Need advise about Anti-virus and firewalls.

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by paul dallaire, Jul 9, 2005.

  1. HI! I need some advise on which anti-virus program to buy and firewall.

    I have heard of mcafee virus-scan 9.0 and its suit with built in firewall is
    it good firewall?
    There is also Zonealram which also had a suit with built in anti-virus. is
    the anti-virus good.

    I know that mcafee is a good anti-virus and zonealarm is a good firewall but
    I just want to know your opinions on there suits which contain both
    anti-virus and firewalls.

    Is it better just to install the suits as there are both good or should I
    choose mcafee for the anti-virus and zonealarm for firewall?

    Paul :)
     
    paul dallaire, Jul 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. paul dallaire

    KH Guest

    KH, Jul 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. paul dallaire

    Notan Guest

    Notan, Jul 9, 2005
    #3
  4. paul dallaire

    KH Guest

    Yep, Norton is only for computers with large amounts of RAM, I suggest only
    for computers with 2 gigs or more to run Norton
     
    KH, Jul 9, 2005
    #4
  5. Thanks for the advise guys :)


    "paul dallaire" <> wrote in message
    news:YNHze.9530$...
    > HI! I need some advise on which anti-virus program to buy and firewall.
    >
    > I have heard of mcafee virus-scan 9.0 and its suit with built in firewall
    > is
    > it good firewall?
    > There is also Zonealram which also had a suit with built in anti-virus. is
    > the anti-virus good.
    >
    > I know that mcafee is a good anti-virus and zonealarm is a good firewall
    > but
    > I just want to know your opinions on there suits which contain both
    > anti-virus and firewalls.
    >
    > Is it better just to install the suits as there are both good or should I
    > choose mcafee for the anti-virus and zonealarm for firewall?
    >
    > Paul :)
    >
    >
    >
     
    paul dallaire, Jul 9, 2005
    #5
  6. On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:48:07 -0400, "paul dallaire"
    <> wrote:

    >HI! I need some advise on which anti-virus program to buy and firewall.
    >
    >I have heard of mcafee virus-scan 9.0 and its suit with built in firewall is
    >it good firewall?
    >There is also Zonealram which also had a suit with built in anti-virus. is
    >the anti-virus good.
    >
    >I know that mcafee is a good anti-virus and zonealarm is a good firewall but
    >I just want to know your opinions on there suits which contain both
    >anti-virus and firewalls.
    >
    >Is it better just to install the suits as there are both good or should I
    >choose mcafee for the anti-virus and zonealarm for firewall?
    >
    >Paul :)
    >
    >


    What are you actually using?

    If you areallready using ZoneAlarm firewall,.. well... keep it and get
    the suite from ZoneLabs.
    McAfee is overall good,.. no dispute about that!
    If I would have to buy,.. i chose Panda software. No, not Norton.
    Panda's overall quality is good. But if you pick & choose wisely, you
    can get all you need for free without loss of comfort.
    There are various combinations of free soft available.
    At the time I combine AVG with the Kerio firewall. I'm happy about it.
    Before, I used ZoneAlarm with Avast.
    But I change frequently ;-)
    Read more:
    http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/anti_virus.html
    http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/firewall.html
    greetz


    --
    www.nondisputandum.com - soft reviews:
    freeware to Protect & Clean your PC
    freeware Office tools & Webbuilding aid
    + the Internet Addiction Test ;-)
     
    nondisputandum, Jul 9, 2005
    #6
  7. On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:45:10 -0400, "KH" <> wrote:

    >Yep, Norton is only for computers with large amounts of RAM, I suggest only
    >for computers with 2 gigs or more to run Norton
    >


    Ran the Norton AV & firewall on P4, 3 GHz HT (running at 3.6 - 960 MHz
    fsb) with 2 Gig ram (400 Mhz)

    It slowed down the system... not even with that power, it is a good
    idea. Perhaps the hunger of Norton has not all to do with the raw
    power of the system. Some old P3 systems run it with little
    problems,... but those are white ravens. Pitty, cos Norton has all the
    potential and a huge history of trustwothyness. (Remember good old
    Commander)

    --
    www.nondisputandum.com - soft reviews:
    freeware to Protect & Clean your PC
    freeware Office tools & Webbuilding aid
    + the Internet Addiction Test ;-)
     
    nondisputandum, Jul 9, 2005
    #7
  8. paul dallaire

    Notan Guest

    nondisputandum wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:45:10 -0400, "KH" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Yep, Norton is only for computers with large amounts of RAM, I suggest only
    > >for computers with 2 gigs or more to run Norton
    > >

    >
    > Ran the Norton AV & firewall on P4, 3 GHz HT (running at 3.6 - 960 MHz
    > fsb) with 2 Gig ram (400 Mhz)
    >
    > It slowed down the system... not even with that power, it is a good
    > idea. Perhaps the hunger of Norton has not all to do with the raw
    > power of the system. Some old P3 systems run it with little
    > problems,... but those are white ravens. Pitty, cos Norton has all the
    > potential and a huge history of trustwothyness. (Remember good old
    > Commander)


    Clearly, Peter Norton was a leaner programmer than Symantec!

    Notan
     
    Notan, Jul 9, 2005
    #8
  9. On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:32:08 -0600, Notan <> wrote:

    >nondisputandum wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:45:10 -0400, "KH" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Yep, Norton is only for computers with large amounts of RAM, I suggest only
    >> >for computers with 2 gigs or more to run Norton
    >> >

    >>
    >> Ran the Norton AV & firewall on P4, 3 GHz HT (running at 3.6 - 960 MHz
    >> fsb) with 2 Gig ram (400 Mhz)
    >>
    >> It slowed down the system... not even with that power, it is a good
    >> idea. Perhaps the hunger of Norton has not all to do with the raw
    >> power of the system. Some old P3 systems run it with little
    >> problems,... but those are white ravens. Pitty, cos Norton has all the
    >> potential and a huge history of trustwothyness. (Remember good old
    >> Commander)

    >
    >Clearly, Peter Norton was a leaner programmer than Symantec!
    >
    >Notan


    Peter Frampton was a lean musician, equally forgotten after
    commercialisation. so it goes with "Giant"s.

    --
    www.nondisputandum.com - soft reviews:
    freeware to Protect & Clean your PC
    freeware Office tools & Webbuilding aid
    + the Internet Addiction Test ;-)
     
    nondisputandum, Jul 9, 2005
    #9
  10. paul dallaire

    winged Guest

    nondisputandum wrote:
    > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:45:10 -0400, "KH" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Yep, Norton is only for computers with large amounts of RAM, I suggest only
    >>for computers with 2 gigs or more to run Norton
    >>

    >
    >
    > Ran the Norton AV & firewall on P4, 3 GHz HT (running at 3.6 - 960 MHz
    > fsb) with 2 Gig ram (400 Mhz)
    >
    > It slowed down the system... not even with that power, it is a good
    > idea. Perhaps the hunger of Norton has not all to do with the raw
    > power of the system. Some old P3 systems run it with little
    > problems,... but those are white ravens. Pitty, cos Norton has all the
    > potential and a huge history of trustwothyness. (Remember good old
    > Commander)
    >


    I hear these complaint about Norton. I am not familiar with the retail
    product as for several years I have used the Corporate edition available
    through the workplace. I will not argue about it having a heavy hand on
    the system and that it does not uninstall well.

    We have the Symantec, McAfee and MicroTrend products available for free
    for employee home use though the workplace. During my initial testing a
    couple of years ago, the Symantec product blocked more varieties of
    "known" viruses, more reliably, than the other two other products I
    tested. Additionally the firewall product blocked more attack vectors
    against the firewall of the system when services were exposed, was less
    susceptible to tunneling and was more stable than the McAfee and ZA
    product tested at the time. None of the products tested were 100%, but
    at that time, the Symantec product stopped more threat vectors. This was
    primarily related to port 80 filtering capabilities with the Symantec
    firewall. Previously I had been using the ZA firewall however in testing
    there were several attack vectors that were effective against it that
    could not be easily closed by the user. Additionally it did not have
    the finite web filtering control(I was using promoxitron at the time for
    this) that the Symantec product offered.

    The time line between threat discovery and threat mitigation with the AV
    product is important. I have seen statistics on the web that compared
    this mitigation Window and Symantecs response time is top of the list.

    I have been running the CE edition on a AMD 1700 512 MB RAM with no
    performance issues. Of course I am not running the latest edition of
    DOOM on that box but performs adequately well for routine web and VM
    operations. I have a 2.8 ghz Intel as a game box that works adequately
    for Internet gaming (though I still get my arse kicked but the kids
    don't seem to have the same issues..lol) I have noted a performance hit
    on that system of about 10% against raw processing of SETI packet data
    with NAV over having nothing on the box. This can be mitigated by
    having Symantec ignore file changes in those applications directories.
    If maximum raw performance is your highest priority, then you may want
    to use a different product, or turn off real time file protection all
    together.

    Product cost was not a factor in my testing. I understand the
    MicroTrend product and the McAfee product have both had significant
    improvements since I tested, however so has NAV. Additionally I was
    testing the corporate products instead of the retail versions. Due to
    the time involved in testing I have not re-tested current versions. I
    love the changes in the latest Corporate edition, which has significant
    improvements in identifying, preventing and removing various malware pests.

    Performance hit on game play can be mitigated under NAV by tweaking
    various NAV parameters to ignore disk writes for a specified directory
    and firewall precedence rules set moved up for net game servers. I don't
    play a lot of Net based games however I have found that if you want to
    improve the game performance you have to tweak the communications to the
    top of the firewall rule set (not the bottom which is the default when
    you create the rules). Additionally minimizing logging on game ports
    significantly improves performance. NAV by default logs numerous
    activities and this must be reduced for game communications or the
    performance hit is significant. I have noted that graphic cards that
    use system RAM for graphic memory also impact performance. I believe
    this is related to the real time protection features.

    The default settings in NAV is for protection not performance. These
    behaviors can be changed to optimize performance for certain activities
    if desired, but it does require product familiarity. The help files do
    not go into detail, on how to do this, as it does reduce protections and
    this is beyond the understanding of many users. There are several files
    you should set NAV real time protection to ignore activity for optimal
    performance. Help files for the Symantec product is designed for home
    users and does not address advanced configuration capabilities. It can
    be figured out, but it would be "nice" to have some features documented
    as it can require manual tweaks to registry or configuration files,
    though a lot of the information is available at the SARC site.

    The key is finding a product that meets your requirements, practice safe
    computing, and almost any AV/firewall product will work if properly
    configured. Like any other tool, the one that fits your needs, and is
    kept current is best. I have a machine where I used McAfee (Linux box)
    and other boxes where I use nothing at all on the system with no issue.
    What product is best, depends on the threat exposure and the usage of
    the system.

    Winged
     
    winged, Jul 9, 2005
    #10
  11. paul dallaire

    Zilbandy Guest

    I keep hearing all negatives about Norton Antivirus, however, I use it
    and have no issues whatsoever with it. I just use the Antivirus
    program, not the suite. I also use ZoneAlarm's free firewall program.
    There may be better combinations out there, but these two seem to be
    doing a fine job for me on my two computers.

    "paul dallaire" <> wrote:

    >HI! I need some advise on which anti-virus program to buy and firewall.
     
    Zilbandy, Jul 10, 2005
    #11
  12. paul dallaire

    johns Guest

    Extensive testing in a University environment. Winner hands down with
    combo AV and firewall and fast updates is F-secure. And F-secure
    will not slow your system down at all.

    johns
     
    johns, Jul 10, 2005
    #12
  13. paul dallaire

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Extensive testing in a University environment. Winner hands down with
    > combo AV and firewall and fast updates is F-secure. And F-secure
    > will not slow your system down at all.


    Ha Ha Ha - testing for more than 40 machines going from Dorm rooms to a
    on-campus Sorority, the only uninfected machines were the ones running
    Norton Antivirus with current subscriptions. All the other machines were
    running McAfee, CA, and several others that ship with name brand
    computers.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Jul 10, 2005
    #13
  14. paul dallaire

    SteveB Guest

    Every comparison I've seen between F-Secure and Norton puts F-Secure ahead.
    It finds more and gets quicker updates. I've used it for 18 months with
    zero problems or infections. I have just decided to try elsewhere though as
    they want the same money each year for a licence as for the complete
    package, surely there should be a reduced charge? I also didn't like the
    fact that you can't manually download a virus signature file for the
    combined AV/firewall, you have to rely on automatic updates.
     
    SteveB, Jul 10, 2005
    #14
  15. On 09 Jul 2005 11:58:13 EDT, winged <> wrote:

    >None of the products tested were 100%, but
    >at that time, the Symantec product stopped more threat vectors.


    SYmantec offers great performance when it come to detection.NO
    discussion about that.


    > What product is best, depends on the threat exposure and the usage of
    >the system.


    Well, .. even if you surf safely, you never know what kinda treath
    enters your system,.. so one needs the best possible safety available,
    no matter the threath exposure... for the price you want to offer.

    I stick to free alternatives, but those who prefer to have an install
    & forget kinda solution,... can pick Symantec's software,... but for a
    similar price one gets as good and more resources friendly. (Panda,
    McAfee,...)


    --
    www.nondisputandum.com - soft reviews:
    freeware to Protect & Clean your PC
    freeware Office tools & Webbuilding aid
    + the Internet Addiction Test ;-)
     
    nondisputandum, Jul 10, 2005
    #15
  16. paul dallaire

    Notan Guest

    nondisputandum wrote:
    >
    > On 09 Jul 2005 11:58:13 EDT, winged <> wrote:
    >
    > >None of the products tested were 100%, but
    > >at that time, the Symantec product stopped more threat vectors.

    >
    > SYmantec offers great performance when it come to detection.NO
    > discussion about that.
    >
    > <snip>


    Kevlar underwear, worn beneath a suit of armor, probably offers the
    best protection against most physical attacks, but I doubt you'll
    see anyone sporting this attire, because, like some of Symantec's
    products, it's BLOATWEAR! (Or, in Symantec's case, BLOATWARE!)

    Notan
     
    Notan, Jul 10, 2005
    #16
  17. paul dallaire

    johns Guest

    Oh man! I was just testing the entire University ... not a world class
    disaster like the dorms or Sororities. We've given up on them.

    johns
     
    johns, Jul 11, 2005
    #17
  18. paul dallaire

    johns Guest

    I've seen that. What do they do? Turn the servers off or something?
    We get reduced prices by complaining about it. They will respond
    to bartering.

    johns
     
    johns, Jul 11, 2005
    #18
  19. paul dallaire

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Oh man! I was just testing the entire University ... not a world class
    > disaster like the dorms or Sororities. We've given up on them.


    Actually, the Sororities, when you clean the ladies machines before they
    connect, stay quite clean all year long.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Jul 11, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tracker
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    635
    Jonathan
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. tracker
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    tracker
    Aug 20, 2003
  3. tracker
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    400
    tracker
    Aug 20, 2003
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    813
  5. The Master of The Known Universe

    Top 3 firewalls, anti-virus apps, anti-spyware apps

    The Master of The Known Universe, May 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,100
    clouds
    May 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page