So, from the supergeek technical perspective, what works best without eating resources or requiring that I micromanage everything to the gnat's ass?

I and a couple of my co-workers have moved to Kaspersky from Norton at home in the last year and I think we are all pretty satisfied with it. Seems to have much less over head than Norton and generally does better in virus tests. Both are more than adequate, though. I think everyone has a particular AV vendor they've had a bad experience with and will never go back to. Norton is one you'll hear a lot of complaining about, but I've never personally had it wreck a system on me. McAfee, on the other hand...

-H

Hellbender fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 05:04 AM.

quote:

---

Noxhil2 startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I'd say that Firefox + some extensions and Ad-Aware is all you really need. Being intelligent in your browsing is the best defense. I also run Hijack-This a couple times a year to make myself feel better.

---

Hope is not a course of action.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Hellbender absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Both the Microsoft OneCare service and the client have scored pretty shitty across the board. The main advantages are that it is cheap (comes with licenses for up to 3 computers, IIRC) and that it will automate some routine maintenance for you - backups and defrags and whatnot. Since I've already been doing this with Scheduled Tasks for sometime, it really ends up being a wash to me.

I and a couple of my co-workers have moved to Kaspersky from Norton at home in the last year and I think we are all pretty satisfied with it. Seems to have much less over head than Norton and generally does better in virus tests. Both are more than adequate, though. I think everyone has a particular AV vendor they've had a bad experience with and will never go back to. Norton is one you'll hear a lot of complaining about, but I've never personally had it wreck a system on me. McAfee, on the other hand...

-H

---

Thanks. I may give their free trial a try just to see. I've also had good luck with Norton for the last 10 years or so.

Spyware is a vastly larger issue than viruses these days.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 10:20 AM.

I hate it so much I went back to using '03 and Adaware. '03 is still supported and still receives virus scanner updates.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Mortious absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I hate, hate, hate Norton '06.

I hate it so much I went back to using '03 and Adaware. '03 is still supported and still receives virus scanner updates.

---

Yeah, it's '06 that's making me think about other things. Maybe if '07 isn't so bad, I won't have to trust my computer security to a Russian company.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Bloodsage booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Yeah, it's '06 that's making me think about other things. Maybe if '07 isn't so bad, I won't have to trust my computer security to a Russian company.

---

07 is a definite improvement, but make no mistake - it's still norton, and will still irritate you with it's invasiveness.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
Hope is not a course of action.

---

What are you talking about. The threat of spyware is greatly exaggerated and easily avoided by browsing intelligently.

Edit: My bad, I read "malware" in the op as "spyware." In that case, in addition to above recommendations, I use NOD32 and it works well. I put AVG on the computers of friends and family and they don't have virus problems either.

Noxhil2 fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 04:37 PM.

quote:

---

Quoth Noxhil2:
What are you talking about. The threat of spyware is greatly exaggerated and easily avoided by browsing intelligently.

Edit: My bad, I read "malware" in the op as "spyware." In that case, in addition to above recommendations, I use NOD32 and it works well. I put AVG on the computers of friends and family and they don't have virus problems either.

---

You recommend that I simply adopt a browser no one bothers exploiting, "browse carefully," and hope nothing bad happens. That's what I'm talking about.

Do you really think I don't browse intelligently?

The entire point of the thread is to be intelligent and have a system in place to protect me in those instances where simple caution is not enough. Closing my eyes and hoping for the best isn't a very good suggestion.

Which isn't even remotely leaving your security needs to just "hoping."

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about (_|_):
You recommend that I simply adopt a browser no one bothers exploiting

---

install linux problem solved

duh

Seriously though, whether it's due to the "hurr less users = better than" argument or because by some magic it's more secure over all the effect to the end user is the same: malware goes away.

Simply put: Would you rather stop malware before it installs or remove it after?

edit: All the data I'm seeing with quick google searches about Firefox's install/use statistics place it at least in the mid to high teens percentage wise. The W3c thinks it's like 30% but I think they basically just post the access data for their site and their site is pretty much exclusively used by web designers so the balance is a bit skewed.

edit #2: nod32 is the best antivirus software you can buy. Norton and Mcafee are both awful. They've been awful for years and they just keep getting worse. I don't know about antispyware because I'm pretty sure I haven't had any since late 2002 when Phoenix 0.3 (now known as Firefox) was released

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 06:44 PM.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Kegwen absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
install linux problem solved

duh

Seriously though, whether it's due to the "hurr less users = better than" argument or because by some magic it's more secure over all the effect to the end user is the same: malware goes away.

Simply put: Would you rather stop malware before it installs or remove it after?

edit: All the data I'm seeing with quick google searches about Firefox's install/use statistics place it at least in the mid to high teens percentage wise. The W3c thinks it's like 30% but I think they basically just post the access data for their site and their site is pretty much exclusively used by web designers so the balance is a bit skewed.

edit #2: nod32 is the best antivirus software you can buy. Norton and Mcafee are both awful. They've been awful for years and they just keep getting worse. I don't know about antispyware because I haven't had any in 3+ years

---

No, I'm not about to adopt random niche products as a "security strategy." That's just dumb. Nor, as has been proven over and over, are linux or unix or [insert fashionable OS here] inherently more secure than anything else by virtue of their sheer coolness. Linux and unix can get you in just as much trouble as Windows if they aren't configured properly and kept scrupulously up to date; their sole advantage, as a matter of fact, is that they've chosen to sacrifice a greater amount of convience in the name of security than is possible in an OS designed for mainstream users.

The opposite of security is convenience, not insecurity.

Further, you're completely clueless if you think Norton sucks as malware protection. It's the interface and the resource use that are less than optimal, not the level of protection. Norton, as a matter of fact, scores better than NOD32 in independent testing, albeit by a fine margin.

In short, why not get a clue before forming intense opinions about things? At least Noxhill sort of had a point, and admitted the niche nature of what he recommended.

Am I also understanding that your take boils down to: You would rather use Internet Explorer 7 because Microsoft won the browser war last decade and is now #1 on every possible usage metric you can find on the Internet. You would rather not use Mozilla Firefox because it's "niche" and provided by an open source corporation. You would rather not use Firefox because you believe that its security model is "security through obscurity." You would rather not use Firefox because you believe that somehow they have made browsing more difficult to a mainstream user in the pursuit of making their browser more secure.

I need to be clear on what you're stating before I proceed.

Also: Norton is great malware protection and I have no problem with how well it accomplishes that goal. It sucks because it's incredibly taxing on your computer compared to other solutions. As you said, the opposite of security is convenience. It's possible to have all the security of Norton without all the inconveniences Norton has, such as being very taxing on your system's resources and being incredibly naggy. I seconded the recommendation of nod32 because I believe it accomplishes everything Norton antivirus (note: just the AV, not the full suite) does without being as inconvenient

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 07:07 PM.

Edit: and fercryinoutloud don't bother to 'proceed,' since you haven't the faintest clue about computer security.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 07:22 PM.

Fortunately for you, Vista prides itself on security so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you end up buying. Enjoy!

edit: goddammit do I have to make typos every time I post

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 07:36 PM.

quote:

---

Kegwen startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I'm pretty confident that even if a computer security expert employed by a multi-billion dollar corporation were to post the same recommendation in my stead (presumably with much better wording and technical justifications) you'd blow him off because you've proven yourself time and again to be arrogant and stubborn

Fortunately for you, Vista prides itself on your security so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you end up buying. Enjoy!

---

Wait, what? It's obvious both from this thread and the debacle about Macs that you're nothing but an OS fanboi without the faintest clue about the real issues involved.

Your problem, of course, is that no actual computer security expert would recommend what you have. Pretty much for the reasons I've stated. If all you've got are random assertions about my character, why not just keep it to yourself?

Come back when you understand the conversation.

Alidane fucked around with this message on 03-10-2007 at 08:23 PM.

Spysweeper I have found to have a fairly small memory footprint, and it keeps it's paws out of the OS for the most part. It keeps itself updated and gets regular program updates in addition to definitions. Your mileage may vary though, as I used it combined with Ad-Aware and still had junk sneaking in when I used IE.

Other than that I have nothing but personal experience to throw behind recommending it.

That might help the folks who keep jumping to conclusions and recommending browsing strategies and assorted other stupid shit.

quote:

---

Quoth Hellbender:
Both the Microsoft OneCare service and the client have scored pretty shitty across the board. The main advantages are that it is cheap (comes with licenses for up to 3 computers, IIRC) and that it will automate some routine maintenance for you - backups and defrags and whatnot. Since I've already been doing this with Scheduled Tasks for sometime, it really ends up being a wash to me.

I and a couple of my co-workers have moved to Kaspersky from Norton at home in the last year and I think we are all pretty satisfied with it. Seems to have much less over head than Norton and generally does better in virus tests. Both are more than adequate, though. I think everyone has a particular AV vendor they've had a bad experience with and will never go back to. Norton is one you'll hear a lot of complaining about, but I've never personally had it wreck a system on me. McAfee, on the other hand...

-H

---

Decided to look at the free trial of Kaspersky' internet suite and see what happens. Looked again at NOD32, but not only does it only do viruses but CNET said its uninstall is the worst ever, leaving virtually everything behind in the registry and program folders. Kaspersky was the only one whose uninstall actually removed the program.

Scanned my system in under an hour, which isn't bad, and it's not the resource hog Norton was. Trying to find the balance now between having to approve everything it does and not having any idea what it's doing, but it's not too bad so far.