Got ESET security. Need Spybot?

[Shooty*]

This has just struck me: I've got ESET security (firewall, antivirus, antispyware).

I've still got spybot and spywareblaster installed. Do I need them? Or does ESET cover it?

I got rid of Adaware recently as I found it had become... frankly... totally sh1t. Took an age to start, didn't like updating to the extent that it would petulantly fling up connection errors, and all in all a sad departure for what was once a nice, free piece of kit.

[lodore]

I havent used spybot for years.

may as well ditch spywareblaster and use superantispyware and or mbam as ondemand scanners but are free on demand and are fantastic.

[Shooty*]

Thank you. Clearly, I needed to modern-up.

[12GaugeShotty]

What OS are you using? Windows Defender has been available for a while now.

[Shooty*]

Yeah, I'm afraid I took the following view of defender:

"Oh. It's microsoft. I bet it's rubbish, and won't detect anything after 1994."

Elitist, sure.
Snobby, certainly.
Dismissive, possibly.

But I put it to you: If microsoft knew sh1t about security, they'd not have to make defender in the first place, would they? Hmmm? Hmmm?

No. I think not.

And I'm a firm adherent of the theory that you can tell a good bit of software by how it FEELS when you use it. Example: Allway Sync is good software. It FEELS sturdy. Steam is good software, and has turned me away from piracy. It FEELS slick and capable, and convenient. Eset products are good software, the navigation is easy, complete, and it takes up little resources. It FEELS competent.

Compare the contrast: The blockbuster website tries to hide all customer service details from you unless you are determined to take a cyber machete to the page. (not strictly software, but a personal pet peeve at the moment). Adaware feels bloated and awful, and crashes when you try and update it unless all the planets are in perfect alignment, and you've sacrificed a noob to it (at least, that's how it feels). Defender feels about as sturdy as a paper party hat from a xmas cracker, and has a control panel about as useful and informative as a sheet of blank paper. It FEELS tacked on and rubbish.

I'm happy to be proven wrong. (it happens so rarely, it actually makes me happy)

[12GaugeShotty]

Yeah, I'm afraid I took the following view of defender:

"Oh. It's microsoft. I bet it's rubbish, and won't detect anything after 1994."

Elitist, sure.
Snobby, certainly.
Dismissive, possibly.

But I put it to you: If microsoft knew sh1t about security, they'd not have to make defender in the first place, would they? Hmmm? Hmmm?

No. I think not.

Microsoft cannot help what people install on their computers.

The same would go for Apple. Supposedly more secure but their OS is always the first that is hacked through a web browser.

Speaking of the web browser, that is where 99.9% of spyware comes from. You go to the wrong websites or you install some warez off of the internet because you don't like to pay for software.

So how can Microsoft be at fault for what people do to their computers? They aren't and that's why they provided Windows Defender for Windows XP and integrate it into Windows Vista & 7 from the start. They also now provide a free AV solution that most technical websites will recommend.

So the lesson learned is that Windows is extremely secure until you connect your PC to the internet. At that point the blame is all on the user.

[Shooty*]

Yes, but what I'm saying is this:

They have patched various security loopholes etc through windows patches and updates.

If they truly had their finger on the pulse, like commercial AV and anti-spyware companies like ESET, etc, even, god help us, Norton/ Symantec do, then could they not just apply security through better patches instead of having a cheapy gimic like Defender?

I fully hear what you're saying, and agree to a point, but the situation is this: defender is a free product from a company who, really, probably don't regard combating malware in all it's forms as one of their raisons d'etre.

Unlike companies who provide "proper" AV/ spyware/ whatever protection, they probably therefore don't throw a massive amount of resources at defender, and as a consequence, I'd imagine that the things it protects against are not cutting edge.

Anyone actually KNOW? Clearly, 12guage and I don't, but maybe some of you can shed light on this. Is defender any more than window dressing? (no pun intended)

[CrazyMonkey]

The Teatimer part of Spybot is quite good as a HIDS system, however there are FAR better alternatives about.

I presume you've got the SmartSecurity suite, i'd say this up there with the best. However common sense and sandboxes are far more effective. I currently use Avira, as there detection rates have been brillaint and their new Heuristic Engine is top of its class. As for firewalls i cannot really comment, although i found Esets firewall blocked a fair emount of the firewall tests performed by sophos.

As for Windows Defender i'd say they are on par with other free solutions. But would says it's kind of the like the internet explorer of the web browser world.

[lodore]

the standard crap standard security is microsoft's fault thou.
the reason so many computers are infected is because the standard security is crap. until vista came out driveby downloads worked every time because the default account is admin and everything ran with admin rights so anything you run runs with admin rights. With windows Vista and 7 its the users fault if they turn off uac. If people stopped and had a think more when using the computer they would have less issues.

I dont think that some of the UAC prompts on vista arent very informative thou. sometimes they say something like like internet explorer addon installer and under details it says: 48595jt-jgm-gorhg. how the hell is anyone meant to know what that means?
it said random digits when I clicked on details when i was installing a windows live messenger game on vista once. its their own product so surely they should tell they what it is under there own implemented system?

I use windows defender on windows 7 because it comes with the OS and doesnt slow anything down. on my parents xp machine i didnt bother.

[12GaugeShotty]

Yes, but what I'm saying is this:

They have patched various security loopholes etc through windows patches and updates.

If they truly had their finger on the pulse, like commercial AV and anti-spyware companies like ESET, etc, even, god help us, Norton/ Symantec do, then could they not just apply security through better patches instead of having a cheapy gimic like Defender?

Not sure how familiar you are with software but everything has holes in it. You can put an inbound and outbound firewall and that will not prevent you from clicking on the wrong thing through a web browser. People are sneaking malicious code into Flash to avoid ActiveX so it doesn't matter what browser you use. Microsoft doesn't make Flash so they can't patch it.

OS/system patches are a direct result of exploits that are found and reported. How will any software developer know about a hole if nobody finds it first? Most spyware is downloaded through the internet so if you are using Firefox then how is Microsoft supposed to stop spyware?

Answer: Windows Defender

I fully hear what you're saying, and agree to a point, but the situation is this: defender is a free product from a company who, really, probably don't regard combating malware in all it's forms as one of their raisons d'etre.

Unlike companies who provide "proper" AV/ spyware/ whatever protection, they probably therefore don't throw a massive amount of resources at defender, and as a consequence, I'd imagine that the things it protects against are not cutting edge.

Anyone actually KNOW? Clearly, 12guage and I don't, but maybe some of you can shed light on this. Is defender any more than window dressing? (no pun intended)

How little thy know...

Do you think that Microsoft made Windows Defender on their own? No! They purchased GIANT Company Software, Inc who made GIANT AntiSpyware. That became Windows Defender.

So they are using the software of a company that specialized in proper spyware protection...just like you are promoting.

Oh, what about Security Essentials, the Microsoft AV program? Do you think Microsoft made that? Oh no part duex! It is based upon an antivirus engine that another security company (also acquired by Microsoft) developed.

Oh no part trois! Microsoft acquired yet another security company to introduce anti-rootkit protection into Security Essentials!

Shooty, you should really learn a thing or two about Microsoft and their product line before you go blasting their efforts. Never assume that everything with a Microsoft stamp on it is made in house.

[peterb]

Microsoft cannot help what people install on their computers.

That's true, but early windows versions (and lazy developers meant that it was easier to run Windows with Admin privikeges so that when malware was introduced, it could do virtually anything. Microsoft did not enforce good, secure working practices by default.

The same would go for Apple. Supposedly more secure but their OS is always the first that is hacked through a web browser.

That is lways trotted out - but while it has happened, to say that it is always the case is not true.

Speaking of the web browser, that is where 99.9% of spyware comes from. You go to the wrong websites or you install some warez off of the internet because you don't like to pay for software.

Again true (although I doubt think shooty* is in the habit of installing warez) but if that browser is IE, why did it take MS so long to introduce some security into it?

So how can Microsoft be at fault for what people do to their computers? They aren't and that's why they provided Windows Defender for Windows XP and integrate it into Windows Vista & 7 from the start. They also now provide a free AV solution that most technical websites will recommend.

And not before time

So the lesson learned is that Windows is extremely secure until you connect your PC to the internet. At that point the blame is all on the user.

True of all operating systems, in fact to be really safe, don't power it up!

<---snip

Shooty, you should really learn a thing or two about Microsoft and their product line before you go blasting their efforts. Never assume that everything with a Microsoft stamp on it is made in house.

And there is another problem - MS don't necessarily apply rigorous QC and QA to some of the code that is written, which is one reason why there are bugs - and I suspect that there are parts of the Windows source code whose operation is no longer understood by MS.

Think back to the "Easter eggs" that used to be (and may still be) hidden in the office appllications. If that could get through QA, what else did?

MS have started to take security more seriously, and while I take your point (and agree) that the best defence against malware is an intelligent user, sadly many users aren't aware of the risks or how to mitigate them - and computer security is not a fit and forget product - it needs to be actively managed.

[12GaugeShotty]

That's true, but early windows versions (and lazy developers meant that it was easier to run Windows with Admin privikeges so that when malware was introduced, it could do virtually anything. Microsoft did not enforce good, secure working practices by default.

We're talking about Windows Defender here and not a Windows OS that is 2 generations old.

That is lways trotted out - but while it has happened, to say that it is always the case is not true.

Three PWN to Own competitions in a row (held annually). The last one was 2 minutes before the hacker was able to take complete control through the web browser. I'd call that always.

Again true (although I doubt think shooty* is in the habit of installing warez) but if that browser is IE, why did it take MS so long to introduce some security into it?

IE gets patched on a regular basis. More so depending upon the level of the bugs found. Not sure what you mean by it "taking so long to introduce some security".

And there is another problem - MS don't necessarily apply rigorous QC and QA to some of the code that is written, which is one reason why there are bugs - and I suspect that there are parts of the Windows source code whose operation is no longer understood by MS.

Think back to the "Easter eggs" that used to be (and may still be) hidden in the office appllications. If that could get through QA, what else did?

MS have started to take security more seriously, and while I take your point (and agree) that the best defence against malware is an intelligent user, sadly many users aren't aware of the risks or how to mitigate them - and computer security is not a fit and forget product - it needs to be actively managed.

I completely agree so not sure why you are telling me this. The point I made that you "snipped" out was to Shooty who thinks that Microsoft developed Windows Defender and Security Essentials.

[peterb]

No harm in violent agreement! The point was that MS have had Sy issues in the past, and bolt on products were (and still are) useful, but that computer Sy is not fit and forget, and that one product may not meet all requirements.

[12GaugeShotty]

No harm in violent agreement! The point was that MS have had Sy issues in the past, and bolt on products were (and still are) useful, but that computer Sy is not fit and forget, and that one product may not meet all requirements.

Well, it depends. He started this thread because he wants to know if he'll still need Spybot for anti-spyware. You really do not need a plethora of security programs running. That merely bogs down system resources. In some cases, some people get confused and install multiple AV programs at the same time because they think they need that extra security in the background.

I informed him of Windows Defender being perfectly suitable for anti-spyware needs but of course he's already running ESET Security which includes anti-spyware, and quite a good scanner at that I might add. In fact, ESET NOD32 AV includes that same anti-spyware so he really didn't need to get the security suite which merely adds firewall and anti-spam (e-mail blocking). Those are quite useless as Windows has had a built-in firewall since Windows XP SP2. Anti-spam? I use Google Gmail which filters everything that is spam. I also have MS Office Outlook 2007 which further filters messages that actually aren't spam.