Which "Internet Security"-Product to use?

[Drufuss]

Hi there!

I've been reading some articles/reviews about internet security suites lately and wanted to know what products you are using and whats your experience with it, your opinion about it.

Every brand seems to have it's "bad" sides, like missing features, slow performance, missleading GUI, etc.

So please, share your wisdom with me (and everyone else readng this thread)

Greetings

Dru

P.S.: Right now i try to decide between Kaspersky IS 2009, Zonealarm IS 2009 or Bitdefender IS 2009.

[CrowdAds]

[ctal]

That's my impression as well, that all of them have shortcomings of one sort or another. So I don't use any. What I do is:

-- I use a business class SonicWall hardware firewall + router (really excellent, but around $450 in the USA).

-- I use NOD32 v2.7 anti-virus (not their security suite, and not their more recent v3 anti-virus, which I tried shortly after it was introduced, and I found all kinds of problems with it).

-- I use Spyware Blaster anti-spyware, which essentially just places a list of known bad sites in the browser's restricted zone.

-- I leave XP's built-in firewall enabled, although with the SonicWall there is no particular reason to do so, but it has never seemed to adversely affect performance.

Haven't had a problem yet, on any of several computers that my wife and I use. I should add that I have an always-on cable modem connection.

Regards,
-- Al

[Ninjin]

The 3 that you are currently looking at are great programs, but I have found that avira security suite works best for me using pretty low amount of resources as well. I advise looking at this site for more information on AV security suites. http://www.av-comparatives.org/seite...e/report19.pdf

[wonderwrench]

Originally Posted by Ninjin

The 3 that you are currently looking at are great programs, but I have found that avira security suite works best for me using pretty low amount of resources as well. I advise looking at this site for more information on AV security suites. http://www.av-comparatives.org/seite...e/report19.pdf

So avira no longer kills hard drive performance? I tried their AV about 2 years ago and it was not usable. PC was dog slow. Running a HD bench progy like HD tach showed HD performance was cut by over 50% when enabled.

[Ninjin]

So avira no longer kills hard drive performance? I tried their AV about 2 years ago and it was not usable. PC was dog slow. Running a HD bench progy like HD tach showed HD performance was cut by over 50% when enabled.

I have not experienced any actual performance difference.

[wonderwrench]

Originally Posted by Ninjin

I have not experienced any actual performance difference.

Nice to know. I'll have to put it back on my list.

[Ninjin]

Ya let me know your results, cause for all I know I could just be special or something haha.

[PeterT]

I have an always on, cable modem connection and use:
A Linksys router as hardware firewall
ZA Free as software firewall
AVG Free as AV/AS
MVPS Hosts file

This combo works fine for me and with the exception of the router, it's all free.

[XJ.]

Kaspersky AV 2009 (not IS, most integrated suites suXors).
Vista Firewall (which is bi-directional, unlike XP)
Basic firewall in router.
Use OpenDNS as my DNS to filter out additional badddd sites.

I'd love to have a Sonic Wall like ctal, but I don't have the $$s right now.

[zapionics<alt>]

I really like ZA and use it on my Xp machines... but they dont have a Vista 64 version

[Terry Reynolds]

If you must go with an integrated security suite, you might also want to look at F-Secure, it was the best one that I've looked at. (I haven't seen Avira.) I don't use an integrated suite, myself, due to a sour taste in my mouth for "integrated" suites. Those I've tried (McAfee and Norton) had pretty severe performance penalties due to the management software that "integrates" it all. I'm guessing the better performers mostly bundle discrete products and have minimal "integrating" management.

[Terry Reynolds]

Also, a word of advice:
A good hardware firewall is important, but does not negate the need for a software solutions at the host itself. The hardware firewall is not going to be able to monitor and control by application. The software firewalls are what might prevent a trojan from accessing the internet using a legitimate protocol. Anti-trojans are what might prevent another trojan from hijacking a legitimate progarm (like Outlook or IE).

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by Terry Reynolds

Also, a word of advice:
A good hardware firewall is important, but does not negate the need for a software solutions at the host itself. The hardware firewall is not going to be able to monitor and control by application. The software firewalls are what might prevent a trojan from accessing the internet using a legitimate protocol. Anti-trojans are what might prevent another trojan from hijacking a legitimate progarm (like Outlook or IE).

I agree with that. Otherwise we would only need to use something like NAT in our routers firmware and it would be sufficient. But in fact the problem is that we may give a trojan access rights uknowingly if it is masquerading as a known application. Software firewalls can check program profiles and attributes to ensure that the program is in fact the real mcoy.

[Drufuss]

Thanks for all the info so far.

I have found an interesting site with many reviews here.
They state that BitDefender is "the best" with only one downside, slow performance when transferring large files.

Greetings

Dru

[Terry Reynolds]

Originally Posted by zapionics<alt>

I agree with that. Otherwise we would only need to use something like NAT in our routers firmware and it would be sufficient. But in fact the problem is that we may give a trojan access rights uknowingly if it is masquerading as a known application. Software firewalls can check program profiles and attributes to ensure that the program is in fact the real mcoy.

On the other hand, a good hardware firewall will typically do a much better job of closing your ports and making you "invisible" to all the hackers out there. And, NAT provides a fairly good layer of protection as well. Additionally, it provides its protections using no resources from the individual hosts, and (now that I've used the plural) can provide its protections to multiple computers. You really need both.

The best harware firewall I know of that is even close to reasonably priced is SonicWall's SOHO version at around $450. But, a lot of NAT firewall-routers under $100 are adequate for most users.