Software to Compare
hard configurator + comodo firewall + secureaplus (UV disabled+ apex not real time protection+reg as antivirus)
hard configurator + comodo firewall + avast free (only file prot. with HM)
hard configurator + spyshelter + secureaplus (UV disabled+ apex not real time protection+reg as antivirus)
hard configurator + spyshelter + avast free (only file prot. with HM)
hard configurator + huorong IS (Host Reinforcement set to deny+Custom rules)
Others
Compare
  1. Ease of use
  2. Impact on hardware performance
  3. Core protection (AV engine, Heuristic engine)
  4. Internet protection (Web filtering, Anti-Phishing, Antispam, Browser extension)
  5. Proactive protection (Behavior blocker, HIPS, Sandbox)
  6. Network protection (Firewall, Botnet protection)
  7. Ransomware protection
  8. Banking & Payments protection
  9. Most Features

Chri.Mi

Level 7
Which combo have you chosen?
Hard configurator (recommended+allow exe and temp) + Avast free (just file protection+HM)+forticlient (just web protection with block all except bandwidth consuming and general interests set with monitor rule)+simplewall (just application rules enabled and antispy enabled, rest disabled)+firewall hardening(recommended). Trying to solve problems with Wise Vector, otherwise will remove it or just will use as second scanner.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi

Vitali Ortzi

Level 20
Verified
Hard configurator (recommended) + Avast free (just file protection+HM)+forticlient (just web protection with block all except bandwidth consuming and general interests set with monitor rule)+simplewall (just application rules enabled and antispy enabled, rest disabled)+firewall hardening(recommended). Trying to solve problems with Wise Vector, otherwise will remove it or just will use as second scanner.
Sounds like a mess to manage XD.
More isn't better!
 

Chri.Mi

Level 7
Sounds like a mess to manage XD.
More isn't better!
I know man but there is a reason for all, if u wanna i can try to explain. Hard configurator for me is for improve OS security (SRP, etc).
As antivirus i prefer avast for 2 reason atm, 1. it can act in some way like anti-exe, i consider it a semi anti-exe, 2. is rly fast in update signatures (if u see the post made by @geminis3 it was very fast to catch the new variant he made).Forticlient web protection just block every is unrated, and other risky things, so what i allow are just safe sites.Simplewall is for manage outbound, so i can see what program try to connect outside, and have features to block spy (windows telemetry?), and it can work well with windows defender where i have firewall hardening rules. I think i am almost covered without have to use complex software (comodo, sap, etc), where i have to whitelist installers, signers, etc etc
 

Back3

Level 5
I know man but there is a reason for all, if u wanna i can try to explain. Hard configurator for me is for improve OS security (SRP, etc).
As antivirus i prefer avast for 2 reason atm, 1. it can act in some way like anti-exe, i consider it a semi anti-exe, 2. is rly fast in update signatures (if u see the post made by @geminis3 it was very fast to catch the new variant he made).Forticlient web protection just block every is unrated, and other risky things, so what i allow are just safe sites.Simplewall is for manage outbound, so i can see what program try to connect outside, and have features to block spy (windows telemetry?), and it can work well with windows defender where i have firewall hardening rules. I think i am almost covered without have to use complex software (comodo, sap, etc), where i have to whitelist installers, signers, etc etc

My philosophy: I try to find the right balance between security, usability and performance. The keys to achieve this is evaluate what your risks are and choosing the software that covers multiple scenarios . This way , my computer is relatively secure but still can boot in 15-20 seconds.
 

Chri.Mi

Level 7
Forticlient is a signature only AV, it doesn't makes sense to install it just for the web protection. You can install Bitfefender browser extension of you want.
Man for what i saw is not true at all. U can block Unrated, so new sites will be blocked by default, them need some times for be whitelisted as trusted. If u check my config is there a screen with the image about my forticlient config.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Handsome Recluse

Vitali Ortzi

Level 20
Verified
Man for what i saw is not true at all. U can block Unrated, so new sites will be blocked by default, them need some times for be whitelisted as trusted. If u check my config is there a screen with the image about my forticlient config.
Symantec sucks you need a subscription to wss to rate websites not included in SPEM licence :(.
symantec feels weak compared to the competition unless you pay for all the crap subscription and set a dedicated appliance for every service !
i will use the free forticlient for rating :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chri.Mi

Chri.Mi

Level 7
Symantec sucks you need a subscription to wss to rate websites not included in SPEM licence :(.
symantec feels weak compared to the competition unless you pay for all the crap subscription and set a dedicated appliance for every service !
i will use the free forticlient for rating :)
I think there are many free solution that in combo perform like if not better then a paid solution xD
 
  • Applause
  • Like
Reactions: bribon77 and Back3

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
Can I ask you why you think it's not good?

I have been using it for several years on an old eepc (2gb ram) that I use for music playback and torrent download.
I downloaded many things even of dubious origin and has always protected me well, I find it on a par with its free cloud-based peers.
Detection rate is absolutely bad. In the best case of finding a virus, it should be at least three to four weeks old. Have not BB. All his protection is based on the cloud. Which is very bad. I have not kept receipts from my own tests. But you can see the very bad results on the hub.
 

Devilboss94

Level 1
Detection rate is absolutely bad. In the best case of finding a virus, it should be at least three to four weeks old. Have not BB. All his protection is based on the cloud. Which is very bad. I have not kept receipts from my own tests. But you can see the very bad results on the hub.
I agree that viral signatures represent greater security, and that being lacking in it is negative, however it is the only decent one that runs well on that old little eepc.
What's better than free and cloud and light?
I haven't found any others.
 

Chri.Mi

Level 7
  • Like
Reactions: Behold Eck
Top