Good and Free system security combination.

Phone Man said:

Some very good suggestions. WOT is a good service but is based on user opinion. Norton has a free service that I believe is better. You can also use both.

Norton Safe Web, from Symantec - Safe Websites | Norton Safe Web Lite

Check it out.

Jim

Its a bit hard to have much faith in Symantec after seeing this yesterday: Symantec’s Norton AntiVirus source code exposed by hackers.

No security combination will work if Microsoft security and third-party software updates aren't regularly applied.

Even if you prefer not to invoke automatic updates, remember to check for Microsoft updates following the second Tuesday of each month.

To check if your system is missing security updates or has insecure applications, install Secunia Personal Software Inspector or, alternatively, visit Secunia - The Leading Provider of Vulnerability Management and Vulnerability Intelligence Solutions . The Secunia Software Inspector runs through your browser with no installation or download required and does the following:

• Detects insecure versions of applications installed
• Verifies that all Microsoft patches are applied
• Assists you in updating your system and applications

Install and update SpywareBlaster to prevent the installation of spyware and other potentially unwanted software: SpywareBlaster® | Prevent spyware and malware. Free download.

My favorite security software is WinPatrol which includes the features described at WinPatrol Features

the WOT is human-driven, so subject to the idiosyncrasies of mob-action. in my experience, MOST [90%+] windows users would be unaware of truly malicious links on a page. The AVAST tool simply surfaces a visible indication of their automated website-checking applet which is superb [blocks the malicious link/page before browser can open it].
and yes, I'd wager they have a few false positives now and then but I'll pay that price, anyday.

if anyone knows, I'd be interested to know the similarities or diffs as to how Chrome accomplishes much the same thing, on the fly, collecting data on malicious signatures [I assume] and blocking - warning the user "don't go there". IE is a bad bet, no matter what is done to fix it.
If you just gotta use IE, I would add Spywareblaster to the "MUST HAVEs" for IE

if you allow superantispyware to run realtime, turn off Defender [turn it off anyway....]

WOT used to be great to me but until i found lots of articles such as (this one) either true or not I've uninstalled mine couple weeks ago.

I'm deciding on which one to use now.

zapp22 said:

if anyone knows, I'd be interested to know the similarities or diffs as to how Chrome accomplishes much the same thing, on the fly, collecting data on malicious signatures [I assume] and blocking - warning the user "don't go there".

Not blocking, but warning the user. See these two articles:

Phishing and malware detection - Google Chrome Help

Google Chrome Finally Gets Malware Download Protection | PCWorld

ditto thanks to Corrine, for the Chrome links and for reading my mind on Spywareblaster and WinPatrol, which rarely is listed with security wares, but great for the non-techy users. it can forestall a lot of issues by watching the background. it works, has low overhead, doesn't need a lot of upkeep, fills a unique role.

You're welcome.

zapp22 said:

ditto thanks to Corrine, for the Chrome links and for reading my mind . . .

Corrine adds mind reader to her resume.