Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

the definitive minimal amount of programs for the greatest security?

(1/6) > >>

nudone:
just thought i would start a new thread as i'm sure everyone will have their own list of programs that they deem essential for a 'secure' system.

from my experience there appears to be a lot of overlap when installing the typical list of anti-virus, trojan guards, firewalls and spyware detectors, etc. which, to me, feels a little excessive.

how about trying to define the minimum number of programs that are required for a thoroughly secure system; trying to avoid features that overlap or are possibly redundant.

hopefully a small list of 3 to 5 programs could be discovered that provide the greatest protection. providing a true sense of security to even the most novice of users and all without the worry that there are unnecessary programs running in the background that are duplicating the tasks of other software.

mob's post on 'processguard' and 'regdefend' got me thinking as these are two things i've never used, so, i'm wondering, can i get by without them or not?

currently i use avg free edition and agnitum outpost and that's about it. i'm not fully convinced i need anything more but if there is a program (maybe processguard) that will 100% protect my system with the least amount of fuss then i guess it makes sense to use it for that rare occasion when things could go wrong.

mouser:
id consider an antivirus+firewall the bare minimum. and they should be running all the time in the background, imho.

process guard sounds intriguing though, and i'm going to give it a look.

as for antitrojan and antispyware, and others, i wouldnt waste my cpu running such programs in the background, though its nice to have these for on-demand scanning.

slightly off topic but invaluable for those of us who like to test software is a virtual machine like VmWare or VirtualPc; such a program is essential, and we will be doing an award on them in very near future.

nudone:
well, that describes my setup too.

i'd guess that users that know their pc systems inside and out will only have a firewall and anti-virus running as they are confident that they know what they are doing with their machines.

i was thinking more along the lines of what happens to people i know. no matter what you advise them to do to avoid nasty things getting onto their pc, they will still allow it to happen. their fault i know, but it's always left to someone else (like me) to pick up the pieces and try and get everything working again. i'd just love to know how to make their machines totally secure and idiot proof (and i'll have the moon on a stick whilst i'm at it).

the virtual pc thing is something that sounds fantastic though. the main reason i do lots of system backup images is because i tend to install software that usually needs removing so i just wipe the lot with the restored image. i'd much rather just use a virtual system to install the test software into. so i look forward to hearing about the virtual pc comparisons.

randiroo76073:
I can only offer what I run: Active=Firewall, AV, & Winpatrol[I like the dog :)]. Inactive/on-demand, 3 AV's, 2 Trojanscans, 3 Spyware, a CD with lots of command line removers. I'm not paraniod, just like to be prepared as I have had to cleanup many puters for people who weren't. VMware would be nice if I could get it installed on all the puters I've fixed :D

nudone:
 :o not paranoid, okay, i believe you.

i think i tried winpatrol but it got kind of annoying with it asking if things were okay all the time - i know that's it's job but it seemed to have a poor memory and kept asking me things it should have already known.

from what i've done with other people's computers, it appears to me that the MS antispyware beta thing might be less annoying than winpatrol.

randiroo, your machine sounds more secure than fort knox.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page