Which Do You Think Is Better: SafeNSec or OnlineArmor?

I am just wondering what you think is the better of the two programs between Online Armor and SafeNSec. And why. Also does anyone run both, are there any conflicts.

 

With the exception of some registry areas, they cover mostly different things. They work fine together with the exception of the latest SnS beta, which will probably (hopefully) be fixed before the final release. The upcoming versions of both will have a lot more overlap, but as they are now they compliment eachother well. If you have one, and are thinking about the other, I would wait. If you don't have either I would recommend trying both of them to see which works better on your system, and which is more user-friendly for you. Either will give you good protection, and both are pretty quiet after being set up

 

For goodness' sake, why is this a 'poll'? Polls are so over-used on Wilders and for quite inappropriate purposes. If you want technical feedback on products why not just simply ask the question?

OK, your question really cannot be answered, because you don't qualify exactly what you mean by 'better'. One person will always have different selection criteria than others, so not knowing yours is a real handicap.

As with any security product, it must be put in the context of (a) your experience and capabilties with computers and their security on the internet, (b) your particular internet usage patterns, and (c) other security software and hardware that you might have. If you made this known, people would be in a much better position to help you.

That said, both products have their strong (and weak) points, and in their current public versions they work well together, if that is what you want them to do. I also partake in the current beta test programmes for both products, but more than that it wouldn't be fair to mention speciifcs of either, except to say that unlike Notok I have had no trouble with either beta version running well with the other.

 

The poll is poorly phrased anyway."Which do you use and think is the better program"?

You might think one program is "better", yet use another because of other reasons. A better poll question would be, which of the following do you use?
and include the 4th option None of them.

Notok, I'm much more familar with OA then safensec, you state that they cover different things, what exactly are we talking about?

I got the impression that safensec as some kind of rulebase that makes decisions for the user, so it can be quieter than most. On the other hand it makes it very difficult to see what exactly it's alerting on.

Can you shred some light on this? Thank you.

 

deviladvocate,

I'll take a try at this since I do use SafenSec. Basically you're correct.

SnS has an internal ruleset that identifies potentially malicious operations, the details are hidden from the user and, at least in the version I use, not accessible to the user. I have no idea what the future versions holds in this regard since I don't beta test the product, I just use it, but a press release does mention a few of the feature set changes. Some of the nuances are apparent when you have overlapping products installed - for example, if RegDefend is installed, you will see RegDefend flagging registry write operations left and right, while SnS flags only a subset of them related to autostarts/services/pending file rename operations/etc.

For applications which perform a potentially malicious operation (most installers obviously fall into this category), SnS will flag many of the setup operations which involve registry entries or file deletions/edits in the Windows folders.

The StarForce website does have a basic description of how SnS works and a feature set matrix. These pages cover SnS on a conceptual basis, you won't find too many technical details there.

Both Online Armor and SnS are solid products. I have licenses to both. Right now SnS is what I use on my home machines. For me, the key drivers were:

• It's a very quiet application unless an installation or registry/key file edit is in progress.
• Minimal impact on system responsiveness (OA is the same here).
• Facile ability to switch to/from "Total" control mode which forces you to explicitly approve everything. Excellent idea for debugging a potentially compromised machine.
• Has an integrated demand scan only AV (Bitdefender) if you want to spring for the option.
• Seems to get along with most everything. The only issues that have emerged in my hands are conflicts with the proactive module of KAV/KIS 2006 beta (really no surprise here). On my test partition simple disabling of this KAV 2006 functionality didn't help, I had to deselect this module on the installation, then all was well.

OA is noisier, but not distressingly so. I would say personal preferences would be the key decision issue between the two. As others have noted, both applications are on the front end of fairly significant updates. I'd try to get a sense of how they would compare after those releases before purchasing either option.

Blue

 

Im sorry if this was an innapropriate poll question. Its just i have been recommended both these programs. And have found i need something like this on my system. But can only afford one (and even that is at a push) so i need to be absolutely sure i buy the right one.

I also apologise if i did not word it correctly. It was very late when i typed it as i was having a bout of insomnia.

Thanks for replying though
Anthony

 

Blue, excellent answer.

I was looking for that link.

Could you describe "Activity control policies"? It says you can define them. How flexible or complicated is this. A screenshot of this would be nice if you could find the time.

Thanks

 

Don't worry about the wording, most polls here have horrible post questions, or horrible choices

Anyway it led to some discussion of the 2 apps, so it's not all a loss.

IMHO it's better to make up your own mind rather than based your buying decisions on a poll.

 

both programs work differently, but i voted for OA thats what i use. once it gets the firewall, registry protection, and maybe other features, itll be hard to beat.

 

One other point to consider is cost. While Safe'n'Sec may seem cheaper (US$25 without antivirus) it requires an annual renewal (with a 30% discount) to continue working. With Online Armor, I believe that the program will continue working after the one year licence period (like a firewall) making such renewals optional. While OA costs more (US$39.95), there is a $10 discount available and its renewals are $14.95 compared to SnS at $17.50. Neither product offers a "multiple-use" licence for home networks though OA does offer a discount for 2 or 4 licence purchases.

Both products require online activation though with OA this seems to be a once-off after installation. SnS appears stricter (limited reinstalls was an issue - is it still?). In both cases, this does raise the possibility of losing the ability to reinstall if the company goes out of business (though Online Armor would likely have the activation removed as mentioned by MikeNash in this post).

 

deviladvocate,

Thanks.

Actually I have no idea how the revised rules will be handled. Right now (version 1.1) the only operation you can do is to remove an application from the trusted (all activity allowed), resticted, or partially trusted/restricted lists. No pre-emptive addition of applications is allowed, nor is provisional disabling or editing of individual application rules - they are either all on or off.

Unfortunately I'm waiting on this release along with the rest. I'll post once I have the update - which seems to be targeted for November - although I do run the small business version, so it could be later than that for me.

While this issue strick me initially as well, at least in my own situation I decided that since I tended to remain current on programs I use, the required yearly renewal was pretty much a moot issue. However, for a potential customer it is a potential barrier to entry.

Blue

 

i'm loath to buy any software but i really do draw the line at annual fees - one day microsoft might cotton on to this idea and charge you a subscription fee every year for using vista - if you don't pay then suddenly you find your hard disk is mysteriously wiped of all it's windows files the next time you do auto update