Outpost Pro/NOD32 and Spysweeper vs Spyware Blaster/PG

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Salamander, Oct 3, 2006.

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

    Salamander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    41
    I currently have Outpost Pro 4.0 and NOD32 antivirus software. I am interested in opinions on getting SpySweeper antispyware or the combining Spyware Blaster and Process Guard.
     
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    if u are a safe surfer, outpost and nod32 should be enough. between the two, they do have some antispyware capabilities. if u want more id suggest a free on-demand scanner(s) like ewido and superantispyware.

    for an added layer of protection, u can add ProcessGuard or any other HIPS (like online armor, prevx1, or SSM). when properly configured and used, they can prevent rootkits, keyloggers, and many other malware.
     
  3. CBiggerstaff

    CBiggerstaff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    I have outpost firewall and nod32 as well. I also have spysweeper and like it, but since upgrading to outpost 4.0 they don't get along. They co existed on my initial install, but after doing a reboot my system will hang at startup until I disable the autostartup of spysweeper. Seems like if spysweeper is running and you start outpost it will lock the system. I am running the latest version of each.
    I definitely can't recommend spysweeper currently, perhaps Outpost or Spysweeper will resolve this issue. Outpost noted upon install it has some issues with spysweeper and moved it into an exceptions area, but apparently that isn't enough.
     
  4. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    Thats plenty of protection imo. Use a couple of free on demand scanners regularly and you should be fine. I used the same combo for a long time with no problems and i did do some dangerous surfing at the time.
     
  5. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi CBiggerstaff,

    With regard to Outpost 4.0 and SpySweeper not getting along, SpySweeper perhaps on bootup may be trying to check for any updates, but if Outpost 4.0 does not allow Internet access for SpySweeper - then I can see where it would be a problem. I would put a rule into Outpost to allow SpySweeper update software to access the Internet, if that is possible.

    I have used SpySweeper (with all of its Shields active) on bootup with other firewalls and I do believe that it is necessary that it be specified to be allowed through the firewall for external access.

    -- Tom
     
  6. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
    Hi Salamander,

    SpywareBlaster provides passive protection by installing items for identified problem downloads in the Registry that turn off an ActiveX 'bit'. Its very good and has no performance impact at runtime. I usually check about once every two weeks for manual updates, and, of course, it is freeware unless you buy the automatic update functionality.

    Process Guard protects the local processes in your computer and offers a different but more powerful form of protection against attacks that may make it onto your computer but never get to execute because of PG's protection features.

    -- Tom
     
  7. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    Spy Sweeper on startup will initialize its shields and after that, the shields will start checking things, for example, the Favorite shield will check for new Favorites or newly added startup items and prompt for your action, and this is this moment that may hang a bit. If you find that you have severe hangs, you can turn off the shields, and then turn them on one by one and see which shields are causing the hang. After all shields are initialized, you will no longer get the lockup. I have read a lot of post about lockups, hangs or freezes, or even BSOD, but so far I don't have BSOD or lockups, although the shields have a little slow down in my machine on 5.0.7.X. I am also using Spy Sweeper and Outpost together but I got no problems so far. You can turn off the shields which you think might have caused the slow down.

    You will see improvements in Spy Sweeper in the coming version 5.2.
     
  8. Aragorn7

    Aragorn7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Posts:
    7
    After using Outpost Pro for a couple of years, I removed Outpost Pro 4. It not only had problems with SpySweeper, it slowed down my computer, yes, even with SpySweeper disabled and removed from the Startup sequence.

    My cpu usage by Outpost would often run as high as 23%. I realize it was probably perform quite a bit of analysis in order to protect me, but one also has to weigh performance vs the real risk of infiltration. Since I am not running with a Dual-Core processor, I find this performance hit unacceptable. I am, however, running a 1.8 GHz mobile pentium processor with 1 GB of ram on my laptop. It has been more than sufficient for any other programs, I have thrown at it.

    I have since tried Comodo and like it very much. I may also give Sunbelt Kerio a try. Both are lighter on system resources than ZA and now Outpost.

    I left Symantec for the same reason and went to Eset NOD32. The difference in performance is amazing.

    IMHO it happens everytime a firewall or anti-virus company tries to become all things for everybody -- they become resource hogs.

    Other people may have different experiences and I understand that. Many times it depends on the programs that are on a user's computer that will determine whether a user is happy with a particular firewall. No conflicts = happy. I had conflicts and slow performance; so I was unhappy and uninstalled Outpost. I'm out the money I paid for two years more of updates, but my computer runs much better.

    Just my two cents. ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.