If you keep Windows updated, and you are not "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, attachments and popups, you don't need Imunnet 5 and Adguard.
Adguard is an adblocker , still very useful. However, i agree with Immunet , i won't use it even if they pay me
@Scotlarock2013 I never used Immunet so can't make comment about it. Other protection seems good to me. I would only add something to backup your system and other data.
Use a safe browser such as Chromium-based or even Edge. Also, use the latest Windows 10 for the best OS security. Adguard is a good global ad blocker; you can also add uBlock Origin to your browsers and enable most third party filters. These filters will keep you safe from most dangerous websites.
True but uBlock Origin is open source, so I trust it a lot more. After the WOT fiasco, I uninstalled all browser extensions except uBlock Origin.
OpenSSL issue was due to a bug that the developers did not intend to. No software could exclude unintentional bugs 100%. WOT issue was because the developers deliberately steal user's info without the uers' awareness. In this case, the developers of WOT did it on purpose. You see the difference?
Anybody can make a mistake--that is what ad blockers/anti-malware are for! Any ad blocker/extension in the browsers is better than nothing, but like many, many others, I prefer uBlock Origin. As for your HIPS/anti-malware, if you've been clean so far and your machine runs fine, you must be doing something right. But I always keep an eye out for the latest anyway.
If you discount an entire class of software due to problems with one program in one area of that class of software, you should be using a typewriter - and a manual one at that. Or pencil and paper. There are certainly lots of examples of major problems with Freeware, Shareware, or commercial programs whether they were open source or not. I don't favor open source over closed, or the other way around. I just favor the program that works best. But one advantage to open source (at least with very popular programs) I do appreciate is bug fixes are often corrected much faster once reported as there are more teams of developers looking at the problem, and sharing their findings. I note there was a fix released the very same day the Heartbleed OpenSSL vulnerability was announced to the public. It really was only a big deal because the vulnerability affected so many sites that it took a few days for the fix to be fully implemented on a global basis. Ummm, what are bugs called the developers intended? Features!
That is the problem, they are not, open source just gives the idea, that they are. That simple bug existed for 5 years and no one has noticed it, because everyone was like, it is open source, someone else will check it out. And openSSL is not some "useless" app, it is an essential software needed to keep connections secure and yet it was neglected by everyone.
Again you are taking one example and applying it across the board as if it sets the rule. Exceptions don't make the rule. Note I said "fixes are often corrected much faster". I did not say every single time as you just implied. Nor did I say or imply anything to suggest OpenSSL was "useless". You are slamming all open source projects because of this one project. That's just silly. And I don't know where your 5 years claim came from, but that just is not true. The Heartbleed bug was introduced into the program in 2012 and reported in April 2014, the same day a fix was released. But the fact a bug is not "noticed" means nothing - except that it was so obscure it did not affect anything, which is a good thing. When programs have many 1000s or even many millions of lines of code, it is inevitable there will be bugs. The issue becomes whether it affects security or not, if it is vulnerable to being exploited or not, and lastly, if it has been exploited or not. If you want to avoid open source, that's fine. But it is not fine be biased against all open source projects based on some problems [that have been remedied] with one project.