Nod32 v Webroot Spy Sweeper - Do I need both?

Hi, this is my first post so I am hoping this finds someone who can advise. Although I use Nod32 for anti-virus I have been using Webroot Spy Sweeper for spyware detection, do I still need Spy Sweeper or can I discontinue with it, only Spy Sweeper is set for a daily scan and always detects multiple threats (albeit low threats in the main such as:- WebTrendsLive Cookie is a cookie that may track the unique visitors to a Web site, as well as their personal preferences. or similar and occasionally detects more severe threats that Nod never has)? Nod32 never seems to pick these up so, is it Nod32 doesn't believe they are a threat, is Nod32 picking them up at all, should I stick with both Nod32 & Spy Sweeper for extra security? Bottom line, does anyone have a definitive answer that Nod32 is as good as the marketing says it is or, do I go for the feel safe factor and keep both? Is there a better solution out there I am not aware of? Kind regards to anyone who reads/responds to this. kinolmontie

 

Hi kinolmontie, welcome to Wilders.

You are better off with NOD32 and a HIPS program than a 2nd spyware scanner, as NOD32 handles spyware very effectivly.

Cheers

 

The following is my opinion only. Your mileage may vary...

I feel adding some type of active scanning antispyware to the mix of any antivirus is a good thing. As good as I believe NOD32 is (and I do think it's excellent), many antispyware prorams look at computer process/setting changes, which the current version of NOD32 does not do.

As for cookies (of any kind), cookies are not adware or spyware. They don't run any type of program or process. What "bad" (when classified as such by an antispyware program) cookies can (note I did not say will) do is allow the cookie's owner to follow your surfing around the web if their cookies are allowed by the web site you are visiting. So rather than call "bad" cookies adware or spyware, they probably are better classified as a potential invasion of your surfing privacy.

For this reason, and the fact that (with a little effort) users can easily take control of their cookies themselves, some antispyware programs ignore cookies or only scan for them during manual scans.

FWIW, I do most of my surfing as a limited user, I run an AV (NOD32 of course ), and antispyware, a firewall, an anti-trojan, and a registry/process monitor. (Blackspear mentioned a HIPS program (a very good thing) which offers benefits similar to the limited user constraints.) I'm a firm believer in layering my protection. Since nothing can offer 100% protection, hopefully something I have in the mix will always be able to do the job...

 

The advice offered already is 99% good. The one exception is dealing with your SpySweeper.

My advice, keep them all! Why? no single product captures 100%.

If SS is consuming to much PC resource you could use it as an on demand product. NOD 32 is currently # 1/#2 in most evaluations, but once again none of them get 100%. It only takes 1 parasite to bring your PC to it's knees.

What about your backup plan? It is as NB as scanners!

 

What part of "follow your surfing around the web" does not constitute spyware? Seems to me to be a definition of spyware - watching every move you make on the web, and associating it with your net address and sending it to parties unknown for whatever. Where I surf should be nobody's business beyond my IP. While many websites require you to accept their cookies for access, it is at least nice to whip those SOBs off your computer almost as soon as they get there. Tracking cookies steal.

 

I agree that my definition of spyware may not be what others consider it to be.

Specifically, I define spyware as a program or process that is actively running/collecting personal data (such as keystrokes or screen captures for passwords and such) in order to forward that data to another party outside of one's computer.

Building on this perspective, cookies are easily handled in several ways, where spyware is often difficult to detect and remove. In my case, I handle my cookies on the fly, before they are set. I allow some to stay permanently, some to be session only and others are banned. (When handled in real time, tracking cookies should never be an issue.) But even if I didn't handle cookies in real time, there are a number of tools that can easily deal with them whenever I wish to.

For these reasons, I consider tracking cookies to be a much less serious issue versus the far more serious, personal information stealing, spyware.

 

Thank you to all of you who replied, from what you all have said I will keep SS as additional security, your greater knowledge is very much appreciated, Kindest regards to all, Kinolmontie

 

Excellent combo; I use both, and SS many times stops processes from happening that NOD does not. I call NOD and SS my "gruesome twosome" and the threesome of NOD, SS, and BoClean, my "terrible trio".

Acadia

 

IMO.... NOD32 + SS 5.3x + ZA (ZAP or other top rated firewall) = excellent security

 

Thank you all but having made the decision based on the overall advice to keep both, this is what i have done, so many thanks and no need for more posts/threads to this question... Kindest regards to all, Kinolmontie

 

"... I consider tracking cookies to be a much less serious issue versus the far more serious, personal information stealing, spyware. ..."

I consider comprehensive lists of visited websites associated with my PERSONAL static IP address, and providing the usually encrypted contents to parties unknown to be a spyware issue. If someone is watching me eat dinner through my dining room window to see what I eat each evening, that is also spying. Both take place on my personal property, I have given permission for neither. I see no difference. But I can see where some would not have any trouble with either cookies or someone watching what cereal they eat for breakfast every morning. I agree there are different definitions for spyware. Cheers.