Recommend me an internet security package!

[Carfax83]

My Norton account just expired, and I was just wondering if anyone could recommend me a good internet security package. I've been using Norton for the past years, but after upgrading to IS 2012, I wasn't very impressed with the noticeable performance hit on my computer, particularly with web browsing; especially compared to the 2011 version, which was very fast.

I just tried Kaspersky IS 2012, and that one is even worse. It seems like every aspect of my computer has slowed down!

Are there any better options out there?

 

[wayliff]

I always like to stay with Kaspersky or Bitdefender or Eset.
Mostly Eset products at the time.

 

[blackangst1]

Im surprised you had issues with NIS. Ive tried several and find it the best *shrug*. I amagine you'll get alot of different responses though

 

[mechBgon]

I'd just go with Microsoft Security Essentials, but as a small piece of a defense-in-depth strategy. The link in my signature has the remaining pieces to that puzzle.

 

[readymix]

i had the same experience and was ready to bail after my subscription expires at the end of the month, almost. almost i say because a month after going back to 2011 i tried 2012 again and all was well again. actually i like it a teensy bit more than 2011. so i grabbed the $19 after rebate at newegg, still current i think.

 

[Carfax83]

Thanks for the recommendations guys. I think I'm going to go back to Norton. Maybe the performance will go up after a fresh install instead of the previous upgrade that I did.

After checking out the reviews, NIS is still the best rated internet security package..

*Edit* I just did a fresh install of Norton IS 2012, and the performance issue I had before is gone! It must have been due to the fact that I upgraded from 2011 to 2012 the first time or something, that caused my computer to slow down so much.

 

[wayliff]

I am sure that CPU or Maximum PC magazine put out a review of antivirus very recently...either the last or the previous issue. I was unable to find it.

Here is one from earlier in the year.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ultimate_antivirus_guide_10_top_programs_reviewed?page=0,2

Hope you find it interesting to read, if nothing else.

 

[Carfax83]

This is one of the reviews I read concerning Norton and other security suites.

This guy, Neil Rubenking actually does pretty damn good reviews that are quite thorough. Then of course there's AV-Test and AV-Comparatives which are on a much bigger scale as far as testing procedures go.

 

[wayliff]

This is one of the reviews I read concerning Norton and other security suites.

This guy, Neil Rubenking actually does pretty damn good reviews that are quite thorough. Then of course there's AV-Test and AV-Comparatives which are on a much bigger scale as far as testing procedures go.

Yeah AV-Test and AV-Comparatives are a great resource...lots of good info. One of the reasons why I generally stick around the choices I mentioned before...for my customers.

Nonetheless I've read better things about the latest NIS than the predecessors...not that I want to try it anyway.

**Removed comment that was here before I have to exchange flames with anyone***

Post your review about NIS. It'd be interesting to hear how it goes.

Edit: Here is some interesting read: LINK TO SANS.ORG PDF

 

[Carfax83]

Post your review about NIS. It'd be interesting to hear how it goes.

Not sure if I have enough knowledge (or perhaps inclination) to do an in depth technical review of NIS 2012.

I don't mind sharing my experiences however. I've found that NIS 2012 IS definitely faster than the 2011 version, in both scanning speed and overall system impact. Web browsing speed has improved slightly, over the already very fast 2011 version.

Protection wise, I haven't had any issues, but I've only been running it for a day or so.. I've been a long time user of NIS though, since 2009, and I've never had any viruses or malware during the entire time.

I don't have particularly dangerous computing habits, although I do torrent every now and then. The reviews of NIS 2012 have been very positive however, with Norton leading the pack or at the front of the class.

Overall, the most striking thing to me about NIS 2012 is that it has practically no performance hit. 2011 was already very fast, but it seems that they've managed to squeeze some more juice out of the 2012 version.

 

[mechBgon]

I don't have particularly dangerous computing habits, although I do torrent every now and then.

Worth noting: statistically, more than half the malicious websites out there are normally safe. The last two times I've triggered a web-based attack were at "safe" websites. The latest one, at American Power Conversion (the UPS makers), I uploaded the exploit file to VirusTotal. It was detected by only one of their 43 antiviruses: http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan...2df7b69932bf505b57bacbe5f66e2a0f55-1320646615

So don't place too much faith in the rose-colored-glasses reviews promising 99.x% protection. The bad guys aren't going to attack with six-month-old malware, they're brewing up fresh variants for every individual victim in some cases. Sure, use an antivirus package, but don't stop there

 

[Carfax83]

Worth noting: statistically, more than half the malicious websites out there are normally safe. The last two times I've triggered a web-based attack were at "safe" websites. The latest one, at American Power Conversion (the UPS makers), I uploaded the exploit file to VirusTotal. It was detected by only one of their 43 antiviruses: http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan...2df7b69932bf505b57bacbe5f66e2a0f55-1320646615

So don't place too much faith in the rose-colored-glasses reviews promising 99.x% protection. The bad guys aren't going to attack with six-month-old malware, they're brewing up fresh variants for every individual victim in some cases. Sure, use an antivirus package, but don't stop there

Your advice has been heeded believe me I was looking at your website (especially the bit about routers) and there's lots of good information.

There's too much malware being created on a daily basis to ever be completely safe using one solution only. I guess thats why companies like Symantec and others have been putting a lot of their resources in heuristics and HIPS technologies, as they can't possibly spot every new threat on the horizon and create definitions for them.

I always keep my heuristics on aggressive with NIS, as well as SONAR (their HIPS system).

 

[jadinolf]

Haven't seen it here but I have 5 licenses to avast! Internet Security.

What you do is your business but you might download and try a trial version.

 

[amsterdamxxx]

Pro tip viruses you don't really need to worry about these days, back in the year 2000 maybe. Now malware and phising attacks are #1, honestly nothing will protect you from a 0 day vulnrability except formating your hdd. some 0-days have worked for 2 years! Still not patched yet. Security suite at minimum should be, Comodo firewall well tuned and set right, Malwarebytes + SuperAntiSpyware (this is a must), AV is your choice really but I like Vipre or Webroot or Avira or even Panda cloud but less than the first 3. The rest are system hog so I don't bothers. Next Sanboxie, Zemana, and cleaning tools ccleaner, slimcleaner, jetblue & Auslogics Disk Defrag and Cleaner. You should be set with all those programs, it is overkilll but they are not resource hogs and do what they do well. Most import Secuna PI, you must keep your system/sofftare patched.

 

[mechBgon]

honestly nothing will protect you from a 0 day vulnrability except formating your hdd. some 0-days have worked for 2 years! Still not patched yet.

Well, actually EMET and/or Software Restriction Policy are great countermeasures against zero-days and their payloads respectively, and so is your suggestion of SandboxIE.

 

[Carfax83]

OK I just tried Bitdefender 2012 Total security, and here are my thoughts.

While Bitdefender routinely gets high marks in AV tests, I can't really recommend this latest iteration. It suffers from the same problem that Kaspersky had.....that is, the performance hit on your system is simply unacceptable. It started with the installation, which took perhaps 5 minutes to complete, compared to Norton's 20 seconds.

However, Bitdefender also did a pre-scan to make sure I did not have any malware, and it also downloaded most of the installation files from a server, but the installation size was obviously quite big.

Something else I didn't like, you cannot have MBAM installed with Bitdefender. Apparently, the two conflict with each other, so if you have MBAM installed, then Bitdefender will ask you to uninstall it.

Norton and MBAM have no such conflicts.

My boot up time and browsing speed was noticeably slower with Bitdefender installed, compared to NIS 2012.....though not as slow as with Kaspersky. As for scanning speed and resource usage, both were quite good. I did a full scan in approximately 13 minutes (main drive has over 220GB of data), and general memory usage was low.

In the end, I ended up uninstalling Bitdefender (even that took a few minutes!) and switching back to NIS 2012. The advantages Bitdefender possesses over Norton such as a slightly better on demand scanning and heuristics etc aren't enough to make me turn a blind eye to the performance hit it incurs.

And Norton has it's own advantages, such as a much smaller performance hit and better overall protection, according to AV-Comparatives at the least. At any rate, NIS 2012 is brand new and still has a few bugs to iron out. It will only get better as time goes by, so I've made up my mind to stick with it

 

[wayliff]

Thanks for posting that info. That is certainly interesting.

From experience, I have noticed slow downs with NIS (pre-2012) and some but less with Kaspersky. I have not really noticed slow downs with BitDefender or Eset.
When it comes to installers, I am not too concerned about that. As long as the installer\uninstaller does not screw something up, I am ok with it taking a bit longer.

I have seen systems with NIS 2012 and all I can say is that it was not slow like its predecessors. I can't speak for anything else yet.

I personally stick with no AV and infection free since 2008 . (If anyone gets bothered...I won't exchange flames about this, I've explained my position before...use the search feature)
If disaster strikes me...I'll evaluate at that point.

Disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting people should not have AVs. Each person should do what they must to feel comfortable.

 

[Carfax83]

I personally stick with no AV and infection free since 2008 . (If anyone gets bothered...I won't exchange flames about this, I've explained my position before...use the search feature)
If disaster strikes me...I'll evaluate at that point.

Do you use a hardware firewall?

 

[wayliff]

Do you use a hardware firewall?

I use a both the router's NAT and Windows 7 Firewall.

 

[Carfax83]

I use a both the router's NAT and Windows 7 Firewall.

Is that all that you use? What about MBAM, or superantispyware?

MBAM is really good. Not being able to use Bitdefender with MBAM is a good enough reason to ditch Bitdefender alone imo.

I usually run a MBAM deep scan once every few days, just to make sure that Norton hasn't missed anything.

Using a hardware firewall a long with Windows 7 Firewall and a program like MBAM would be good enough to keep your system well protected.

One other underrated aspect of security is your browser. IE9 is supposedly the most secure browser available right now (and by a long margin), so thats what I use.. Of course the fact that it's very fast also helps tremendously

 

[wayliff]

I have 4 Windows 7 machines and one Windows Vista.

All use a NAT firewall from the router and the windows firewall.

* MBAM (non-active) and spyware blaster is installed on all of them. I scan like once every two weeks.
* I also use Secunia PSI and File Hippo update checker for security and software updates.
* All the routers use OpenDNS servers with slightly watered down medium settings.
* I also, from time to time, scan the machines from an AV boot CD, like Dr. Web CureIt and the Kaspersky Rescue CD...among others.
* For browser, I only use FF with AdBlock and NoScript. Other users use IE9 since NoScript and AdBlock can be a nuisance for some.
* All users, other than me, use non-admin accounts.
* Windows gets patched sacredly on patch Tuesday.

I don't know if I forgot something but that is all what I do overall.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Worth noting: statistically, more than half the malicious websites out there are normally safe. The last two times I've triggered a web-based attack were at "safe" websites. The latest one, at American Power Conversion (the UPS makers), I uploaded the exploit file to VirusTotal. It was detected by only one of their 43 antiviruses: http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan...2df7b69932bf505b57bacbe5f66e2a0f55-1320646615

So don't place too much faith in the rose-colored-glasses reviews promising 99.x% protection. The bad guys aren't going to attack with six-month-old malware, they're brewing up fresh variants for every individual victim in some cases. Sure, use an antivirus package, but don't stop there

This is largely why I consider "security suites" a type of snake oil. I don't run any active AV, they all slow down the system more than I like. I do have the free version of Malwarebytes installed, to do a scan now and then. When I was using XP, I did have SRP installed and activated, that kept out pretty much 100% of web exploits. With Win7 HP, I haven't done anything like that yet.

 

[wayliff]

This is largely why I consider "security suites" a type of snake oil. I don't run any active AV, they all slow down the system more than I like. I do have the free version of Malwarebytes installed, to do a scan now and then. When I was using XP, I did have SRP installed and activated, that kept out pretty much 100% of web exploits. With Win7 HP, I haven't done anything like that yet.

cheers fellow TA crunchers. :biggrin:

 

[mechBgon]

One other underrated aspect of security is your browser. IE9 is supposedly the most secure browser available right now (and by a long margin), so thats what I use.. Of course the fact that it's very fast also helps tremendously

Besides having relatively high screening rates for malicious sites, one of IE9's advantages is that it runs at Low integrity, as does Google Chrome. Even if successfully exploited, the bad guys have still won themselves a wet noodle as an attack weapon unless they've got a follow-on way to break out of the Low-integrity cage.

This is one area where FireFox is not up-to-speed versus IE9 or Chrome, but it's possible to run FF at Low integrity by this routine: http://www.victorc.org/2008/03/internet-explorer-7-protected-mode-vs.html I believe this must be re-done every time you update FF. Another way to boost security would be to run the browser in a sandbox like Sandboxie.

Some folks place a lot of stock in NoScript, but that falls down if a trusted site gets pwned. I remember when I was a sysadmin and I set the default homepage to our own non-profit agency's website, thinking this would be safe. Then our hosting provider got hacked and our own website was attacking our own systems every time a browser got launched. Excellent so much for THAT strategy...

 

[wayliff]

Besides having relatively high screening rates for malicious sites, one of IE9's advantages is that it runs at Low integrity, as does Google Chrome. Even if successfully exploited, the bad guys have still won themselves a wet noodle as an attack weapon unless they've got a follow-on way to break out of the Low-integrity cage.

This is one area where FireFox is not up-to-speed versus IE9 or Chrome, but it's possible to run FF at Low integrity by this routine: http://www.victorc.org/2008/03/internet-explorer-7-protected-mode-vs.html I believe this must be re-done every time you update FF. Another way to boost security would be to run the browser in a sandbox like Sandboxie.

Some folks place a lot of stock in NoScript, but that falls down if a trusted site gets pwned. I remember when I was a sysadmin and I set the default homepage to our own non-profit agency's website, thinking this would be safe. Then our hosting provider got hacked and our own website was attacking our own systems every time a browser got launched. Excellent so much for THAT strategy...

Agreed no single strategy is going to work by itself.
One must use a multi-layered defense.

I'll definitely will look into 'low integrity'. I need to start keeping up with IE changes and have not given a chance to Chrome yet.