Focusing on Preventing Infection

I like to think of myself as well-informed about security and privacy risks.
I won't say I've never in my life visited a questionable website, but I'm
fairly well disciplined in the practice of 'safe hex.' The probability that
my PC will be attacked by malware far exceeds the probability that I'll need
to remove a malware infection.

For that reason, I am thinking of replacing my full-out anti-malware
software (I've used Kaspersky, NAV and ZoneAlarm) with a product like Avast!
or Panda Cloud AntiVirus, for example, whose strength is preventing
infection, rather than removing it. (These say their software is more about
prevention than cure.) The advantage to me is a lighter-weight product.

[Of course, anti-malware software is just one component in a multi-layered
defense that includes a firewall, backup etc. I do all that stuff too.]

Has anyone out there done the same? What's your opinion of such a
strategy...focusing on prevention rather than cure?

Daddy

"Daddy" wrote in
:

I like to think of myself as well-informed about security and privacy
risks. I won't say I've never in my life visited a questionable website,
but I'm fairly well disciplined in the practice of 'safe hex.' The
probability that my PC will be attacked by malware far exceeds the
probability that I'll need to remove a malware infection.

For that reason, I am thinking of replacing my full-out anti-malware
software (I've used Kaspersky, NAV and ZoneAlarm) with a product like
Avast! or Panda Cloud AntiVirus, for example, whose strength is
preventing infection, rather than removing it. (These say their software
is more about prevention than cure.) The advantage to me is a
lighter-weight product.

[Of course, anti-malware software is just one component in a
multi-layered defense that includes a firewall, backup etc. I do all
that stuff too.]

Has anyone out there done the same? What's your opinion of such a
strategy...focusing on prevention rather than cure?

Daddy

You might find this article interesting. I pretty much agree with it:

http://lifehacker.com/5401453/stop-p...re-good-enough

I have never had malware or a virus in more than 20 years of Internet use. It's really important to keep any
browser releated software up to date (flash, java, acrobat, shockwave, quicktime, etc.)

The Windows Firewall is good enough for almost all purposes.

As for realtime monitoring AV, its effectivness is a mixed-bag at best.
Though, Avira and Eset get far better reports then the 'big two' companies.

The thing which isn't good enough as standard is Internet Explorer. Replace
this with a more secure browser. Also, consider doing browsing as a limited
user, or install StripMyRights.

That, and avoid unnecessary browser plugins. Especially Acrobat, Flash, Java
as these are often the risk rather than the browser itself.

"Daddy" wrote:

I like to think of myself as well-informed about security and privacy risks.
I won't say I've never in my life visited a questionable website, but I'm
fairly well disciplined in the practice of 'safe hex.' The probability that
my PC will be attacked by malware far exceeds the probability that I'll need
to remove a malware infection.

For that reason, I am thinking of replacing my full-out anti-malware
software (I've used Kaspersky, NAV and ZoneAlarm) with a product like Avast!
or Panda Cloud AntiVirus, for example, whose strength is preventing
infection, rather than removing it. (These say their software is more about
prevention than cure.) The advantage to me is a lighter-weight product.

[Of course, anti-malware software is just one component in a multi-layered
defense that includes a firewall, backup etc. I do all that stuff too.]

Has anyone out there done the same? What's your opinion of such a
strategy...focusing on prevention rather than cure?

Daddy


.