What security setup do you have?

[legacy7955]

Does anyone know how timely Norton Safe Web is?

This page here Norton Safe Web, from Symantec

You simply enter the site in question into the search box and click enter.

It has a review of whether or not a site is safe and what potential trouble might be lurking, but it doesn't tell you anything about when they checked it or how often they check them.

 

[gautam7]

Does anyone know how timely Norton Safe Web is?

This page here Norton Safe Web, from Symantec

You simply enter the site in question into the search box and click enter.

It has a review of whether or not a site is safe and what potential trouble might be lurking, but it doesn't tell you anything about when they checked it or how often they check them.

Its not very benifecial to depend on only one scanner to tell you a sites safety. Try Virus total or urlvoid they use around 16 scanner in real time to scan a website which gives you more accurate result. And you can determine if they are FP or real danger.

 

[FranzB]

Unfortunately, more and more legitimate websites are serving up malware and other exploits these days. So even if you only surf "safe" sites, you still run the risk if unprotected. Being careful and safe are not replacements for proper security, but rather an integral component. A Guy

Well put!

Tja..... i do not want to kick in open doors again, especially not on a Windows
forum but that safety is only met by surfing with one of the Linux OS, so far that is. Whether that's due to the little use of Linux OS and therefore not being 'worthwhile' to develop viruses for it or whether it's due to Linux not using this registry system of Microsoft is a moot point. I cannot say anything sensible about that, except that the fact exists.

 

[baxxter]

I have NIS 2012 and i dont have any problem (not as NIS 2011)

 

[chrysalis]

Unfortunately, more and more legitimate websites are serving up malware and other exploits these days. So even if you only surf "safe" sites, you still run the risk if unprotected. Being careful and safe are not replacements for proper security, but rather an integral component. A Guy

Hard to say, I wouldnt say infected sites is any higher than say 3 years ago, just that there has been more publicity.

The only time I have come across a site that can infect machines without user interaction is either.

1 - bad configuration which has lowered security settings
2 - old browser that has poor default settings.
3 - infected ad servers.

even then without user interaction on a modern operating system will typically not be a root compromise.

I would say what I posted about been vigilant is better than installing an anti virus and then thinking you immune so can be careless. The amount of systems I have cleaned all had virus protection on them.

The average detection rate for 0day malware across all security software is under 20%.

 

[Layback Bear]

Because I'm simple I will keep it simple. MSE, MAM, SAS. If you use torrents and/or go to certain web sites there is no way anything will protect you. That's SIMPLE.

 

[FranzB]

Actually most of the postings here are pretty useless. What is the added value
of posting/reading what AV programs are used? I can do nothing with a posting saying "I use A, B, and C" and nothing else. It is much more important how the security is maintained, checked, used and how you behave online. Comparing AV programs is senseless if conditions under which they are used are not standardized and/or described.

 

[Layback Bear]

I was wondering... What kind of security setup does people here use?

I, myself, only have Avira free installed, since my usual firewall of choice - online armor - isn't yet compatible with win 7.

Because that is what the OP requested.

 

[marsmimar]

Actually most of the postings here are pretty useless. What is the added value
of posting/reading what AV programs are used? I can do nothing with a posting saying "I use A, B, and C" and nothing else. It is much more important how the security is maintained, checked, used and how you behave online. Comparing AV programs is senseless if conditions under which they are used are not standardized and/or described.

With all due respect ... you are obviously one with considerable experience and knowledge when it comes to computer security and safe surfing. For that I congratulate you. Many people who visit this Forum are not as well versed as you. They post a question along the lines of, "What security setup do you have?", or "What's the best antivirus?", and then they (hopefully) read through the responses.

If Product "XYZ" is recommended by a majority of the people then perhaps that will be the starting point for the asker. He will try it out under his actual computing environment to see if it meets his needs and expectations. If it doesn't, he may then try the second most recommended product. And so on and so forth.

Most of the postings here are not pretty useless. They serve as the groundwork to become a better informed and wiser computer user. Such as yourself. Because with all of your wisdom I'm pretty sure you started out as an inexperienced novice, too. IMHO.

 

[FranzB]

Marsmimar, there is almost no ground work done here. The basis is given by tw33k and thatagat in the first two postings on "What's the best AV-virus?".

And i repeat that a posting only stating "I use A, B, C" or "I only use D" has no added value whatsoever. At most you can make a table of what people (who answer with a posting, mind you) use mostly but that doesn't say anything at all. Period, no matter how you twist and turn it around.
This is especially true if no conditions are described. One person may have no
AV at all (just a firewall) but is only reading BBC News or the Guardian online,
while another one maybe surfing around from one dubious site to the next one
(without saying so) and then complains that AV program B did not prevent that a virus was installed on his computer, saying "forget about B, it is useless"
although it does have some added value maybe; just maybe.

 

[marsmimar]

Last time I checked my dictionary, I thought it said that a survey was meant to gather data on attitudes, impressions, opinions, satisfaction levels, etc. by polling a section of the population. Or words to that effect. Seems to me that's what a lot of the questions on this Forum are all about. If someone finds no relevancy in the information the question provides, or if the information propounded by the respondents serves no useful purpose, then by all means, that person is certainly free to thumb his nose at everyone else and move on. But to categorically state that the information is useless serves no useful purpose, either. It just means it's useless to that one person. I respect your opinion, FranzB and I will no longer engage in this tête à tête. Have a nice day.

 

[FranzB]

I forgot another posting that is helpful, viz. by ICitlol under "Something of interest to newbies" with a link to
"probably the best free security list in the world".

 

[legacy7955]

Franz:

There probably is mostly anecdotal evidence here as far as users opinions go, however for the generalists they can at least see a pattern of what seems to be fairly trouble free and what isn't. Like a few others mention not everybody here has the background and knowledge that you do, I certainly value it, but just keep in mind that there are ALL levels of users on this site and your're going to see some things that probably are trivial to you personally.

If you have a framework that you would like to use why not suggest it?

 

[FranzB]

Franz:
...............

If you have a framework that you would like to use why not suggest it?

Legacy: Well, marsmimar is right. This thread is a survey; whether useful or not is another question. And i gave already some links to persons here who give advice on other threads on this forum. And i myself started a thread "Some security checks and issues". Telling people what AV i use is..... well...useless, even if i tell them that i never had a virus with this particular setup since it proves nothing. It could also mean that i have simply never been targeted and not that my setup or choice of AV programs is so good. As said so often before, the way you behave on internet and what you do with emails with attachments from unknown senders is just or even more important.
Regards.

 

[Layback Bear]

The way a person uses a computer is at the top of the list. No security program can do it all by itself. What a person does on a computer is the first stage of security on a computer.

 

[legacy7955]

As said so often before, the way you behave on internet and what you do with emails with attachments from unknown senders is just or even more important.
Regards.

Totally agreed.

I'm just floored at the carelessness of so many users today, I really don't understand why this is the case. Honestly who wants to damage their system or worse compromise their personal information!!???

That being said I'd love to see MS and others do some general advertising about the need to THINK about how one uses the net and related items, like US sticks,ect...with regards to safety and preventing malware.

 

[gautam7]

Totally agree that the person using the pc is greatly responsible for geting infected. But still its unwise to lower your guard even though somebody only practice "safe browsing". Because sometime you can't help it no matter how much you try. Recently avast stoped me from going to my newspaper site due to some malware infection. when i tested the site with VT indeed several scanner detected the site as malicious. Latter the newspaper agency confirmed their site been hacked. I have no script in ff but i have permited my news paper site in no script due to my understanding that they are safe site. From this incident i learned only one thing not a single website is safe in the internet and you can't lower your guard while online.

 

[FranzB]

I'm just floored at the carelessness of so many users today, I really don't understand why this is the case. Honestly who wants to damage their system or worse compromise their personal information!!???

It has to be convenient and many people would even prefer that the computer does the thinking for them. They just want to push a few buttons, at most.

In spite of all security and thinking about what i am about to do i still would never ever put personal information on my computer. In most cases you do not have to do that. Ok, it's sometimes less convenient but in the end it could turn out to be more convenient if.... etc.

 

[FranzB]

Totally agree that the person using the pc is greatly responsible for geting infected. But still its unwise to lower your guard even though somebody only practice "safe browsing". Because sometime you can't help it no matter how much you try. Recently avast stoped me from going to my newspaper site due to some malware infection. when i tested the site with VT indeed several scanner detected the site as malicious. Latter the newspaper agency confirmed their site been hacked. I have no script in ff but i have permited my news paper site in no script due to my understanding that they are safe site. From this incident i learned only one thing not a single website is safe in the internet and you can't lower your guard while online.

You are, of course right, but what about those people who set up the newspaper site? After all, they did not have their security in order.
I can still log in to my internet provider on an http site that you can find by googling and it is mentioned in first place by google. I can even change my password on that site. Can you believe it! If i add an s to the http address i get their encrypted site, i.e. they have http as well as https. Your choice. I could hardly believe it, mailed them and their answer was that my computer must be infected. They didn't even look at it. A bunch of morons.

I only turn on javascript if i really need it, e.g. to view videos. Inconvenient? Sure. It takes a few seconds.

 

[OldMX]

Windows Firewall and Microsoft Security Essentials, Firefox running on Sandboxie with Temp files on RamDisk and all Windows Updates.