What extra protection other than Avast?

[iansbrainstorm]

I am just going through the frustration of reinstalling Windows XP because the computer running Avast Pro had Trojans, browser hijacked etc. I gave up trying to clean it. It had TinyFirewall www.tinysoftware.com installed but it made so many pop ups that it was disabled. This is a very common problem with firewalls or anti spy ware where the software is more annoying and difficult to work out than what you are trying to stop.

I have just checked out windows Defender

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx and it seems to offer reasonable protection although I guess it will be a big target and challenge to break.

I am happy with Avast Pro for the average user but an easy to setup and manage firewall and Trojan product is needed. I am not trying to protect a bank and find the discussions on many forums are extremely technical, I just want to offer people a solution that is GOOD Enough. It does not have to cover every scenario possible and it needs to be unobtrusive.

[Lisandro]

It does not have to cover every scenario possible and it needs to be unobtrusive.

Unobtrusive?
1. Antivirus: avast.
2. Firewall: Kerio at 'auto' mode (no pop-ups).
3. SpywareBlaster

If you want a protection to trojans, you'll must get Ewido (www.ewido.net) or a-squared. They aren't 'complicated' security programs. 

[essexboy]

To the above mix I would add windows defender, then apart from the firewall it is the same setup as me and I have been malware/virus free for donkeys years

[JerryM]

In my view, one needs a good anti-trojan with Avast. In the AV Comparatives the area which showed the greatest lack with Avast was in the area of trojan detection.

Here is a thread of some tests in 04 of AVs with and without the addition of an AT.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=58597

In post 19 compared with  post 1 you see a tremendous difference in trojan detection with Avast.

I have Avast Home and Ewido on my laptop, and with LnS firewall believe I am very secure. I think that the AT should be running in real time to get the best protection, and I have Ewido Plus for that reason.

Best,
Jerry

[Spiritsongs]

   Hi Iansbrainstorm :

      I believe in avoiding all "Beta" products and that includes
     "Windows Defender"; for info on good & FREE programs
      to protect your machine, read the info on the site of a
      Senior Member of the Alliance of Security Analysis
      Professionals at : http://members.accessbee.com/mitch/NewbieOldieUpdated.html .

[iansbrainstorm]

Hey thanks everyone. I posted last night before going to bed in Australia and so many replies. I tried to setup the user for XP limited account but found you can not even do windows updates so it is great that it stops software installs but no windows updates does not make sense. I believe Avast won't update either. I tried that setting for user accounts a year ago but so much software would not run properly because the tried to write settings to the Program Files directory. Any views on how to use limited accounts or are they too limited?

[iansbrainstorm]

I forgot to mention price is not an issue, I would prefer to pay for a product if it is better but after reading many forums it appears that there are many free products that are as good or better than say Norton Security Suite, Sorry for using that bad language here 

[electronikk]

Hmm I think the most important wasn't mentioned yet:
Common sense! 

[iansbrainstorm]

Yes common sense is exactly the answer but most people don't listen to reason and people keeps thinking of more ways to trick people. In this one instance an addiction to free and competion is causing the problem. Also what you would call common sense would be far different to the average person. Free security software called "Common Sense Beta" by electronikk 

[JerryM]

If I understand what you have said about not being able to update, that is the first requirement for protection.
I am not sure why any AV would update if Avast would not, unless it involved the server set up in Australia.

But if the update is limited to only certain AVs, I would limit my choice to those.

Jerry

[iansbrainstorm]

Ok I will try and clarify. I was talking about issues in using Limited Accounts in Windows XP Pro. They will not let windows update or Antivirus software updates to occur in my experience. If limited accounts would allow that then a PC would be far more secure. I am talking about people I don't see regularly. Limited accounts do provide a lot of security or is that only MS marketing?

Ian

[Spiritsongs]

   Hi Ian :

      Since you are looking for info on "limited accounts", you
      should click on "DropMyRights" in the signature of
     "DavidR", a "regular" helper here. However, there is a
      counterbalance in "MakeMeAdmin", where there is info
      in the "More Ways To Surf Safely" article at :
      www.spywareinfo.net/nov23,2005 ; there is a link there
      to : http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004/07/24/193721.aspx

[alanrf]

While I am always happy to be wrong....

I read the first post in this thread several times.   

The words that were highlighted in my thoughts were ...

good enough

unobtrusive

I am in the position of supporting others too ... so maybe these words resonated with me.

While the intent of the original thread may be more limited surely any security software should aim to provide these requirements.   

I do not want my users frightened by unnecessary warnings ... they just want to feel protected not frightened.  They certainly do not need to be told their AV signatures are up to date ... they need to be told if they are failing to be up to date (which should never happen).  I want problems to be well logged (without the user having to choose the logging level) so I can understand what problems they may have encountered.

While I hope that my users exercise common sense ... what product would ever be designed with that as a prerequesite?

I notice that more recently Windows Defender and even Windows Firewall (but let's not have a firewall argument) are more unobtrusive to the "regular" user, logging or event logging issues rather than popups.  I know this will not be a cause celebre with most of the more advanced users in this forum ... but it certainly helps those of used to dealing with all the "I just saw this popup/warning ... what does it mean?" message from those we support. 

I have my users running regular Ewido, AdAware and Spybot scans plus Spywareblaster ... but I dream of the day I can tell them to run product XXXX that will do it all, in the background without them having to understand how to configure it and without constant messages telling them how well it is working ... just letting them feel secure and leaving it up to support to deal with necessary issues.

As I say .... in my dreams.

[DavidR]

I believe Avast won't update either. I tried that setting for user accounts a year ago but so much software would not run properly because the tried to write settings to the Program Files directory. Any views on how to use limited accounts or are they too limited?

As far as I'm aware avast will allow for limited user accounts to update the VPS but not the program files.

You must however, have installed avast using an account with administrator privileges, peraps better still to install it using 'the Administrator' acount on systems with multiple users.

[Lisandro]

As far as I'm aware avast will allow for limited user accounts to update the VPS but not the program files.

The update is run by a service logged as 'Local System', so neither the VPS nor the program are really updated by the 'users' 
Yes, logged as a common user will update the program files because the service is running in background as Local System.