View Full Version : Spybot vs. McAfee
Hello, I need some help here. I'm not real computer savvy but I believe my McAfee anti-virus is slowing my computer considerably. If I were to delete McAfee and replace it with Spybot, would I have the same type of protections against viruses, etc?
My concern is that I'll leave myself open to serious problems if I don't stick with McAfee. Anyone have information they can share with me?
Thanks in advance,
Dan
Hello dlewk,
Spybot-S&D is not an anti virus program. ;) The application searches for spyware, malware, adware, trojans, hijackers and keyloggers.
For program suggestions please see:
So how did I get infected in the first place? (http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=279)
Anti Virus Programs (http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=9289)
Best regards. :)
My girlfriends brother told her it's all she would need so he dumped her McAfee. Now I just have to figure out how to get anti-virus and spybot so my computer doesn't slow down so much.
dan
drragostea
2009-02-11, 02:38
Recommended Anti-Virus Programs (http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?t=16242).
Talking about Mcafee, i came across an article in a magazine comparing the features and performance between various security suites. It states in the article that Mcafee's firewall is "Limited and porous". Norton had a rating of 4.5(out of 5) for firewall while Mcafee had 2.5. Why is Mcafee's firewall described as such?
Why is Mcafee's firewall described as such?
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php :crowned:
So that means that i may use the Comodo Internet Security for my computer for the best protection? Or should i use different applications?
drragostea
2009-02-16, 17:51
Actually that'll be up to you. Everyone has different tastes. Comodo Pro Firewall is pretty good. And Comodo was pretty generous to offer a security suite for free.
It's indeed that they are pretty generous to offer a free one.... If Norton had sold their firewall separately like their antivirus, i would have bought it.... Haha. :D:
I'm not crazy about "suites", they remind me of the fax/printer/copier/telephone/scanner all in ones.
Something goes wrong, good luck finding out where. :clown:
Actually Tashi, I believe it's more difficult for most users to trouble-shoot the complexities of different products when they are mixed together. This varies of course based on how well the particular products remain focused in one area of protection. For example, Spybot - Search and Destroy does an excellent job of staying within the realm of antispyware protection.
In truth, suites should actually be the best type of protection for those with less technical knowledge, since the individual components can be tuned together and tend to avoid the potential for conflict and false positives with other components. With individual products it's up to the person installing them to determine whether the products overlap and thus might create conflicts and/or confusion between each other.
In practice, however, suites have a negative that they have generally created for themselves. The problem is 'feature creep' or the tendancy to add features, often with little or no real security value, to increase the sales potential of the suite. By doing this the potential for more sales does tend to increase, but so does the complexity and the general 'bloat', reducing the overall effectiveness of actual security protection over time. This might be what Tashi is specifically referring to, since over time almost every suite has had this occur, resulting in the need to 'start over' with a trimmed down version removing much of the bloat.
The other issue with suites is that their very design can increase the available attack surfaces that malware can use to cripple the protection. Again this isn't necessarily inherent, but rather a side effect of trends within the design itself. For example, the tendancy to make a single control screen for configuration of all components of the suite also creates a potential attack point that might be used to cripple the entire suite. There are other less visible shared points of potential attack and failure, but this doesn't inherently mean they must be vulnerable to attack, though they can be if this possibility is ignored by the designers.
The key issue for most users is to find protection they can understand, whether it's a suite or a combination of separate security applications. The most common failure today isn't due to the products themselves once they're properly installed, but rather the user making a mistake due to either confusion or simply ignoring what the protection is telling them. This is the difficulty for all products, since no matter how good the protection, if it is ignored or misunderstood the result can still be an infection.
Bitman
md usa spybot fan
2009-02-17, 17:58
bitman:
... The problem is 'feature creep' or the tendancy to add features, often with little or no real security value, to increase the sales potential of the suite. ...
And often the price, as was the case with McAfee when they stopped offering their McAfee VirusScan and only offered McAfee VirusScan Plus or McAfee Internet Security.
Actually Tashi, I believe it's more difficult for most users to trouble-shoot the complexities of different products when they are mixed together.
I wouldn't go so far as to say most users but I agree for some yes. :)
I wouldn't go so far as to say most users but I agree for some yes. :)
Actually, I don't believe we even disagree in this case, it's just a matter of definition.
Though many might define the word 'most' in this statement as it relates to those who already have protection installed, I prefer to include those who have none. Since the estimate by Microsoft is that over 60% of users have no current protection installed (outdated or none at all), this means that 'most' is implied.
My reasoning for this is that this group is almost inherently unable to deal with the complexities of virtually any protection, since they don't even attempt to install one. Regardless of whether this group might be able to understand these complexities, their own apathy results in a lack of that ability, which the huge botnets consistently reaffirm.
If you instead choose to define 'most' in terms of those who've tried to install and use something, that would be a more difficult number to determine, I agree.
Bitman
I'm still confused. Which one offers better protection? Security suites or standalone softwares?
drragostea
2009-02-18, 16:21
Each one has their pros and cons. To simply put it without going into details, it'll be hard to diagnose your error when you have standalone products compared to how simpler it would be to diagnose when you have a security suite since everything you need is in one box.
Problem about security suites is that they're jaws with signs saying "we want your money", so as bitman described suites add more unnecessary add-ons/components thus it bloats up the software making it slower than before.
I'm still confused. Which one offers better protection? Security suites or standalone softwares?
OK, stated more simply, neither.
It isn't really important exactly how the product(s) are composed, it's far more important that you fully understand the messages it displays. If you are confused when two different programs pop-up a message about the same item, it might be better for you to find a program that contains all of the protection in one place, since these generally avoid this issue. This can be particularly important if children also use the PC.
If on the other hand, you prefer the maximum notification possible, even if that means that multiple programs might display warnings at once, then you might prefer using a set of applications together. Though it's sometimes possible to tune the separate applications to avoid duplicate detections, this requires even more knowledge, so this means more effort on your part to make certain this is done correctly.
The amount of effort vs. what you get as a result is really what's being discussed here. Those who work in these forums often prefer the higher level of effort, since it can usually protect you better. In the real world, however, many users are less interested in how their protection works than that it protects them well with little additional effort.
Bitman
Ok.... Understood :laugh:
just kidding. But seriously, very well said. :bigthumb:
rivermandave
2010-01-29, 00:04
I have to agree with what bitman said. :bigthumb:
For my personal experiences...the 1st 2 used computers that I bought...one had Trend Micro on it....the other had Norton...and even though I had SpyBot on both of them....I was constantly getting eaten up by viruses. :sick:
So then I decided to run only SpyBot....as looking at the various types of viruses and spyware it had listed....it just seemed to make sense.
Since I went to just SpyBot....I've only had one virus in the last 3+ years....and that was because of a combination of my not having my Adobe updates in order....and a serious security Adobe / Java security issue.
During the past 3 years I have set up 5 other folks with JUST SpyBot....and they have had NO virus / malware problems. :cool:
I DO have to state though that I make a few tweaks in both my IE Explorer....and I also have limited Startup items tweaked using msconfig.
I have had Spybot in the past but it started taking forever to load and sometimes wouldnt load at all. The long horizontal green band would just stay stuck in the middle of my screen.
So I uninstalled and tried reinstalling from this link:
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/home/index.html
After the download my McAfee popped up with this warning (below) from HackerWatch. I decided not to install until I find out why I got that warning.
Why did I get a warning from McAfee?
Application Information
Potentially Unwanted Program
This program has been identified by the HackerWatch system as potentially being unwanted. Please make sure that your virus scan software has the latest updates and run a scan.
File Information
File Name: spybotsd160-beta1[1
File Size: 690688
File Path: C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temp\is-J326B.tmp\
Version: 51.49
First seen: 6/5/2008
Manufacturer: Unknown
Notes:
This program may be vulnerable to security attacks.
spybotsandra
2010-02-01, 11:23
Hello,
I wonder what you did donwload.
This version that you have donwloaded "File Name: spybotsd160-beta1[1 "
is not available on our homepage.
The actual version is version 1.6.2 which you will find here (http://www.spybotupdates.com/files/spybotsd162.exe).
Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot
Thank You! for the link! It worked fine this time. I went back to try and find the link where I found the other download from and cant find it yet. I did start at safernetworking.org but pretty sure I strayed into some other site from there if that makes sense.
If it was a spoof site, it was identical as far as the program itself, the logo, everything. If McAffe hadnt alerted me, I wouldnt have known any better.
Thanks again.