Serious Discussion “Strongest” security solution.

Ok. Right now, I think the options are narrowed down to Kaspersky or CheckPoint Harmony. Deep Instinct is maybe, I just trust the Kaspersky engine the most.

Which do you all recommend between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck57
Xeno1234 said:
Ok. Right now, I think the options are narrowed down to Kaspersky or CheckPoint Harmony. Deep Instinct is maybe, I just trust the Kaspersky engine the most.

Which do you all recommend between the two.
Click to expand...
Kaspersky. No question in my mind. Overall, in my book, Kaspersky is the best out there.
 
  • HaHa
Reactions: RansomwareRemediation
Chuck57 said:
Kaspersky. No question in my mind. Overall, in my book, Kaspersky is the best out there.
Click to expand...
Agree there. Both security products use Kaspersky’s Engine, that’s why it’s between the two.

Harmony is a bit more heavy but stronger overall as it has Kaspersky, Threat Emulation, and its own NGAV all in one product. Kaspersky is lighter though, but not by much.
 
Xeno1234 said:
Ok. Right now, I think the options are narrowed down to Kaspersky or CheckPoint Harmony. Deep Instinct is maybe, I just trust the Kaspersky engine the most.

Which do you all recommend between the two.
Click to expand...
Harmony is better obviously but there are so many free products available and stuff that doesn't increase attack surface as an av scanning every io and unpacking stuff while running privileged
As with software restrictions like hard configurator you don't increase attack surface trying to detect malware


So depends who is the threat you are trying to defend against if state actor don't run sandboxes avs etc

rather simpler blockades that don't increase attack surface using windows policys
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryogent and simmerskool
Vitali Ortzi said:
Harmony is better obviously but there are so many free products available and stuff that doesn't increase attack surface as an av scanning every io and unpacking stuff while running privileged
As with software restrictions like hard configurator you don't increase attack surface trying to detect malware


So depends who is the threat you are trying to defend against if state actor don't run sandboxes avs etc

rather simpler blockades that don't increase attack surface using windows policys
Click to expand...
My main "threat" is going to be installers, exes, or malicious java modifications for minecraft. I've seen Kaspersky have the best detection with the modifications with minecraft.
 
Xeno1234 said:
My main "threat" is going to be installers, exes, or malicious java modifications for minecraft. I've seen Kaspersky have the best detection with the modifications with minecraft.
Click to expand...
Better use a specific computer for Minecraft, gaming that's more relaxed (don't log in to sensitive stuff there ) and use Kaspersky free on it and a hardened PC for work

since running random java Minecraft mods , clients you should think about it as an infected PC I would recommend isolation via vlans etc
just like you would do to for malware testing and having a scanner like Kaspersky on the PC just in case (would probably be enough if you use known good sites and use security awareness where possible plus Kaspersky blocking 99.99 stuff that passed you )



on the work pc you could use a default deny since you don't install unknown software, risky on it so it should be more convenient there
And with network isolation you would protect the 0.001 percent getting infected to even closer to zero
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryogent and simmerskool
Xeno1234 said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
Your chosen defenses are to guard against malware only, so you are blind to hacking attacks - your chosen defenses won't detect those.
Getting hacked only when you are a 'target' is a urban myth. Its when people pat each other on the back and say 'it will never happen to us'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryogent and simmerskool
Victor M said:
Your chosen defenses are to guard against malware only, so you are blind to hacking attacks - your chosen defenses won't detect those.
Getting hacked only when you are a 'target' is a urban myth. Its when people pat each other on the back and say 'it will never happen to us'.
Click to expand...
Think OP was trying to say he's just a home user and not a lucrative target worth a hacker taken a chance on. Which is quite literally correct in most cases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Jonny Quest, cryogent, Nevi and 1 other person
Victor M said:
Your chosen defenses are to guard against malware only, so you are blind to hacking attacks - your chosen defenses won't detect those.
Getting hacked only when you are a 'target' is a urban myth. Its when people pat each other on the back and say 'it will never happen to us'.
Click to expand...
I dont think I need to purchase a anti-malware product, and then a anti-hacking product. Im just some random guy who isnt going to have some super experienced hacker try to gain the non-existant personal information thats on my pc.
 

You may also like...