What's wrong with using Kaspersky Anti-Hacker?

This question was thrown up by a friend who is a conservative surfer. Who doesn't venture off the track to problem sites, doesn't play games over the net. Just uses the net for a bit of reading and posts in a few of forums. And very minimal shopping.

She loves her anti-hacker console she understands it, its simple and has some visual style about it. She has adsl & windows XP and has a D-Link wireless modem/router. I suggested on-line armor free with no hips as it is simple and has a nice look and is up to date.

She's going to mention it again when I see her. So really is there a danger for her retaining her 'good old' anti-hacker FW considering her fairly non-adventurous surfing habits?

 

Since there has not been a reply yet, I'm chipping in with my own bit of nostalgia. Way back in the recesses of my memory I recall fondly my days with Sygate FW.

So for my own peace of mind, I'd like to propose two oldies for a brief evaluation. Kaspersky anti-hacker & Sygate. I have ommitted ones like Jetico & Tiny etc as they all required an understanding of FWs & the net. Anti-Hacker & Sygate were different. They had cute operator consoles that made the illiterate feel confident.

So are Kaspersky anti-hacker & Sygate able to hold the line for conservative surfers with the norm for today, a wireless modem/router up front?

 

I would say the only danger would be possible vulnerabilities or bugs in the software. I've seen quite a few people stick with older firewalls like sygate or kerio and they seem get by just fine.

 

Forgot about Kerio's love-child, Sunbelt. Thanks, let's add Sunbelt to the mix as it also had a user-friendly console that was self explanitory and public/user-friendly.

 

It would probably boil down to your mastery of the software, as long as you know how to modify rules, troubleshoot or tweak the program, I guess you're good to go. I mean, even if you're using the most state-of-the-art firewall software, but you're not familiar with it; in the end, the more obsolete software, which you are more comfortable using, would probably end up more "secure."

 

... however all your most sophisticated protection mechanisms may be rendered useless by just having one single outdated/vulnerable product ...

Up to you to take make a decision based on the risk linked to the machine use and content.

 

True that.