ESET NOD32 V4, ZoneAlarm firewall
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.OK..now that I have upgraded my protection
#1
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:08 AM
ESET NOD32 V4, ZoneAlarm firewall
#2
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:19 PM
#3
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:22 PM
#4
Posted 29 May 2009 - 06:48 PM
Anyone know of any NON MALICIOUS tests that can be run with more up to date code/attack variations?
#5
Posted 29 May 2009 - 07:10 PM
FiOS Dan's link is good.
be careful what you find searching for.
YOU MAY FIND something you didn't want!!
#6
Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:40 PM
ethelsfred, on May 29 2009, 06:48 PM, said:
Anyone know of any NON MALICIOUS tests that can be run with more up to date code/attack variations?
The Eicar file shows that Nod32 is functioning properly, if you want to see how well it protects check out test results from AV-Comparatives.
#7
Posted 30 May 2009 - 08:36 AM
#8
Posted 30 May 2009 - 09:33 AM
Hoping to become a malware fighter
#9
Posted 30 May 2009 - 03:40 PM
Based upon the scores I left the Zone Alarm installed.
PS - I have seen that many people use Sandboxie to assist their firewall, but it doesnt work with Vista 64 bit.........oh well
This post has been edited by ethelsfred: 30 May 2009 - 04:07 PM
#10
Posted 30 May 2009 - 07:11 PM
Hoping to become a malware fighter
#11
Posted 30 May 2009 - 07:48 PM
As for the comparison tests, different companies have different definitions of what "leak tests" are and therefore test for them in different ways.
I should also point out, that no security system is 100% fool-proof.
quietman7, on Jul 30 2008, 07:57 AM, said:
However, you can overkill your system with resource heavy security programs that will drain your resources and slow down performance. Sometimes you just have to experiment to get the right combo for your particular system as there is no universal solution that works for everyone.
Orange Blossom
Orange Blossom
Orange Blossom
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
SuperAntiSpyware, SpywareBlaster, WinPatrol Plus, ESET Smart Security, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, NoScript Firefox ext., Norton noscript
#12
Posted 30 May 2009 - 08:12 PM
P.S. I just looked up Version 3.0 of NOD 32......strike 2
But back to my most recent post regarding Comodo passing its own test with a score of 340/340. I installed it, set it to paranoid and it did terribly (200/340). You get in trouble when your advertising is false....besides it has been confirmed in places like this for quite a while, so the only explanation is I did not set it up properly.............(that was tough to admit!!!
ESET NOD 32 V4, Superantispyware free, MBAM free, Zone Alarm Extreme Security (demo AV/AS disabled), Process Explorer
This post has been edited by ethelsfred: 30 May 2009 - 08:23 PM
#13
Posted 30 May 2009 - 10:37 PM
ethelsfred, on May 30 2009, 08:36 AM, said:
Unfortunately there is no reliable group that tests firewalls. Some people will point you to Matousec but their tests are designed for firewall+HIPS applications, and both Nod32 AV/SS doesn't have a HIPS. There's also TestMyPC Security but considering it's sponsored by Comodo I would take their results with a grain of salt at best. Also the developer of Online Armor had this to say about TestMyPC Security.
If I were you I would just trust ESET. If you're feeling a bit paranoid then you could consider adding a user-friendly HIPS/behavioural blocker such as ThreatFire or Prevx.
This post has been edited by Someones: 30 May 2009 - 10:37 PM
#14
Posted 30 May 2009 - 10:49 PM
ethelsfred, on May 30 2009, 07:12 PM, said:
P.S. I just looked up Version 3.0 of NOD 32......strike 2
But back to my most recent post regarding Comodo passing its own test with a score of 340/340. I installed it, set it to paranoid and it did terribly (200/340). You get in trouble when your advertising is false....besides it has been confirmed in places like this for quite a while, so the only explanation is I did not set it up properly.............(that was tough to admit!!!
ESET NOD 32 V4, Superantispyware free, MBAM free, Zone Alarm Extreme Security (demo AV/AS disabled), Process Explorer
Currently, Sandboxie is not available for the 64-bit version. At the moment, I am evaluating Defensewall to see if it is compatible with my current setup. For as for your firewall dilemma, did you evaluate Outpost yet? I'm using the Pro version at the moment.
#15
Posted 31 May 2009 - 09:37 AM
I did try outpost (free) and it scored 200 as well (I must be doing something wrong)....please let me know what you find out about Defensewall.
I think I am OVER ENGINEERING this problem, I should just K.I.S.S. it and move on. I may just go with Online Armor and call it a day. EDIT UPDATE - Online Armor DOES NOT support 64 bit systems - cant get ahead here.....
Orange Blossom......Your quote copied from Quietman7 can be easily misunderstood. He is not advocating the use of multiple antivirus programs running in real time. Below are exerpts from a closed forum (Avira, Avaast, AVG or Kapersky Anti Virus'? Which one is the best? Apr 27, 2009) in which on May 8, 2009, Quietmen7 states;
QUOTE
Having just one AV Scanner just isn't enough anymore. (comment made by Koolkat 8 May 2009)
Quote
Using more than one anti-virus program is not advisable. The primary concern with doing so is due to conflicts that can arise when they are running in real-time mode simultaneously. However, even when one of them is disabled for use as a stand-alone scanner, it can affect the other. Anti-virus software components insert themselves into the operating systems core and using more than one can cause instability, crash your computer, slow performance and waste system resources. When actively running in the background while connected to the Internet, they both may try to update their definition databases at the same time. As the programs compete for resources required to download the necessary files this often can result in sluggish system performance or unresponsive behavior.
Each anti-virus will often interpret the activity of the other as a virus and there is a greater chance of them alerting you to a "False Positive". If one finds a virus and then the other also finds the same virus, both programs will be competing over exclusive rights on dealing with that virus. Each anti-virus will attempt to remove the offending file and quarantine it. If one finds and quarantines the file before the other one does, then you encounter the problem of both wanting to scan each other's zipped or archived files and each reporting the other's quarantined contents. This can lead to a repetitive cycle of endless alerts that continually warn you that a virus has been found when that is not the case.
Anti-virus scanners use virus definitions to check for viruses and these can include a fragment of the virus code which may be recognized by other anti-virus programs as the virus itself. Because of this, most anti-virus programs encrypt their definitions so that they do not trigger a false alarm when scanned by other security programs. Other vendors do not encrypt their definitions and they can trigger false alarms when detected by the resident anti-virus.
Keep in mind that dual installation is not always possible because most of the newer anti-virus programs will detect the presence of others and may insist they be removed prior to download and installation of another. Nonetheless, to avoid these problems, use only one anti-virus solution. Deciding which one to remove is your choice. Be aware that you may lose your subscription to that anti-virus program's virus definitions once you uninstall that software.
Thanks to all of you for your help.
This post has been edited by ethelsfred: 31 May 2009 - 11:06 AM

Help


Back to top












