Firewall and AV for Vista?

[Wigwam]

After finally getting some consensus on my security for my desktop [XP Pro] (get Comodo v3.1 and continue to use Nod32 v2.7) I have just bought a new laptop so need something for Vista!!

SO Firewall: Comodo 3.1 here again?
Which AV?

Or get kaspersky Internet Suite [I undertand it is a bit resource-heavy though]?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Hope these threads help:

Best AntiVirus/Security Software for Vista

Best security suite for VISTA- 32 bit

whats the best internet security/virus checker i can buy?

Which is better? Kapersky Internet Security or Norton Internet Security

Best Internet Security Suite's For Vista?

Best Anti-virus / INTERNET SECURITY!

Antivirus Detection Rate Thread

Antivirus / Security Suite Free after Rebate Deals

 

[Wigwam]

:laugh:
I consider myself chastised

 

[Rottie]

Get AntiVir it is the best! I had both AntiVir and Comodo Firewall Pro 3.0 on my notebook but i find Comodo Firewall is annoying with many popups during installation.

 

[blackangst1]

As has been discussed ad nauseum, use Vista's FW. It can do the same thing a 3rd party can do and is just as, if not moreso, configureable than 3rd party. Better to use something native.

 

[Ultralight]

My daughter's laptop has the Vista firewall and Avast! In almost a year's time no issues, no infections.

 

[QuixoticOne]

I've found that the newer comodo on Vista 64 is MUCH better than the older XP variant I've been familiar with on other PCs in the past.

It seems like they added a lot of customization menus for rules and so on that were sorely lacking in the older version.

I use Comodo Firewall Pro for Vista now, and it has a decent set of "spyware" type of tools in it as well.

I also use Avast's anti Virus for Vista and that's working well under Vista 64 for me in conjunction with Comodo.

I turned Windows Firewall and Windows Defender off.

I have never seen any indication as to how the Windows Vista firewall is *nearly* as configurable with respect to custom allow / deny rules for inbound & outbound traffic and applications as the newest Comodo for Vista 64.

I've been considering trying Kaspersky Internet Security (AV + firewall) 7.0 or Kaspersky AV 7.0 for Vista as an alternative if I found a problem with Avast / Comodo, but I have had little reason to want to switch away from them yet.

Comodo is still a bit annoying in some aspects of its GUI and design, but I find it usable and much improved over the past. Certainly worlds better than Symantec/Norton/McAffee!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
I've found that the newer comodo on Vista 64 is MUCH better than the older XP variant I've been familiar with on other PCs in the past.

It seems like they added a lot of customization menus for rules and so on that were sorely lacking in the older version.

I use Comodo Firewall Pro for Vista now, and it has a decent set of "spyware" type of tools in it as well.

I also use Avast's anti Virus for Vista and that's working well under Vista 64 for me in conjunction with Comodo.

I turned Windows Firewall and Windows Defender off.

I have never seen any indication as to how the Windows Vista firewall is *nearly* as configurable with respect to custom allow / deny rules for inbound & outbound traffic and applications as the newest Comodo for Vista 64.
I've been considering trying Kaspersky Internet Security (AV + firewall) 7.0 or Kaspersky AV 7.0 for Vista as an alternative if I found a problem with Avast / Comodo, but I have had little reason to want to switch away from them yet.

Comodo is still a bit annoying in some aspects of its GUI and design, but I find it usable and much improved over the past. Certainly worlds better than Symantec/Norton/McAffee!

Is that a guess or do you by chance have an example?

I can give you one. You can pick any application to port forward through anyport. you can specify only incoming TCMP and only outgoing UDP if you want. By IP if you'd like. Not that you would actually DO that, but you could.

 

[Entropism]

Windows firewall can be EXCELLENT, IF configured correctly. Problem is, most people will never have it configured, and they'll think it's helping them out of the box, which it isn't. Out of the box, Windows only has inbound protection, google up how to enable outbound protection and set rules, and it'll work fine.

As for Comodo, the main reason I went to it is for its HIPS feature, which is outstanding. Kaspersky IS is pretty damn good as well, I just had a few issues I wanted to get away from.

 

[Lemon law]

Not only is Vista a far more secure OS than XP, the vista firewall is far superior to the SP2 firewall of XP. To start out the vista firewall is two way and the XP firewall is only one way, but even then, its says nothing about AV's and the fact that hackers will be working on finding Vista exploits as microsoft takes the slow road to patching. Nor does it address the fact that modern firewalls like Comodo 3 and future versions of on line armor will be superior to the vista firewall while adding other security layers.

Given the complaints regarding Vista, I have to wonder if microsoft will be soon forced to go back to the drawing board, and come up with a less bloated OS. Or if the problem will cure itself as new PC's bulk up on the ram Vista needs. Perhaps the Vista mistake was not demanding a gig of ram or more because Vista is a dog with less.

But I have to wonder if a basic rewrite of XP, with better security and better memory handling, would have been the way microsoft should have gone. If microsoft wants a world OS, they cannot continue down the bloatware path because they will hardware price themselves out of the market.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Not only is Vista a far more secure OS than XP, the vista firewall is far superior to the SP2 firewall of XP. To start out the vista firewall is two way and the XP firewall is only one way, but even then, its says nothing about AV's and the fact that hackers will be working on finding Vista exploits as microsoft takes the slow road to patching. Nor does it address the fact that modern firewalls like Comodo 3 and future versions of on line armor will be superior to the vista firewall while adding other security layers.

Check this graph from Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report: http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/m...atch_delivery_2007.GIF :camera: Shorter bars = better.

Given the complaints regarding Vista, I have to wonder if microsoft will be soon forced to go back to the drawing board, and come up with a less bloated OS. Or if the problem will cure itself as new PC's bulk up on the ram Vista needs. Perhaps the Vista mistake was not demanding a gig of ram or more because Vista is a dog with less.

But I have to wonder if a basic rewrite of XP, with better security and better memory handling, would have been the way microsoft should have gone. If microsoft wants a world OS, they cannot continue down the bloatware path because they will hardware price themselves out of the market.

I don't see the "pricing themselves out of the market" part. For the price I paid for my first 256MB memory module back in the Win2000 days, namely $396, I could now buy an entire basic Vista PC's worth of hardware, including 2GB of RAM, and I'd probably have money left for pizza To put it another way, the price I paid for 256MB of RAM then, would get you 16GB now.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent mechBgon may be correct in industrialized countries when he notes---I don't see the "pricing themselves out of the market" part. For the price I paid for my first 256MB memory module back in the Win2000 days, namely $396, I could now buy an entire basic Vista PC's worth of hardware, including 2GB of RAM, and I'd probably have money left for pizza To put it another way, the price I paid for 256MB of RAM then, would get you 16GB now.

But at this point, the PC is starting to deploy everywhere. And third world countries simply can't afford PC's for the masses with an overly bloated OS that carries higher hardware and OS costs. Sooner or later the innovation and open source will doom the microsoft de facto monopoly they now enjoy. High OS's prices and bloat are simply the shorter path to doom. And fragmenting the OS into many vista variants does not help the microsoft cause either.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Not only is Vista a far more secure OS than XP, the vista firewall is far superior to the SP2 firewall of XP. To start out the vista firewall is two way and the XP firewall is only one way, but even then, its says nothing about AV's and the fact that hackers will be working on finding Vista exploits as microsoft takes the slow road to patching. Nor does it address the fact that modern firewalls like Comodo 3 and future versions of on line armor will be superior to the vista firewall while adding other security layers.

Given the complaints regarding Vista, I have to wonder if microsoft will be soon forced to go back to the drawing board, and come up with a less bloated OS. Or if the problem will cure itself as new PC's bulk up on the ram Vista needs. Perhaps the Vista mistake was not demanding a gig of ram or more because Vista is a dog with less.

But I have to wonder if a basic rewrite of XP, with better security and better memory handling, would have been the way microsoft should have gone. If microsoft wants a world OS, they cannot continue down the bloatware path because they will hardware price themselves out of the market.

I think there's a few things to put into perspective Lemon. If you mean "bloated" as in resources, I dunno. I run Ultimate, and at idle I sit at about 750MB of memory, or 950 if fetch is working. When I moved BACK to XP a few months ago (for 2 weeks...I couldnt stand it anymore) by the time I got everything loaded, I was at 690MB at idle. meh not much difference.

If by "bloat" you mean footprint, much of that can be attributed to built-in features or software that before required 3rd party stuff. But, I really dont know anyone with anything less than 100 gigs anymore *shrug* Some say theres alot of features not needed, and for some that may be true; however, Windows is made for the masses. There are FAR more administrative type tools in Vista, multimedia functions, and security features as well. All those extras take HD space. Make sense?