Hey DST4ME,

 

I have ESET, also running Webroot Secure Anywhere for malware/spyware.

 

Its time to renew my Webroot and the 2013 version had antivirus as well. I don't think I want two antiviruses running although the Webroot guy insists not only is it better but won't conflict with ESET . Just wondering if you guys think I should just ditch Webroot or are they really better now?

 

The machine is only going to be used to play games, and a windower program to run FFXI. Going to use my current pc for everything internet browsing based. The plan is to play on one machine, and have wiki up on the other so I know what the heck Im suppose to be doing ingame  lol.

 

I just "renewed" my Spysweeper, but I got Webroot SecureAnywhere.  I know they are both webroot products but now I have both running. It seems I renewed Spysweeper and was given a different product. Do you recommend deleting Spysweeper now?  I have ESET 5 for AV/Firewall.

Any suggestions?

   I have been looking to getting a new gaming rig and have to consider what anti-virus software to get.  Anyone have any thoughts on the new Webroot software? I read a review in PC mags and they got a really good rating.

anyone have any expierence or thoughts about it?

 

The important point here is "he fell victim to a phishing scam".  It is practically impossible to protect 'newbs' from themselves.  Sometimes some folks just have to learn the hard way.  How can Mueller get to be the FBI director and still be such an idiot?  The FBI is after all, all about CRIME is it not?

 

riffraff

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/10/fbi_director_on_internet_banki.html 

 

The beauty of ZA is that it is not nearly as invasive to your system as a product like NORTON is. 

 

I agree with you 1000000000%, more is not necessarily better(whooo wheee I bet that statement is going to rub some gamers the wrong way).  IF the Win 7 firewall is improved enough from the XP firewall, I will not feel the need to use the ZA product.

 

Now, she is usually talking well below my head when it comes to computers, but I like to listen to her on the radio while I am doing crap around the domocile.  If Kim Komando mentions something like that the Win 7 firewall is 'better' than previous versions, I might forgo a 'better' firewall such as the ZA.  I will also be reading MAXIMUM PC to see what they have to say.  I can't recall any specifics about their opinions of the Win 7 firewall so far.

 

riffraff

 

My opinions only, YMMV

 

riffraff

 

Then I had Online Armor, which was not bad, but I think they're a bit of a small company. They didn't have a Vista version so I dropped them also.

 

So far (about 2 years) i've had few issues . . . actually, none . . with Vista's stock FW. It asks me about programs I want to run through it, and I assume opens the relevant ports to do so. I don't use an IM, which is a big offender in letting unwanted crap through, and I only use web-based email.

 

I agree with EdH63, it's sufficient. I don't run a business from my computer, I wouldn't lose money if all my data was lost (although I'm pretty careful about backing up stuff that's be a real pain to recover). I'd be pretty steamed if a virus ate it all, but in an hour I'd calm down, scrub the HDD, and reinstall.

I greatly appreciate your explanation about ZA's firewall.  Thank you very much, Ed.

One of the things that pisses me off about ZoneAlarm is that it is known not to respond well when you run other antispyware software.  I would like to be able to run multiple antispyware programs so I'm definitely going to look at other options besides ZoneAlarm. 

Also, what antivirus are you using? 

Here's a link:  http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/zonealarm-extreme-security.htm

 

 

I know some people think that there are only black hat hackers, but there are plenty of white hats, equally if not more skilled with just as many tricks up their sleeves to protect as the bad guys have to thwart protection.

 

Nothing is perfect but the thing about the internet is it is not just 1 good guy, it is many all working and in the end sharing knowledge of discoveries, thus why there are constant scan engine and fingerprint detection files distributed to anti-virus utilities.

 

If the situation really was as you say Venom there would be a huge outcry from many sources and there just is not... why you ask, because like most wars, the conflict is essentially an arms race, both sides developing better weapons to combat the other, neither really having any huge advantage so the battle remains a stalemate with occasional battles won on each side to make things interesting for the rest of us.

 

To go without anti-virus/anti spyware is foolish and will come back to bite even the most careful of users. Do not let people like Venom dissuade you from running a well reviewed security suite. Based on my reserach when I was rebuking DST's points I would hardily reccomend both Norton Internet Security 2009 and the latest eSet. They both have excellent histories of detection and removal of malware not matched by any other package out there. 

 

Dave

 

The tasks have a total of about 100 threads according to Process Explorer 64 Using 0% of CPU.

 

The total CPU Time for 3 days up and online is:

 

4 Minutes and 58 Seconds.

 

So Not bad.

 

Dave

 

 

Showing that the reviews for Norton AntiVirus are virtually all 5 stars... excellent.

 

Dave 

 

NIS 2009, which I have used since reading 4 very positive reviews in 4 seperate sources is one of the leanest security packages around.

 

It uses 10 Megs, yes megs of memory sitting still, in other words, tiny memory footprint. During idle scans, which you guessed it only occur if the PC is idle, it jumps by about 150% to 25 megs, still tiny.

 

My boot times unsecured were 40 seconds, 53 seconds after install also excellent.

 

The firewall is rated at one of the best by every reputable security rating company on the net. The anti-virus is super fast especially with Norton Insight active which essentially scans static windows files only if the file changes, using checksum signatures to verify windows dlls and such are actually what they say they are, then it ignores them. A/V scans run about 5 minutes at a pop when my PC is idle for at least 30 minutes and stop immediately if I start work. On demand scans are also active. The protection offered has gotten VB 100% award every year since 1999. A stat that no other package can match, not even ESET which has failed twice in that time and has the second best record after Norton. Eset failed in (2000 and 2002) so in essence both have excellent Anti-virus.

 

I do not know the install footprint on Eset, but I do know that Norton has improved at least 100 fold since the heydey of bigger is better virus protection to a much leaner and very very fast utility that it NIS 2009, this coming from a person who used Norton Anti-Virus in the late Nineties and was rather disgusted at the time by the slowdowns it created, so I have no love for Symantec it is true, but after 10 years I was willing to give it a try based on many excellent reviews not only from reviewers like PC Magazine, but also hundreds of positive reviews on the likes of Tom's Hardware Forums, Amazon.com, newegg.com, howtogeek.com forums as well as the Virus Bulletin reviews, West Coast labs and ICSA which all rated NIS 2009 as passing with flying colors all their tests.

 

According A/V Comparitives a site that rates and compares A/V Protection eSet only earned Advanced while Norton A/V earned Advanced + certification. See the attached link to their report September of 2008.

 

 

From all I have read eSet is a good a/v utility, it is just not as good as the latest crop from Norton in my opinion, especially considering your points about how Norton is a computer hog and uses alot of resources are meritless both from my own testing and everyone elses on the web regarding system foot print, scan speed and boot up time change where Norton is at the top in every review I have seen.

 

Dave

 

 

 

I didn't notice ESET on the review.  How dŒs it compare to the others?

 

the issue is that outbound program control is lacking.

 

Thus if you have any less skilled users, like kids on your PC they can get into trouble by downloading programs that silently send information to an external source with no alert to the system admin user.

 

A good firewall, as in Zone Alarm, Norton Internet Security or Kaspersky will prevent internet sends as well as potential attacks until the activity is approved by an administrator user ID, something that Vista's firewall will not do.

 

Dave