Absolute Best Security Software

[breathemetal]

Well, what is it?

What is the best protection software I can get?

[evilghost]

I feel like a good chrooted environment with some log analysis and IDS/IPS tools are a good security-in-depth approach. I prefer OSSEC-HIDS for log analysis and file system modification monitoring, snort + ACID/BASE for IDS, fail2ban for keeping the script children at bay, and a good ingress/egress firewall policy.

If you're asking about solutions for Win32 there are none that are as adequate as they need to be. Quite a few security products such as Symantec and ZoneAlarm actually introduce vulnerabilities (I'll cite if need be, too lazy to dig up the advisories at the moment). A blacklist approach to security will never work, as proven today by another wonderful ecard.exe variant that isn't detected by any of the DATs at the moment. What you need is a whitelist approach, where all binaries are checked by md5 or crc32 and compared against a whitelist database; anything that doesn't match doesn't run.

[AthlonXP1800]

Norton Internet Security 2007

I been tried all internet security software and found Norton Internet Security 2007 the best, it has the smallest memory footprint accorded to the processes in Vista task manager, it used 5MB for firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware and phishing protection. I dont think any other internet security software can match 5MB of memory footprint. Also Norton Internet Security 2007 have control of applications that can allow or deny access to internet.

[evilghost]

Symantec is probably the best if you want to be owned:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=2897&rss
http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5MP0H1FKUC.html
http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/4178

[ViN86]

Symantec is probably the best if you want to be owned:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=2897&rss
http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5MP0H1FKUC.html
http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/4178

you should start a sticky and discuss ways to improve security. id read it.

[evilghost]

http://www.horizondatasys.com/169604.ihtml looks like a good idea for what I'm talking about and http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/antivirus/index.html is an article that expands on the "default permit" and "blacklist" methods I'm talking about as being inefficient. Pricing for the app is around $49, so not sure if that's in your ball-park or not.

Never used it, never tried it, and certainly don't work for the company.

[ViN86]

i was thinkin more of workin with iptables in linux and using things to monitor traffic and services.

[evilghost]

i was thinkin more of workin with iptables in linux and using things to monitor traffic and services.

Oh... well... do you use AIM or IRC?

[six_storm]

On any of my client's Windows PCs, I only put Ad-Aware 2007 Free Edition and AVG Free Edition. As long as you don't click on those "Click Here to Win a Free iPhone!" ads, you will be fine.

[ViN86]

Oh... well... do you use AIM or IRC?
IRC, freenode, ViN86, ill be in nvnews channel

[breathemetal]

Right now Im running (on Vista 32bit):

NOD32
Ad-Aware 2007 Pro
Ad-Aware 2007 SE
Spybot

and Windows Firewall is on, with a few exceptions, and I have a router.

I occasionally get a few spywares here and here, but not much. Never have had a virus on this machine yet either.

[grey_1]

I would definetly stay far away from Norton..a bigger resource hog I've never seen, other than that nothing will help if your surfing habits are questionable.

Personally I'm waiting for another bit of hardware so I can have a dedicated linux box, which will handle all online duties, and my win rig will be strictly for gaming, all unneeded crap disabled.

[AthlonXP1800]

I would definetly stay far away from Norton..a bigger resource hog I've never seen, other than that nothing will help if your surfing habits are questionable.

You are talked about Norton Internet Security 2004, 2005 and 2006. It used about 60 to 80MB of memory resources. But now it all changed with Symantec listened to customers feedbacks moaned about Norton's resource hog. This time with Norton Internet Security 2007, it used the smallest memory footprint of 5MB, it far smaller than 19MB with Avast Professional 6.

You should try Norton Internet Security 2007 trialware before you changed your comment!

[nekrosoft13]

Personally I'm waiting for another bit of hardware so I can have a dedicated linux box, which will handle all online duties, and my win rig will be strictly for gaming, all unneeded crap disabled.

install xp or vista in virtual machine and checked. I did, NIS 07 like athlon said uses about 4-6mb of ram

[grey_1]

You are talked about Norton Internet Security 2004, 2005 and 2006. It used about 60 to 80MB of memory resources. But now it all changed with Symantec listened to customers feedbacks moaned about Norton's resource hog. This time with Norton Internet Security 2007, it used the smallest memory footprint of 5MB, it far smaller than 19MB with Avast Professional 6.

You should try Norton Internet Security 2007 trialware before you changed your comment!
I wasn't aware of that..good news then. Thanks for the info.

[grey_1]

install xp or vista in virtual machine and checked. I did, NIS 07 like athlon said uses about 4-6mb of ram
I think I may try the trial..I just thought it was the same as before.

[Rakeesh]

Kaspersky, hands down. Norton may have a smaller memory footprint these days, but it still sucks when it comes to actually doing what it says it does, and it has a much larger hard drive footprint, and slower scan times.

[AthlonXP1800]

Kaspersky, hands down. Norton may have a smaller memory footprint these days, but it still sucks when it comes to actually doing what it says it does, and it has a much larger hard drive footprint, and slower scan times.

I been tested 6 anti-virus software in the last 4 months with Avast Professional 4, NOD32, Norton Internet Security 2007, F-Secure Internet Security 2007, Kaspersky Internet Security 2007 and Trend Micro Internet Security 2007. They all have different ways of scan viruses, I configured all of them to performed full and deep scans on 200GB of data on hard drive, all 6 software completed in 55 mins so scan times do not really matter when set it to full and deep scans because it all completed at the same time.

[breathemetal]

And which one detected the most?
which one was the better choice?

[nrdstrm]

The safest :
Don't use the internet

My option :
Don't use antivirus at all, stick to safe websites. If you happen to get a virus (can be checked via online virus scans), reinstall windows...Thats what I do...Seriously

[Absolution]

Kaspersky is the best popular anti-virus software as far as antivirus

bulldog isn't bad either, the firewall is much better than anything else i've used (the vista built in firewall isn't too far behind now though). bulldog is also using the same engine as bitdefender i believe, so either are fine

but ... ya... i feel safe just using microsoft onecare because i dont really have a problem with virus's (never gotten one)

[Rakeesh]

And which one detected the most?
which one was the better choice?

Kaspersky has the highest detection rate, that is certain. I've seen numerous third party tests that agree on that.

Also kaspersky's memory footprint is so low that it can comfortably run on a system with 64mb of memory without any noticeable slowdown from what I have heard.

If you want a free (for life, just use a fake email account every year) version of kaspersky, get AOL active virus shield. Normally I would never recommend anything made by AOL, but AOL AVS isn't written by AOL, its written by Kaspersky for AOL. I've tested it on a friends computer, and it doesn't force you to install any junk along with it, and it has a low footprint just like the full kaspersky.

It has the exact same detection engine (and thus the same detection rate) as the full Kaspersky. It's missing some features that most people probably will never use though (at least, if you use vista anyways, as UAC makes up for the missing features.)

Can't really beat that.

http://www.download.com/AOL-Active-Virus-Shield/3000-2239_4-10568703.html

[j0j081]

Instead of using NOrton I suggest you install AOL and let their security suite do the work.

[evilghost]

Here are some virus total results for a bleeding-edge variant that is served via a banking phish site. Here are more results for a e-card executable spam. This is content being served in the wild, right now. I submitted these executables for scanning.

Phish:
http://www.virustotal.com/resultado.html?df036a34cf8f7c58ec59da7a2040db2f

Ecard:
http://www.virustotal.com/resultado.html?d9d638e3942dc3578ad77fca2c73ff7c

You'll see that most of your big AV vendors are terrible. My personal experiences have shown that Kaspersky leads the industry in detection with ClamAV being a close second.

[Mr Bigman]

I always thought Norton was a resource hog. I think CA is the best one, it sees more crap than other suites like trojens and evilware. Norton didn't pick a bad virus CA did that was duplicationg itself on the system i was working on.