Security Suites vs Stand Alone Programs

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by duke1959, Nov 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    Now that I have, and am satisfied with AVG 7.5 Internet Security Suite. (Plus having it prevents me from trying so many of the free security products. LOL.) I still think free Stand Alone programs offer slightly better protection, and may be the way to go. For example. Would many people argue that using Antivir PE, (I know, no E-Mail protection)Spyware Terminator, and Comodo Firewall doesn't offer better or at least as much protection as most Suite do? Or Avast Home, with Windows Defender, and say SKPF 4.3.2 Free version (Even in free version it has a little better outbound protection than the AVG Suite Firewall) along with Cyberhawk? I could go on with other mixed examles, and this opinion can certainly be debated, but I do believe having stand alone programs definitely offers a wider range of features within each program. So if someone wants an easy set and forget set up, I think they would like myself be satisfied with AVG ISS, or the Avira Suite. On the other hand though, if someone likes to have more versatility in their programs, like I have in the past. Then stand alones may be the way to go.
     
  2. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006

    I belive separate programs are the way to go.
    e.g. nod32 or kaspersky great av.
    but kaspersky firewall isnt as good so you could use comodo which is a great firewall.
    same with antispyware/antimalware.
    suites have to have some componants weaker than others and normaly a slower pc as well.
    lodore
     
  3. greenhorn113

    greenhorn113 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Posts:
    149
    Location:
    England
    I keep reading on this forum praise to Comodo firewall but to the users other than being told fully protected on the main screen have you tested the firewall on such as pcflank.com,I have and not good results.
    I want the site to be proved wrong and a free firewall to be as good as a paid for version but at the moment can only go off what the tests indicate including open ports on the defaults settings when its supposed to be protection straight after install.
    I am no expert but test results compared to zone alarm pro and outpost pro(if thats the version in Bullguard 7.0) are shocking.
     
  4. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    other people have run it against pc flank and others and it passed fine.
    have you read this link http://www.firewallleaktester.com/
    lodore
     
  5. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    check the version. Current Comodo version is 2.3.6.81!
     
  6. sukarof

    sukarof Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Posts:
    1,714
    Location:
    Stockholm Sweden
    I read sometimes that some people get open or closed ports with default (out of the box) settings. I wonder how it can be such different results.
    The first thing I always do when I test any firewall is install it, I don't change anything, then I go to the testing sites.
    I did this with comodo too and I was stealthed on all the sites that tests the firewall stealthing. It has only been one or two firewalls which I have tested that was not stealthed with the default settings.

    I take it you didn't touch any of the settings before you did the test?
    What ports did you have open?

    (no, I dont have a router)
     
  7. greenhorn113

    greenhorn113 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Posts:
    149
    Location:
    England
    I will have to check if i noted which 2 ports,but it was on the default settings on my laptop running xp pro sp2 and bitdefender av10,and the advice from pcflank was to get a firewall also running spyware blaster and spysweeper latest version.
     
  8. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    hum... an advice for comercial product :cautious:
     
  9. greenhorn113

    greenhorn113 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Posts:
    149
    Location:
    England
    I should also add that after the pcflank test I emailed Comodo who said they would get back to me now probably 2 weeks and still waiting,I am not intending a pop at Comodo but I am confused why when I tested it on pcflank it failed miserably on the default settings
     
  10. tradetime

    tradetime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,000
    Location:
    UK
    One intersting thing I have noticed whn scanning with pcflank and shieldes up is that the results differ, shields up shows full stealth on all ports whereas pcflank identifies ports 135 and 139 as closed but not stealthed, and of course then recommends a change of firewall to outpost. Call me cynical but any test site that pushes a specific product always raises some suspicion with me. :rolleyes:
    HackerWatch.org also tells me port 139 is invisible so I would test around first
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
  11. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Yep that's what i'm saying. Red Flag:eek:
     
  12. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    PCflank's firewall test is not reliable.
     
  13. greenhorn113

    greenhorn113 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Posts:
    149
    Location:
    England
    Well I have just tested Bullguard IS 7.0 everything fine except browser only 50% allowing details of previously visited websites which I am not happy about and am waiting on advice from Bullguard live help after same result Monday night.

    Zone Alarm Pro always passed all tests on Pcflank except leak tests but I have tried all different combinations of AV and Firewall some clearly not compatible but Comodo failed both the port scans and browser and as previously said not yet heard back from them.
     
  14. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    security suites all the way

    1. cheaper
    2. one installation
    3. one program to maintain and configure
    4. in my opinion, better protection than stand-a-lones
    5. less crap on your machine
    6. more of a choice to suit your needs, unlike the 'few' antivirus and 'few' firewalls etc etc
     
  15. huntnyc

    huntnyc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    977
    Location:
    Brooklyn, USA
    Web page trouble with Bullguard 7 also. OLiked it a lot but I cannot use it until that is corrected. The firewall issues network attack stopped balloons and then legitimate Web sites do not display correctly such as my credit card site. No other problems like this with other setups so far.

    Gary
     
  16. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    There are good reasons to use stand-alone apps over a suite.
    1.Price.Free programs like Comodo and AntiVir PE Classic offer excellent protection.
    2.Less clutter on some occasions.I can run 3 programs and still not have the 12 processes that F-Secure does.(Comodo,AntiVir,BOclean)
    3.More choice.Why take what's in a suite when I can assemble my own from what's available?I can have the features that I want.
    4.The popular layered security approach.
     
  17. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i dont find it popular,

    yeah it would be cheaper if you use the free ones, obviously, but talks of outpost / nod32 / prevx1 / kav etc etc is more expensive.


    yes 3 programs, might not use as many processes as a suite, or some of.... but you talk of clutter, i talk of speed of the machine, and those 3 programs do NOT run as fast as a suite, whether it uses less ram or less processes or whatever.


    more choice? hmm ... i dont think so

    lets just give an example of F-SECURE 2007, £35

    KAV
    lavasoft adaware
    norman deepguard
    f-secure backlight
    [firewall of your choice]

    plus 1 or 2 other things what i cant remember, add up the processes in stand-a-alone products to cover those and they will be close to or exceed 13 processes and 50mb ram.

    doesnt comodo firewall alone use 40mb ish?
    nod32, just an antivirus... 20mb ish?


    sure, if you want to use avg free / comodo free firewall / spybot etc etc, its free... and will keep you secure, but it wont run as well as a suite, and this "clutter" you talk of, i think all these programs installed is clutter, than just one, plus the pain in the butt of updating all, configuring all, and maintaining all, a waste of my time frankly.

    sure, if you have nothing to do all the time... and want to do all that, sure..take this route :cautious: , but id never recommend this option for stand-a-alones at all.
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006

    how about KIS 6.0 full kaspersky suite only two processes and around 20mb ram? proavtive defence and soon a new heristics engine?
    doesn't that sound good.
    lodore
     
  19. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    im not dissing kaspersky here, dont mis-understand me.

    i really just dont like this "multi-program security crap"

    and thats what this thread is about

    security suites, gets my vote all the time :D
     
  20. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Efficiency i don't know. What i know is trying not to pay without my cpu suffering.:D
     
  21. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Usually, firewalls are the weak point in security suites. For example, I´d choose AVG Antimalware plus a good firewall over AVG Suite.
    In my "dream setup" I´ll combine a good AV w/antispyware detection abilities plus a good firewall and a friendly HIPS like Sandboxie or GeSWall. That´s all
     
  22. greenhorn113

    greenhorn113 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Posts:
    149
    Location:
    England
    I have also tried Kaspersky Suite 6.0 and had quite a few issues particularly the firewall by the way I had a look at Steganos Internet Security Suite which to me seemed identical to Kaspersky.
     
  23. greenhorn113

    greenhorn113 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Posts:
    149
    Location:
    England
    Re a free standalone av and emails can you only get viruses through email attachments not knowing put me off antivir free although I liked it and it seemed similar to kaspersky I know it continually scans your computer but I read somewhere about digital viruses in emails if not I would be happy to have antivir personal classic as my only av then either zone alarm pro or outpost pro as my firewall then just a decent anti spyware required not spyware doctor or spysweeper.
     
  24. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
    The only security "suite" that I really like is FSAVCS. That's one tight little bugger, and everything in it works very well. Now that I'm no longer entitled to use it, I won't go the suite route. If something goes dotty bonkers with a module, you're stuck! :'(
     
  25. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    i myself prefer standalone programs. i find many suites to be jack of all trades and masters of none, though kaspersky's suite may be an exception.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.