect to a massive library of malware definitions automatically, and scan new files before they're moved out of the sandbox... without any interaction necessary on the part of the end user, nor any footprint sucking up the resources on your box.
Yeah, you're right... who in their right mind would find use in a product like this? I must have been completely crazy!
I agree Lucid.
And of course... people that didn't want it could simply not enable it. It should be an option via a simple tick-box.
2 tick boxes actually. One to automatically scan the new files, and another that would allow you to do so manually... perhaps when you close your browser a box will pop up asking you if you want to scan the file(s) before recovering them?
Now... should I start going on about how I think Microsoft should integrate this into the OS in Windows 8?
Nah, I won't go there.
Unfortunately there are a lot of implications both with blacklisting and with sandboxing that make it less than ideal for Microsoft at this time. We'll see.
Frankly, I don't mind security companies and MS taking their time developing real solutions. I guess that's selfish of me but the longer they take the more time I have to develop my own project.
You can never have to much security....
But to much (in realtime) can result in conflicts which could/would reduce security not increase it.
I Disagree.To much security can slow a system to a crawl like some malware does.To much secuirty Can cause a system to be unstable like some malware causes.To much security can conflick with each other and leave a system less secure with out the users knoweledge.
Why you asking? My guess is you already know the answer but can't think of a better thread to start!
I agree, but some users just install NIS or KIS etc. and tats it...
It's like a house, first you guard the house with wall's and a gate, then you guard the windows, then you add an alarm system, but is that truly enough security? No, what if they get trough or over the walls? What if they get through your windows/doors. and finally your power might be off and the alarms backup battery might be dead...
Boom their in.
The same applies to Computer security.
True.Layered security that covers different areas sure.But some have to many RT Anti-malware or overlap security thinking more is better,When actually some times less is more.You forget one thing,The hudge dog in the house.
Yes, but your security for your home or your computer should take account of proportionality. If your storing the cyber equivalent of the Mona Lisa on your hard-drive you need different precautions from someone doing a little home shopping.
Another example. When I go swimming in the sea I know I might drown so I wear a life jacket. I know my life jacket may burst so I have an emergency life jacket. What if I loose that? I'll take a dingy with me. What if the dingy sinks or floats away? I'll have a boat moored close by. On no what if I'm attacked by a shark? I better swin in a shark cage. Am I enjoying swimming in the sea? No don't think so but I should be that's the point. Its much easier to pick a nice safe beach with a lifegaurd and not go out too deep than to take precautions for every eventuality. Might I still drown or be eaten by a shark, yeah, but that's life mate. At least with computers you can bring in a back-up or re-install and most banks cover you for on-line fraud/identity theft now.
Most home users need a layered approach that provides them with a balance between security and usability. Despite what we think here computers are not about security apllications. They are about improving our lives, entertaining and informing us and making communication easier. Security is a necassary component not the purpose and we should build our systems based on that premise IMO. The ultimate goal is to maximise security with minimum resource to make the best of on-line activities IMO not max out security and restrict the wonderful cyberworld out there to just a threat to be thwarted.
Separate names with a comma.