They can't be safe

I think for normal user stability, user fiendliness, and install and forget functionality is much more imp that detection rates/ protection modules etc.

 

I am a minimalist when it comes to security products, I have always preferred performance over protection when it comes to computing. Although I have tried many different security applications and softwares over the years, I have never used more than a firewall and an antivirus program for protection. "Fear" is a powerful marketing tool.

 

Yeah i agree for most people a simple av combined with the windows firewall and maybe windows defender is more than sufficient.

For me i'm starting to look at hips type apps to give me more control over my system. I figure if i can control more of what happens on my system i can do away with the need for many scanners.

 

I get that. But you guys say that behind your personal artillery of software. Sure its for kicks, but nevertheless, the army is there
For people who don't really care except if the pc starts to slow due to spyware, or crash to virus, FW+AV surely covers them enough. But there are really anoying spyware, like CWS, pop-ups, etc. At least advice should be given to use a sandbox, which prevents most of it, and it's not complicated to use. I really start to think that a sandbox module should be integrated in a firewall.
And people who think like that shouldn't waste a dime in AV's.

 

its 'not needed' so why have it?

why install crap you dont need, spending money on software you DONT NEED, it just seems pointless to me.

either buy a suite, or buy an antivirus and firewall, simple as that.

 

Huh? I didn't understand C.S.J.
If you think its' crap, why buy anything??
I haven't spent a dime so far. And i do believe in having more than the traditional FW+AV. Unless we talk about the next CPF 3 .
Free layered security does almost the same as paid. For the home user. For business those freebies are paid. I would consider paying for Prevx1, but nothing that i know of has passed through FW+Sandbox. Not yet.

Note: this is not an invitation for hackers . I know i'm not that safe! Would i be safer paying for the "top" apps?

 

I guess running more and more security applications also necessitate upgrading to faster hardwares (good business for some companies) in time. I think that the endless pursuit of bulletproof security on a PC is largely psychological for most people. One of my friends says it right, AV and other security programs are one of the few categories of softwares that big companies and home users are "hooked" to pay for every year. Many companies/people will not upgrade their "office" application every year, but they will pay to stay updated with their security applications (be they signatures based or heuristics based).

 

what didnt you understand?

the need for all these security programs / prevx1 / sandboxie etc etc are not needed, either a suite or antivirus and firewall.

the is absouluty no need to buy these programs and waste money, same goes for HIPS... yeah HIPS is great if you want to know more about whats going on, but some suites have this in anyway.

and before you go on about prevx1 once more, maybe you should check its results in the test on av-comparatives, its poor.

 

I haven't spent a dime yet. And i'm not preaching Prevx1, just saying what i'm thinking about. So i see the comparative. I have one of the apps that passed all of the tests there And you missed the point of Prevx1. The concept, which is a 1st i think. For that concept to fail, the auto. research would have to fail in analysing it later on.

And no! i won't waste 60 dolars or whatever on a Suite!

 

your not understanding what im saying at all,

a personal computer using a router with built in firewall and a 'basic antivirus' will just be as protected as you, thinking or maybe using these programs, dont you understand what im saying at all, these prevx1 / sandboxies etc etc are software thats just not needed, so why bother?

i just dont see the point of installing software and clogging up a machine with software thats not needed, also ... the paid ones, why waste money on these softwares that are not needed, what are you paying for really, the right to think your more protected than anyone else because your using "one more security program".

its the same argument i make for people who try the layered security, why stock up on expensive amounts for one brand of antivirus / one antispam / one firewal / one spyware / one hips ... think of the money, think of the fact you have more software to configure and manage and think of the clogging up of your machine, thats all im trying to say.

 

well it would depend on what you want to be protected against

how so?

one could use prevx1 and/or a sandbox as alternatives to running multiple scanners (AV/AT/AS).

its all a matter of preference.

some people prefer specialized tools others like suites, some people can afford to spend money others cant, and some people like tweaking programs while others prefer the set it and forget it approach.

 

just because you can afford that option, doesnt mean you should get it.

spending more money for 'no better' protection is just a no-no in my view.

also, these prevx1 type programs, i just dont get all the hype... not needed in my opinion and i actually found they performed poorly, and not just that... its just adding to boot times and system resources for nothing.

 

As for performance, agreed. But i'm not using too much, the pc is still runing fine. Not liking Prevx1 ok, but sandbox actually prevents things getting to your system in the 1st place. If it does so perfectly, then there we go again...
It's an attempt to keep it as clean as possible. Without clogging the computer. Fitting each one's needs. That's all.
And we agree on something else: not paying lol I consider paying for Prevx1. Because if it gets something no AV of mine gets (i have backup AVs to check) then it's worth it. But it still has to get through my "firewall" (FW+Sandbox). I did that approach with Spyware Doctor to see if it got anything else. It doesn't anymore. I refined my defense.
All for zippo and no pc sacrifice.
On the rest we agree to disagree

 

I COMPLETELY! agree with Jerry's original point. These forums (I do love them make no mistake) sometimes make things seem more dangerous then they are. Just be careful enough when surfing that you don't blindly download stuff, have a functional AV/AS/Firewall and that's it. You don't need 50 hardening apps and on demand scanners. USE YOUR COMPUTER FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED - fun/work. If you spend all your time securing the darn thing, you're just wasting time/money!

I don't even think an alternative browser is TOTALLY nessecary. Firefox is past its prime. I use it, but eventually it'll become the same or worse then IE with security. Please dont give me the "but no, Mozilla is good with patching, it's open source" blah blah blah. It's still shown problems, so obviously, that argument doesn't work. Even if you use IE, if you just quickly up the Internet zone settings, you should be fine! Alternative browser arguments are getting a little outdated - IE is a little better now and firefox can only have more problems as it gets more popular.

 

That,s it.

 

At the end of the day, the safest computer is not one with the best AV, FW, AS etc, its one that is managed with common sense and precaution.

 

Even if it wasnt techincally clean, let's say it had malware. If it's not causing ANY symptoms, then who cares? When it starts doing something, it will be caught by a program.

 

Tell that to the person who knows little about security and just received an email from their ISP Provider threatening to cut them off. Why you ask?. Because of the many complaints they have received about infected email after infected email being sent from their computer, emails they aren't sending. "Hey, I didn't know that was happening. My computer seemed fine". This does happen, more than you realize. But hey,

Right!

 

I do not know anyone who has received such complaints.
Jerry

 

One of my Windows XP SP2 machines uses no security software at all. No firewall (behind a router), no spyware (Firefox without Java installed, using NoScript), BUT I Jotti every download and run BitDefender online every other day or so. Results over last 2 years on this machine: clean. However, my confidence on this PC is still shakey. I use a "fully loaded" PC for any online transactions or interactions with other PCs.

SourMilk out

ps. Forgot to add, I also use webmail that uses viruscan on attachments on my naked machine.

 

JerryM

This happened to me about 3-4 years ago when i knew nothing about security except to install AVG. Maybe i wasn't making sure it was properly updated, i don't remember.No firewall, nothing else. I just didn't know very much about it. And when i got that email, it really began to open my eyes. And i also felt bad about infecting others. I certainly can't say i saw symtoms of infection. So that's why the people with these 'Who Cares' comments and attitudes really irk me. Because i did care, just didn't know any better.

 

The online scanners are fine.Preventing an infection is a hell of a lot better than hoping that you can access an online scanner after the fact.Very risky without rtm.But hey,that's only me.

 

True but I'm not sure the abilities of that program extend to catching the big withdrawal from my bank account.
I'm not one for paying out a lot of cash for lot's of security programs, but I believe in having a reasonable cross-section of free ones to catch most things. As for slowing down my computers, sure I guess they do compared to not running any, but then I'm not managing the shuttle program from my computers, so the resources used would be idle anyways. An ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure imho.

 

That's how i think too. Why wait for a reason to have been covered? When i'm ripped of?

 

Each is free to do as he will. All I know is that everyone of the folks that I personally know use AVG free after one of the big two that came on their systems.

Not a single one had gotten infected, and no messages notifying of it. Sure it can possibly happen, but it has not, and it is no more likely than if he were using a bunch of stuff as we do here. Those folks NEVER visit unsafe sites. Emails are well handled by AVG.

I do read here of folks who claim to have gotten infected when using one of the better paid AVs.

So if one wants to spend a bunch of money and fiddle with the conflicts then have at it. I am speaking of folks who object to having to do that, and don't.

Best,
Jerry