Am I the only one?

[glennc]

Hello MacGyvr,
Appreciate your input. I like Norton, it is easier for me to handle than MSE. I've heard the argument before, but am happy with the compromise. I keep MSE only for standalone scan, not running realtime protection. Maybe if I get less lazy and learn MSE I'll understand it's benefits. But I've got quite a while on my subscription to learn. Always accept learned advice. As for the never have to AV's running at the same time, as I said I do not, but have previously for years and never had any problems. Lucky I guess. Take care.
glennc

I got rid of any Norton/Symantec products long ago.
They are for the most part CRAP. Resource hogs, bloat ware.
9 times out of 10 they cause more problems then they solve.
I am amazed how many people still use these products. Symantec/Norton should be out of business.
I think most of it comes from the hysteria over virus/malware/spyware infections we suffer from today.

I myself do not run any AV, malware or spyware programs REAL TIME on any of my PCs.
I do have Malware bytes and several AV programs on a BOOT recovery USB flash drive and I make regular images of my main system and program drive.
I don't go to junk websites or open emails form people/places I don't know (and if by chance I do VIEW a email form someone/place I don't know I NEVER click on the attachment included), they get deleted straight away.
Suit yourself but there are much better product on the market.

Howdy Shootist,
Thanks for your opinion. I have found Norton 2011 to be very user friendly, the resources that it uses, do not seem to hamper my system enough for me to notice.
I am not a gamer or do vast amounts of intensive programs, so it fits me fine. Again I don't have the skill or expertise to worry about it. I like that it updates every few minutes, other than daily. I do double check it with regular MSE scans. Commodo supposedly sandboxes anything that I don't tell it I don't want to.
I do not have the confidence to go AV free. My resources rarely go past 50% of my memory and my cores rarely bottom out unless I am doing quite a few more things at the same time than I used to. But maybe eventually I will heed the many experts advice and try just MSE. But the learning curve time is not available currently. Thanks again!
Glenn

 

[DeaconFrost]

But maybe eventually I will heed the many experts advice and try just MSE. But the learning curve time is not available currently.

See, that's the point we're trying to make. What learning curve? The point behind MSE is that there is no learning curve. You install it from Microsoft's website, and that's it. It updates itself, and warns you if it encounters anything suspicious. There's nothing you need to learn or even give attention to. It's as easy as an AV software package could possibly be.

 

[glennc]

Hello DeaconFrost,
That is part of the problem. I've looked at MSE and there are to me many cryptic options and choices. Too cryptic for my ease of use. I do not like to rely on a program's default settings usually, also. With some understanding and real knowledge, I would probably agree with you. Till that occurs I must rely on what I know works. My combo has kept me completely free. Performance wise I really don't notice a difference since I upgraded my computer about the same time and it is much more powerful than my last that everything flies. I would like to learn MSE but have a lot on my plate. Many people I respect, including you, say the same thing! Must be something to it! Thanks
Glenn

You're kidding, right?
At least MSE allows you to get to the options. The last time I ran a Norton product most of the options were hidden, buried so deep that you have to go through all kinds of windows to get to them.
There attitude was Use the program as WE suggest, Don't make changes in any way to how it works. No thanks.

No, I am not kidding in the least. Having a history with Norton, I am more familiar with it. To me MSE is cryptic and doesn't hold your hand like Norton. I like my hand held to a degree, makes me warm and fuzzy feeling. This is in respect to my level of expertise. MSE is probably quite easy if you know what your are doing, I dun't.
Glenn

 

[DeaconFrost]

MSE is quite easy even if you don't know what you are doing. What is it you think you need to do or configure? I have all of my company's staff install it on their home computer, and the same goes for family and friends. All I need to do is point them to the website to install it, and that's it.

I'm honestly extremely confused here. There's nothing in MSE that you need your hand held through, because there's nothing you need to do. Some of my users can't figure out how to open programs from their Start Menu, but they have no issues with MSE.

 

[Mike Connor]

I think you will find he is confusing MSE ( Microsoft Security Essentials ) with Windows firewall.

@ Glen.

I agree with what the others have written. MSE is not only the easiest AntiVirus software, it is also very reliable.

Of course, it is entirely up to you what you use, but there is no learning curve involved with MSE. You simply install it and it works.

I would never recommend Norton, or Comodo either for that matter, but I have no reservations or hesitation at all in recommending MSE. I use it myself on some machines.

Indeed, I only really use others in order to keep up with what other people are using. If I have never used something I don't know how it works and can not troubleshoot it. But that is not normally a consideration for most users.

Having said that, the only other antivirus software of that nature I use is Avira, mainly because it is very popular and widespread here. Were it not for that, I would not bother with it, and simply use MSE.

Regards....Mike Connor

 

[glennc]

Hello Gentlemen,
Sorry for confusing the matter more than is necessary. I have indeed confused Windows Firewall with MSE. So so much for that discussion. You don't use Windows Firewall if you are using MSE, correct?
Since so many experts are convinced about MSE, what about it makes it superior. I know it doesn't have the hold your hand features, which would lessen the overhead. I know that it only updates once a day, rather than every few minutes. Can you please indulge me with your explained opinions on it being a better, safer and easier product to use. You've gotten me interested again.
My problem is lack of experience. As stated previously, some don't use AV's, software firewalls or antimalware at all, relying I assume on safe surfing tactics, which I practice, and the safety of the Router Firewall. Again I know nothing of the Router Firewall so I can't rely on any knowledge of how and what it blocks, knows what to block and does so correctly, even though mine has two as Mike pointed out. Two what, doing what more specifically than blocking unwanted intrusion. What inspects my emails for all sorts of bugaboo's that are running rampant. I once opened an email from my Aunt and Norton blocked it immediately. Her system was compromised and I was on a hit list. No problem with the protection of software AV.
Again, I just don't get what is so specifically special about MSE. I consider it great enough to use as a backup scanner. I don't recall that it scans my downloads and checks it against a network of users, rating it on date, how many users are having no problem. When I run a videos, does MSE scan the file prior to popping it into the viewer? Also does it let me decide what programs are to be trusted and which to allow one time use? You see I have many questions. MSE just seems to do whatever it wants to, IIRC. Low key but reliant on the programmer's idea's of what my need are.
I believe you guys, I just don't understand the fervor and would like to be more informed if any of you are willing. Thanks for all your time.
Glenn

 

[Mike Connor]

Hello Gentlemen,
Sorry for confusing the matter more than is necessary. I have indeed confused Windows Firewall with MSE. So so much for that discussion. You don't use Windows Firewall if you are using MSE, correct?

That is not correct. Windows Firewall meshes perfectly with Microsoft Security Essentials. Better than any other.

Since so many experts are convinced about MSE, what about it makes it superior. I know it doesn't have the hold your hand features, which would lessen the overhead. I know that it only updates once a day, rather than every few minutes. Can you please indulge me with your explained opinions on it being a better, safer and easier product to use. You've gotten me interested again.

It is built by the same people who built the operating system, and works perfectly with that operating system. It runs live protection, has an on demand scanner that you can schedule, and requires no knowledge at all to use.

My problem is lack of experience. As stated previously, some don't use AV's, software firewalls or antimalware at all, relying I assume on safe surfing tactics, which I practice, and the safety of the Router Firewall.

The router firewall only protects anything behind it from direct access. It is not an anti-virus protection.

Again I know nothing of the Router Firewall so I can't rely on any knowledge of how and what it blocks, knows what to block and does so correctly, even though mine has two as Mike pointed out. Two what, doing what more specifically than blocking unwanted intrusion.

That is all it does, block access to anything behind it.

What inspects my emails for all sorts of bugaboo's that are running rampant. I once opened an email from my Aunt and Norton blocked it immediately. Her system was compromised and I was on a hit list. No problem with the protection of software AV.

The "Real-time protection" in MSE protects you from ANY viruses, spyware, or other potentially unwanted software that attempts to install itself or run on your machine.

Again, I just don't get what is so specifically special about MSE. I consider it great enough to use as a backup scanner. I don't recall that it scans my downloads and checks it against a network of users, rating it on date, how many users are having no problem.

It scans all downloads;



When I run a videos, does MSE scan the file prior to popping it into the viewer? Also does it let me decide what programs are to be trusted and which to allow one time use? You see I have many questions. MSE just seems to do whatever it wants to, IIRC. Low key but reliant on the programmer's idea's of what my need are.


It scans everything unless you specifically exclude something.

I believe you guys, I just don't understand the fervor and would like to be more informed if any of you are willing. Thanks for all your time.
Glenn

Not a case of fervour, it is simple, reliable, and free, from the the builders of the operating system you are using. They know more about their system than anybody else does. It is also continually being improved and developed. The first versions were not all that great, but the newer versions are first class.

Regards....Mike Connor

 

[DeaconFrost]

Kudos to Mike COnnor for figuring it out.

glennc, you are still confusing the purposes of anti-virus and a firewall. The Windows Firewall is a separate entity than MSE, and it turned on by default when MSE is installed, if it wasn't turned on already.

Firewalls check network traffic for unathorized requests, like a hacker getting in, or some malware/program sending your data out.

Anti-virus apps scan programs and files for malicious code. As you download a file, it is scanned for malicious content.

The two work hand in hand to keep you safe from threats, but are not one in the same. Your questions above seem to indicate you think Firewalls and anti-virus software do the same job...and they don't. Both are necessary, but don't confuse them as being the same.

This brings up the point of your paranoia. You can't fully understand what is needed to protect your computer if you aren't even sure of the roles of the tools and protections you have in place. I'm not saying that to be insulting. I'm saying it to turn the discussion into getting to the bottom of your current solution.

If you have a hardware firewall, such as your router, plus the Windows Firewall running, along with active anti-virus protection, you are pretty well covered. Combine that with common sense and good computing habits, and you should be fine.

 

[glennc]

Hello Gentlemen,
Sorry for confusing the matter more than is necessary. I have indeed confused Windows Firewall with MSE. So so much for that discussion. You don't use Windows Firewall if you are using MSE, correct?

That is not correct. Windows Firewall meshes perfectly with Microsoft Security Essentials. Better than any other.

Since so many experts are convinced about MSE, what about it makes it superior. I know it doesn't have the hold your hand features, which would lessen the overhead. I know that it only updates once a day, rather than every few minutes. Can you please indulge me with your explained opinions on it being a better, safer and easier product to use. You've gotten me interested again.

It is built by the same people who built the operating system, and works perfectly with that operating system. It runs live protection, has an on demand scanner that you can schedule, and requires no knowledge at all to use.

My problem is lack of experience. As stated previously, some don't use AV's, software firewalls or antimalware at all, relying I assume on safe surfing tactics, which I practice, and the safety of the Router Firewall.

The router firewall only protects anything behind it from direct access. It is not an anti-virus protection.

Again I know nothing of the Router Firewall so I can't rely on any knowledge of how and what it blocks, knows what to block and does so correctly, even though mine has two as Mike pointed out. Two what, doing what more specifically than blocking unwanted intrusion.

That is all it does, block access to anything behind it.

What inspects my emails for all sorts of bugaboo's that are running rampant. I once opened an email from my Aunt and Norton blocked it immediately. Her system was compromised and I was on a hit list. No problem with the protection of software AV.

The "Real-time protection" in MSE protects you from ANY viruses, spyware, or other potentially unwanted software that attempts to install itself or run on your machine.

Again, I just don't get what is so specifically special about MSE. I consider it great enough to use as a backup scanner. I don't recall that it scans my downloads and checks it against a network of users, rating it on date, how many users are having no problem.

It scans all downloads;



When I run a videos, does MSE scan the file prior to popping it into the viewer? Also does it let me decide what programs are to be trusted and which to allow one time use? You see I have many questions. MSE just seems to do whatever it wants to, IIRC. Low key but reliant on the programmer's idea's of what my need are.


It scans everything unless you specifically exclude something.

I believe you guys, I just don't understand the fervor and would like to be more informed if any of you are willing. Thanks for all your time.
Glenn

Not a case of fervour, it is simple, reliable, and free, from the the builders of the operating system you are using. They know more about their system than anybody else does. It is also continually being improved and developed. The first versions were not all that great, but the newer versions are first class.

Regards....Mike Connor

Mike,
So I still need the Window's Firewall with the cryptic (to me) setup in addition to MSE. I was under the false impression that it was not necessary from previous threads. I believe you! In the past and this is only my personal recollections, MS products get the most attacks because they are from MS. MS has a history of plugging holes that were missed and seemingly are the main target of malicious people and their harmful and criminal exercises. That is one reason. The other is that I recall Norton Defrag. Next windows version had incorporated it as their defrag built in. So MS is at the top and draws the most attention. That being said, it still doesn't offer the same hand holding. Does it's scan engine have much better detection than Norton. One problem I have is that I've already purchased it and it is good for another year. So without substantial gain, I can't reconcile a change at this time, though I may save myself some money next year.
In reference to Window's Firewall, from what I've read, only Commodo passed a test done on all major firewalls with a 100% detection rate, so that would seem to put it ahead of Window's version. I have lost the distinction mostly between what an AV, malware, spyware, firewall or an all in one products are doing. So thanks for the great explanation. I will certainly keep MSE in mind as I constantly use it.
WFirewall doesn't seem worth the effort to me over Commodo, another great hand holder and sandbox. Like I really understand the term sandbox
Glenn

 

[Mike Connor]

Mike,
So I still need the Window's Firewall with the cryptic (to me) setup in addition to MSE.

The firewall installs automatically with the defaults, You don't need to set up anything. Messing about with software firewalls is only for very advanced users with special needs, and the knowledge required to implement them. "Normal" users should simply accept the default settings, and not even try to change anything. Trying this without the prerequisite knowledge will invariably do more harm than good.

I was under the false impression that it was not necessary from previous threads. I believe you! In the past and this is only my personal recollections, MS products get the most attacks because they are from MS. MS has a history of plugging holes that were missed and seemingly are the main target of malicious people and their harmful and criminal exercises. That is one reason. The other is that I recall Norton Defrag. Next windows version had incorporated it as their defrag built in. So MS is at the top and draws the most attention. That being said, it still doesn't offer the same hand holding.

I don't know what you mean by "hand-holding". Personally I prefer reliable unobtrusive solutions to most problems. The machine should be protected as well as possible without my having to do much at all. MSE is such a solution.

Norton and a few others are in my considered opinion little more than catastrophes waiting to happen. Indeed, in my further considered and not at all humble opinion, the vast majority of the stuff being offered in the private sector, even most of the supposedly "legitimate" anti-malware suites are little more than scams preying on people's anxieties, and depending on the general lack of knowledge in order to get people to buy them.

Does it's scan engine have much better detection than Norton. One problem I have is that I've already purchased it and it is good for another year. So without substantial gain, I can't reconcile a change at this time, though I may save myself some money next year.

I have never had a virus get through it on any of my machines, and on a lot of others as well. My sincere advice would be to throw the Norton stuff in the bin, and use MSE. In my experience the Norton stuff is unreliable and often a severe nuisance at best, and you have absolutely nothing to gain by keeping it. Quite the reverse! MSE is free.

In reference to Window's Firewall, from what I've read, only Commodo passed a test done on all major firewalls with a 100% detection rate, so that would seem to put it ahead of Window's version.

There are hundreds and thousands of so called "tests" for all sorts of things, all over the internet, and most of them are pure bullshit. The people you are talking to here have to deal with this stuff day in and day out, they know what works and what doesn't.

There is no such thing as a "Detection Rate" in regard to a firewall. A firewall blocks access to things which are not explicitly allowed. That is all it does. It does not detect anything.

The only way to get through a firewall is to use something disguised as something legitimate. Software firewalls usually have functions designed to detect such attempts and block them. These are direct access attempts and not viruses. Some viruses and other malware attempt to overcome firewalls by using legitimate channels. That is why you need both anti-virus software and a firewall.

With a router firewall, you are effectively isolated from the internet. Nothing can get through unless it uses a legitimate channel.

I have lost the distinction mostly between what an AV, malware, spyware, firewall or an all in one products are doing.

These things can be rather confusing, you have to understand the PURPOSE for which these tools are used in order to know what is going on.

So thanks for the great explanation. I will certainly keep MSE in mind as I constantly use it.

You would be better advised to dispense with the other stuff, and use MSE. But, this is entirely up to you.

WFirewall doesn't seem worth the effort to me over Commodo, another great hand holder and sandbox. Like I really understand the term sandbox
Glenn

There is no effort involved. Windows firewall does not require any setup or pampering or anything else, it just works.

A sandbox is something entirely different again. It is normally some method, a piece of software, or hardware, or system, which isolates part of the system from the rest of the system. I have two perfect sandboxes sitting in front of me right now. They are standalone machines with no internet connection, and I keep baseline images of their single drives. When I have finished messing about with whatever I am messing about with, I just restore the images. NOTHING gets out of my sandboxes.

Antivirus programs are not sandboxes.

With all due respect, if you don't know what these things actually do, then you are in no position to judge them at all.

As ever, it is entirely your choice whether you accept advice or not. It is however as well to remember that the others who posted here ( and myself), are doing their level best to help you and give you the best advice possible, simply because they would like things to work well for you.

Regards....Mike Connor

 

[glennc]

Hey Mike,

The firewall installs automatically with the defaults, You don't need to set up anything. Messing about with software firewalls is only for very advanced users with special needs, and the knowledge required to implement them. "Normal" users should simply accept the default settings, and not even try to change anything. Trying this without the prerequisite knowledge will invariably do more harm than good.

That is precisely what I mean. I am at the mercy of default settings which I must trust, as I have no way to adjust.

I don't know what you mean by "hand-holding". Personally I prefer reliable unobtrusive solutions to most problems. The machine should be protected as well as possible without my having to do much at all. MSE is such a solution. Norton and a few others are in my considered opinion little more than catastrophes waiting to happen.

By hand-holding I mean that if I run a new program, Norton asks me what permission to give it and if I want to trust it, along with any update programs it install or help services, so as not to deal with them again. When I download a program it automatically checks the program and advises from a user database if it is safe, unknown or know malware. I like that. When I watch a Youtube video it auto scans and then lets me run the viewer. I like that, too. It is not intrusive to me. It actually reminds me of what is going on.

I have never had a virus get through it on any of my machines, and on a lot of others as well. My sincere advice would be to throw the Norton stuff in the bin, and use MSE. In my experience the Norton stuff is unreliable at best, and you have absolutely nothing to gain by keeping it. Quite the reverse! MSE is free.

Since I have already spent the money on a 3 -user pack for $39, I have already made the investment. Like you I have never had a virus on any of my machines either and I am much less knowledgeable then yourself. MSE doesn't provide the hand-holding and then it combines with a Firewall that is set to whatever defaults that someone else thinks is safe enough for me, with no interaction as in Commodo. Does WF run in a sandbox? I gave up on Norton several years ago as it was growing out of control on my part. I didn't use it until Norton 2010 came out and then they threw in a free 2011 upgrade. The price is right and already spent.
I recall the days of being unable to get all of Norton out of your computer, it does not seem that way now. BTW I would not consider using the Norton 360 Security as I have read it doesn't fair well compared to many free competitors.


There are hundreds and thousands of so called "tests" for all sorts of things, all over the internet, and most of them are pure bullshit. The people you are talking to here have to deal with this stuff day in and day out, they know what works and what doesn't.

There is no such thing as a "Detection Rate" in regard to a firewall. A firewall blocks access to things which are not explicitly allowed. That is all it does. It does not detect anything.

With this regarding the tests, I believe they are variable in results. The firewall does let me stealth ports, which at least to me seems a good idea, it alerts me and blocks any outbound connections that I don't authorize. I do not believe you are saying that there is no difference on whatever brand of firewall you choose, am I?

These things can be rather confusing, you have to understand the PURPOSE for which these tools are used in order to know what is going on.

I concur fully with you on this point. I just haven't had or taken the time to become an expert in the field.

There is no effort involved. Windows firewall does not require any setup or pampering or anything else, it just works.

A sandbox is something entirely different again. It is normally some method, a piece of software, or hardware, or system, which isolates part of the system from the rest of the system. I have two perfect sandboxes sitting in front of me right now. They are standalone machines with no internet connection, and I keep baseline images of their single drives. When I have finished messing about with whatever I am messing about with, I just restore the images. NOTHING gets out of my sandboxes.

Antivirus programs are not sandboxes.

With all due respect, if you don't know what these things actually do, then you are in no position to judge them at all.

As ever, it is entirely your choice whether you accept advice or not. It is however as well to remember that the others who posted here ( and myself), are doing their level best to help you and give you the best advice possible, simply because they would like things to work well for you.

Regards....Mike Connor

I believe I referred to the sandbox in reference to Comodo, having just deleted that section, I do know that the sandbox is in the Commodo firewall. Sandboxes sound interesting and I will probably investigate this further. I know my friend wants me to change to Chrome 10 because it is sandboxed. Once I understand more fully, I may agree.
As having gone through computer technician training for three year degree and building and troubleshooting computerized CMC and our own product, along with using machine language and CPM long before there was an IBM and it's clone MSDOS, I am not completely without experience. So to those who feel I have no right to judge their decisions, I can not personally accept that. I certainly have no where near the credentials of all the responders such as yourself, to my questions. And I sincerely appreciate your advice, opinions, information and self-confidence. I am sure it has been rightfully earned. But why would I dump a paid for program that seems to work perfectly, exactly as I want it, on three different machine because some people see unexplained dragons and hazards? I see no sense in that. I may regret it, and that will be my fault. That is why I keep up to date system images. Fool me twice, shame on me!!
I also run Secunia PSI, which I find to be very very helpful. What I really need to do, is to dive into a manual on my router and figure out every option and its purpose, so as to make my own informed choice on the settings and not rely on the auto setup, which I didn't. Just have to fill in some blanks like the website blocking.
I hope Mike that you realize, I am not disregarding your advice out of hand. I hope I have explained my reasoning. If not, we can agree to disagree until my subscription runs out. Thank you very much for your patience, perseverance and time. You have been highly informative as have the other posters to this thread.
Please continue with any other info that pops up! You know I need it!
Glenn

 

[MacGyvr]

Just putting in my two cents. I have never and will never use a firewall on my PC. I use MSE for antivirus, and the fact that I'm behind a router means that I do not need a firewall. No direct attack can go through a router and find an individual PC...it simply isn't possible. Only a PC directly connected to the internet should ever need a software firewall installed at all. MSE only turns on the firewall if you leave the box checked during installation telling it to, and you can still turn it back off even if it has been turned on.

 

[Mike Connor]

Hey Mike,

The firewall installs automatically with the defaults, You don't need to set up anything. Messing about with software firewalls is only for very advanced users with special needs, and the knowledge required to implement them. "Normal" users should simply accept the default settings, and not even try to change anything. Trying this without the prerequisite knowledge will invariably do more harm than good.

That is precisely what I mean. I am at the mercy of default settings which I must trust, as I have no way to adjust.

The point is that the default settings are specifically designed to be suitable for normal users. Unless you have special requirements, which the vast majority of private users simply don't have, the default settings are the best settings

I don't know what you mean by "hand-holding". Personally I prefer reliable unobtrusive solutions to most problems. The machine should be protected as well as possible without my having to do much at all. MSE is such a solution. Norton and a few others are in my considered opinion little more than catastrophes waiting to happen.

By hand-holding I mean that if I run a new program, Norton asks me what permission to give it and if I want to trust it, along with any update programs it install or help services, so as not to deal with them again.

That is part of the system on Windows 7, you don't need any third party software for such a purpose.

When I download a program it automatically checks the program and advises from a user database if it is safe, unknown or know malware.

MSE does that.

I like that. When I watch a Youtube video it auto scans and then lets me run the viewer. I like that, too. It is not intrusive to me. It actually reminds me of what is going on.

MSE will immediately block anything suspicious that tries to start or run on your machine and ask you what you would like to do with it.


I have never had a virus get through it on any of my machines, and on a lot of others as well. My sincere advice would be to throw the Norton stuff in the bin, and use MSE. In my experience the Norton stuff is unreliable at best, and you have absolutely nothing to gain by keeping it. Quite the reverse! MSE is free.

Since I have already spent the money on a 3 -user pack for $39, I have already made the investment.

Although I understand what you are saying I don't consider that a valid argument. The $39 is gone. MSE does not cost anything. Continuing to use an inferior product simply because you paid for it, when you can get a far superior product for free, is not sensible.


Like you I have never had a virus on any of my machines either and I am much less knowledgeable then yourself. MSE doesn't provide the hand-holding

If you don't use it, and don't know anything about it, then you have no way of knowing what it does or doesn't do. It is pointless even discussing something about which you are either not informed, or ill-informed.


and then it combines with a Firewall that is set to whatever defaults that someone else thinks is safe enough for me,

If you don't know exactly what you are doing, then ANY setup is potentially disastrous. The default setups are designed to provide optimal protection.

with no interaction as in Commodo.

I am well aware of some of Comodo's "interaction" having often had the doubtful pleasure of trying to redeem things after somebody "inter-acted" with it !

Does WF run in a sandbox?

No. Neither do any of the other anti-virus programs. They would be no use if they did. The only reason you need any of this stuff is so that you can safely use the internet. If you dont use the internet, you don't need any of this stuff. If you run things in some form of sandbox then your options for various interaction are severely limited.


I gave up on Norton several years ago as it was growing out of control on my part. I didn't use it until Norton 2010 came out and then they threw in a free 2011 upgrade. The price is right and already spent.

That money is gone. What you are trying to do is make your system safe in an understandable fashion. It does not require any monetary investment on your part to do so. Not doing so because you once spent $39 on something is not a sensible position to take.

I recall the days of being unable to get all of Norton out of your computer, it does not seem that way now. BTW I would not consider using the Norton 360 Security as I have read it doesn't fair well compared to many free competitors.

Once upon a time Norton was the only game in town. It was that or nothing. That has not been the case for a very long time. It is for the most part useless bloatware.There is no way I will use anything at all from Norton now, not even if you paid me to do it. ( Unless of course you offered me a very great deal more than $39 ! )


There are hundreds and thousands of so called "tests" for all sorts of things, all over the internet, and most of them are pure bullshit. The people you are talking to here have to deal with this stuff day in and day out, they know what works and what doesn't.

There is no such thing as a "Detection Rate" in regard to a firewall. A firewall blocks access to things which are not explicitly allowed. That is all it does. It does not detect anything.

With this regarding the tests, I believe they are variable in results.

The only real variables involved in the majority of these things are the amounts of bullshit and hype. If you multiply bullshit with hype, the result is hyperbullshit.

The firewall does let me stealth ports, which at least to me seems a good idea, it alerts me and blocks any outbound connections that I don't authorize. I do not believe you are saying that there is no difference on whatever brand of firewall you choose, am I?

When you are behind a router firewall, there are no ports. They are not available unless you specifically forward them.

There should never be any outbound connections which you don't authorise. Indeed, unless you authorise it it is impossible.

Malware will try to send stuff as if you had authorised it, which is why you need an anti-malware system.

These things can be rather confusing, you have to understand the PURPOSE for which these tools are used in order to know what is going on.

I concur fully with you on this point. I just haven't had or taken the time to become an expert in the field.

There is no effort involved. Windows firewall does not require any setup or pampering or anything else, it just works.

A sandbox is something entirely different again. It is normally some method, a piece of software, or hardware, or system, which isolates part of the system from the rest of the system. I have two perfect sandboxes sitting in front of me right now. They are standalone machines with no internet connection, and I keep baseline images of their single drives. When I have finished messing about with whatever I am messing about with, I just restore the images. NOTHING gets out of my sandboxes.

Antivirus programs are not sandboxes.

With all due respect, if you don't know what these things actually do, then you are in no position to judge them at all.

As ever, it is entirely your choice whether you accept advice or not. It is however as well to remember that the others who posted here ( and myself), are doing their level best to help you and give you the best advice possible, simply because they would like things to work well for you.

Regards....Mike Connor

I believe I referred to the sandbox in reference to Comodo, having just deleted that section, I do know that the sandbox is in the Commodo firewall. Sandboxes sound interesting and I will probably investigate this further. I know my friend wants me to change to Chrome 10 because it is sandboxed. Once I understand more fully, I may agree.

As having gone through computer technician training for three year degree and building and troubleshooting computerized CMC and our own product, along with using machine language and CPM long before there was an IBM and it's clone MSDOS, I am not completely without experience. So to those who feel I have no right to judge their decisions, I can not personally accept that.

None of this is in any way personal. It is merely advice which you can take or leave. It doesn't make any difference to me what you do, excepting that I would like to think I helped you in some way.

I certainly have no where near the credentials of all the responders such as yourself, to my questions. And I sincerely appreciate your advice, opinions, information and self-confidence. I am sure it has been rightfully earned. But why would I dump a paid for program that seems to work perfectly, exactly as I want it, on three different machine because some people see unexplained dragons and hazards? I see no sense in that.

Your prerogative.

I may regret it, and that will be my fault. That is why I keep up to date system images. Fool me twice, shame on me!!

I also run Secunia PSI, which I find to be very very helpful. What I really need to do, is to dive into a manual on my router and figure out every option and its purpose, so as to make my own informed choice on the settings and not rely on the auto setup, which I didn't. Just have to fill in some blanks like the website blocking.

I hope Mike that you realize, I am not disregarding your advice out of hand. I hope I have explained my reasoning. If not, we can agree to disagree until my subscription runs out. Thank you very much for your patience, perseverance and time. You have been highly informative as have the other posters to this thread.
Please continue with any other info that pops up! You know I need it!
Glenn

As I wrote, none of this is personal. Whether you accept advice, or implement suggestions, is entirely up to you.

Regards....Mike Connor

 

[Mike Connor]

Just putting in my two cents. I have never and will never use a firewall on my PC. I use MSE for antivirus, and the fact that I'm behind a router means that I do not need a firewall. No direct attack can go through a router and find an individual PC...it simply isn't possible. Only a PC directly connected to the internet should ever need a software firewall installed at all. MSE only turns on the firewall if you leave the box checked during installation telling it to, and you can still turn it back off even if it has been turned on.

Correct.

But I still use windows firewall for some experiments regarding outbound setups. Also. if I am going to set these things up on other machines, I need the practice!

Regards....Mike Connor

 

[glennc]

Just putting in my two cents. I have never and will never use a firewall on my PC. I use MSE for antivirus, and the fact that I'm behind a router means that I do not need a firewall. No direct attack can go through a router and find an individual PC...it simply isn't possible. Only a PC directly connected to the internet should ever need a software firewall installed at all. MSE only turns on the firewall if you leave the box checked during installation telling it to, and you can still turn it back off even if it has been turned on.

Howdy MacGyvr,
I wish I had the knowledge that you guys possess. That is such a strong statement, which I know you believe is true. I wish I knew why it is true. Because that would be cool! I am sure it is to complicated for me to get in a Cliff note thread.
Thanks for your responding!
Glenn

 

[glennc]

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least.
Glenn

 

[MacGyvr]

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least.
Glenn

I work on roughly 10 to 20 computers per week. Without fail, a customer comes in with a machine running "slow" and I find Norton on it....once I remove Norton, we get about a 50% increase in performance. Yes, Norton may prevent viruses, but the performance hit isn't worth the protection when MSE can give the same protection without dragging the machine to it's knees.

 

[Mike Connor]

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least.
Glenn

As MacGyvr pointed out, and I thought I had too, but maybe it was not clear. If you are behind a router, then there is no way for anybody to access your machine directly. A software firewall is pointless for a normal user if you are behind a router, because nothing will ever reach it. It will never do anything except slow down your machine.

Norton, and some others, ( also as MacGyvr has pointed out ), also tend to slow down machines very considerably. They can also cause all sorts of other problems. These are problems I simply don't want, so I don't use such software. It would be completely superfluous in any case.

This machine, which I am typing this on, has MSE on it as protection, and nothing else. The Windows firewall is also off, because this machine is of course also behind my router.

It is not a question of somebody else making decisions for you, it is basically a question of common sense.

If you like Norton for some reason, then use it. It makes no difference to anybody here what you use, they merely question the good sense of using bloatware which slows down your machine when you don't need to.

The other stuff you have is completely pointless, because you are behind a router.

NOTHING can get past that router to directly access your machine. Unless you allow it. So software firewalls like Comodo are COMPLETELY USELESS. They can not do what they were designed to do in such a situation, but that does not stop them trying, and they slow down your machine as a result. They also often cause other problems.

There is nothing to stop you tying ten bricks around your neck if you go for a run. It probably wont do you much harm, but it will slow you down, and is completely unnecessary. That is basically what you are doing when you install software firewalls on machines that run behind routers.

We could go around in circles forever on this, but there is no point in it. If you want to use what you have, then use it, but doing so makes it very difficult indeed for anybody to give you any sensible advice. All this stuff causes unnecessary problems which are impossible to troubleshoot. The only sensible recourse is to remove it from the machine.

If you don't want to do that, then there is nothing else I can do for you in the way of sensible advice.

Trying to discuss ten different things at once also complicates matters, and doubtless causes confusion.

Regards....Mike Connor

 

[glennc]

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least.
Glenn

I work on roughly 10 to 20 computers per week. Without fail, a customer comes in with a machine running "slow" and I find Norton on it....once I remove Norton, we get about a 50% increase in performance. Yes, Norton may prevent viruses, but the performance hit isn't worth the protection when MSE can give the same protection without dragging the machine to it's knees.

Howdy MacGyvr,
That is an interesting statistic! But I thought that is why they made these new multi-core 3GHz, Sata beasts. So they can handle all the candy provided and still run quickly. I mean increasingly less optimized programs, visually pleasing with 5 or 6 ways to accomplish the same task. That wouldn't have flown in Window 95.
It was my impression that IMH(undereducated)O the increase in processing power was to handle these bloated programs, not just Norton. Yes say "aero" is neat but I ran business level spreadsheets on a machine possessing 64KBs of memory.
Running Norton on my Celeron 3 GHz is trying, as is all aspects of running anything on the Acer. I used to believe it was adequate, now I want to ax it with a fireman's Ax because of the slowness. Partially due to Norton's overhead. On my AMD X2 machine, it is not noticeable.
I have pared down my XP system to minimum, maybe I'll byte and replace it with just MSE for a while and see if I can get a performance enhancement on the older machine. Good idea!
Mille Grazie
Glenn

 

[glennc]

Howdy Mike,
If you think it is confusing for you, you should walk a mile in my shoes. I believe you sincere about not requiring a software firewall if you are behind a properly configured router/double firewall. My problem of course is that I have not enough knowledge to be sure it is set up properly. Anyone wishing to help in that area, know that would be the greatest immediate benefit. That seems sound and doable assuming I get adequate assistance. Dumping a firewall I don't need is cool!
I have been through every iteration of Windows, and to me it is a matter of nameless engineers pumping out sloppy code increasing in size to a point of insanity, to make me feel like I need the next generation of Windows. These people are directed to make generalized assumptions about the average person and what they need. I will not be categorized by statistical analysis. If people want my money, they must provide me with the services I desire, not what they think is a good safe default for the idiots out there that don't have a degree. In this case I find Windows firewall and MSE lacking. MSE has earned my respect as a powerful scanner, but doesn't fit my bill as real time protection. Now as I've mentioned I might try it out on my old XP system, trying to get it to last a while longer. Worse comes to worse, I'll just pop Linux on it and increase my speed a bunch.
So intrepid Mike, your and other's efforts have not gone in vain. I certainly appreciate the tenacity to make me safer, even if it is against my will. This very day I will dump the firewall and norton off my wireless connected XP Acer and see what happens. Nothing and I'll be as well protected as you say.
I'll let you know how that goes.
Glenn

Howdy Mike,
The main thing that has been forgotten is that I like the product, and it's interface. I purchased with that in mind. I have run using Avast, Avira and for a time McAfee with and without MSE, both running real protection. Nothing happened. Having decisions made for me by nameless people that I don't know is not my style if I can help it. Due to the fear of "running two AV's at the same time" I stopped the practice and by this time came across Norton. I like the interaction with Norton. I don't yet understand why it is so inferior. It has never caused me any problem. It has not allowed any infection, sometimes Anti-malware will find some advertising cookies.
Maybe a brief explanation of the vast superiority of MSE would overcome my liking it and never having a problem with it and already having paid for it. I am sure you have valid considerations in mind with your advice, yet you have not specified any vast problems. I am again in an if it ain't broke and I like it, why fix it??
The concept of some software company thinking it knows what is best for me, especially Microsoft is annoying. I made through everything since DOS 4 without relying solely on MS.
Thanks immeasurably! Glad I will be able to turn off that window firewall at least.
Glenn

As MacGyvr pointed out, and I thought I had too, but maybe it was not clear. If you are behind a router, then there is no way for anybody to access your machine directly. A software firewall is pointless for a normal user if you are behind a router, because nothing will ever reach it. It will never do anything except slow down your machine.

Norton, and some others, ( also as MacGyvr has pointed out ), also tend to slow down machines very considerably. They can also cause all sorts of other problems. These are problems I simply don't want, so I don't use such software. It would be completely superfluous in any case.

This machine, which I am typing this on, has MSE on it as protection, and nothing else. The Windows firewall is also off, because this machine is of course also behind my router.

It is not a question of somebody else making decisions for you, it is basically a question of common sense.

If you like Norton for some reason, then use it. It makes no difference to anybody here what you use, they merely question the good sense of using bloatware which slows down your machine when you don't need to.

The other stuff you have is completely pointless, because you are behind a router.

NOTHING can get past that router to directly access your machine. Unless you allow it. So software firewalls like Comodo are COMPLETELY USELESS. They can not do what they were designed to do in such a situation, but that does not stop them trying, and they slow down your machine as a result. They also often cause other problems.

There is nothing to stop you tying ten bricks around your neck if you go for a run. It probably wont do you much harm, but it will slow you down, and is completely unnecessary. That is basically what you are doing when you install software firewalls on machines that run behind routers.

We could go around in circles forever on this, but there is no point in it. If you want to use what you have, then use it, but doing so makes it very difficult indeed for anybody to give you any sensible advice. All this stuff causes unnecessary problems which are impossible to troubleshoot. The only sensible recourse is to remove it from the machine.

If you don't want to do that, then there is nothing else I can do for you in the way of sensible advice.

Trying to discuss ten different things at once also complicates matters, and doubtless causes confusion.

Regards....Mike Connor