[Jinto]

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

...
Hmm... can you expand a little on the "find some reliable sources online, experts who have tested different tools (like FWs and AVs) and base your rating on such sources?" idea... I can't really enter "good and reliable source" and expect to come up with what you mention... (also most rating sites for security software also conveniently have them on display with all the praise of the company that made it... I have to wonder if censorship doesn't occur... also this "author's choice" is all fishy IMO).

I did search for review sites... none seem to be any good IMO...
Most review sites I saw don't seem to touch the free ones too much (if at all). All they seem to do is bash them into the ground as useless then mention something like 2 of them (AVG, Avast from what I've seen) no comparison test results no nothing, all I've read is personal opinion nothing technical.
But that's not the only reason. What review sites out there seem to do is just write what product x has to offer in as many lines as possible. (usually they just review the most expensive and complete (antivirus, firewall, anti-spam etc) version of the product).

Well, what I'm looking for in a review site is some technical babble behind the personal opinions... and reviews not just for the ones they really like (at least some indication that they are aware of some of the other alternatives and have tested them at some point in time) I'm really having a hard time finding such a site. You wouldn't happen to know some now would you ?
...

That is indeed not easy to find. I could tell you about a german site I'ld use, but that won't help you I guess. AV-test.de is a project of a german university. I trust such a source, because I think a governmentally financed university is independent enough to test unbiased. But they were involved with several english publications like this one.

Unfortunately I cannot give you the ultimate site for looking up reliable information about everything. Sometimes you need to ask, what would be the benefit for the author to favour a certain product. How professional may the test cases be? And maybe some other questions, like is this report still up to date.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

...
It's not my personal opinion...
All I personally know about them is that they're something different when it comes to how the license and product activation work.
I saw a few, but they weren't really stuff that I used so I couldn't tell if they had anything (visibly) special.

I've seen some posts (and heard of it a few times in the past) were people would say something like they use antivirus x home edition at home but at they're univirsity/job/wathever they use the corporate and it's better. (I presume better (or whatever word or phrase with equal meaning they use) = "more friendly")


Anyway these aren't my opinion, I'm very skeptical, if I believed 100% in them then I would have posted them in the list and not here.
Figure I check to see if there's any truth/good in them
...

The dangers are much higher for corporate type use. The larger a system, the harder to keep it clean, stable and running. Sure if you want the best protection, go with the professional tools. But most home users will be okay with the home editions. Some of them are quite good.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

...
Hmm... so the correct version would be...

Hmm... *looks at some of the other Mac/Linux post*
@_@ I guess this is one myth/flam-bait that can't easily be grinded...
Oh well... NSW ended any debates on the subject no point in continuing...
...

That is not directly what I wanted to imply. In my lectures of systems engineering and software failure tolerance I learned some nice techniques to use security/robustness/monitoring wrappers, software hardening tools (ballista, HEALERS, CINT, AspectC++ ...) and so on to make Linux more stable and secure.
We were also provided detailed information on how many leaks, bugs... could by avoided by these techniques. So my conclusion was, with the explosion of amount of code in Linux, the amount of bugs and security leaks became an important issue. Many of the techniques we learned helped to minimize those issues. But that shows, that systems like Linux are not safe per se. It depends on your build, the security meassures taken and so on... The digital world isn't as easy as 1 and 0

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

By setting I suspect you are refering to the settings for privacy (cookies etc)

As for the registry settings to ReadOnly... -_^
Lets see, I go to registry editor then go to Current User/Software/Microsoft/Internet Explorer and...... what? I set the permissions so they're readonly to... what?...... also, that helps improve security because....... ?
Sorry I just don't see your point with the registry settings .
Is it really worth the trouble...? but I guess I'm just missing something
What settings do you suggest setting to ReadOnly ?

Hm, not quite my intention. I am not sure if you want to set all your ie-settings to read only, it depends on what you want to do with your browser. Also consider things like autostart (run, global startup), registered services. The more you set read only, the less might happen (and the less software you will be able to install without the need to reenable rights to write to certain parts of the registry). One needs to find a good personal trade off there.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

Anyway... back to your original argument...
Isn't the issue the same as with Linux/Macs... as in IE is the most used thus it's more likely to be targeted. . I read more (convincing) stuff on Firefox being less secure then IE then vise versa, but I still think Firefox is safer for the reason mentioned earlier

Partly yes.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

Uhh... ok
Let's see, so to make an analogy a firewall simple keeps doors shut and gives keys to programs. So if say Opera has the key to open the door for web pages, then if I'm not careful little monsters can come in.

Yes, thats basically the function of a firewall. Good firewalls work with software fingerprints. So if you or a trojan or virus tries to alter i.e. the Opera.exe the registered fingerprint won't work anymore, and the new Opera.exe will be blocked until the user confirms, that it is allowed to use port x for incoming/outgoing/both/certain protocol connection. But basically a FW is as secure as the programs that have granded access to the internet by the firewall.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

So what is the safest way to use a firewall? Should I just block everything and set access on a need to use basis only, as in I install Opera I give it access to the ports it needs for what I need it for.

First consider the safety of your program, then check which resources (ports/protocol...) it will use, then asign only these and block everything else.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

On another note, what do you guys think of adding firewall scans as a security advise. As in free online firewall scans/tests like these from ShieldsUP Sygate PlanetSecurity
I personally don't have any experience with them, are they any good ?

honestly I don't know either. I am not a security fanatic. I don't see a reason why a skilled hacker should attack my PC. Thatswhy I am fine with my router (that works as a very simple/not so effective firewall).

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

Gomen gomen... little mistake when I wrote it from my confusing little notes...
It should be...


Well if I'm not mistaken you can make "software" routers thus there is no real security advantage to using routers. Correct...?

If it is only for the security reason, use a FW. If you need the routing (because you want to grant several mashines access to the internet over just one (or few) line(s), you'ld take a router. I do not see any reason to use a router, just for security reasons. A good FW is more secure than most routers anyway.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

Generally I don't feel something is quite right until it passes a few hurdles...
If you ever don't like something here always say it out load don't you dare go soft on me.

Sometimes I am really too harsh. Often I have to read again what I wrote, just to realize it.
I know your intention is to provide something usefull to the audience, and I should keep level headed.

Originally Posted by BlackCatXIII

It's not my personal opinion and if I didn't say it now someone would have broth it up later and the others like linux/mac security, I figure it's better to discuss it under a friendly manner now then to wait for someone to use it as flam-bait later.
That and I wanted some harsh criticism on other parts of the list, figure people would offer more criticism (in general) if I posted things like that.

Yes, I know ^^'. I should have used more "one" instead of "you" in my critics.