Advanced Plus Security RodM1956's Security - Staying Light as Possible

[RodM1956]

I am just testing this, and wanted to report my results here. My quest starts with wanting to come from many angles and stay as light as possible.

So here is what I did, and the order of installation, with a note concerning it's effect on my PC, beside each, and an image made after each one, using Macrium.

1). Cylance. (LIGHT).
2). Heimdal Thor Foresight. (LIGHT)
3). Eset 32 AV. (LIGHTER)... (I know what your thinking, but even after 3 installs, Eset being last so far, apps open quicker).
4). MWBAM "Premium" w/ Full Time Protection On. (Tiny Bit SLOWER now)... I hesitated here, wasn't sure I needed it or wanted it...

 

[imuade]

It's not clear to me whether you have the 4 SWs installed together or those are 4 different scenarios.
If the latter, ok, your choice would probably be: go for ESET.
If the former, I wouldn't call it "layered approach", all of them cover one point only (AV), while you have other layers uncovered (FW for example)

 

[Sunshine-boy]

You can add Sandboxie, Zemana AntiLogger and Comodo firewall because Eset av don't cover your network.

 

[outlawxtorn]

The lightest most protective set-up I've found after asking around the forums, more specifically @ForgottenSeer 58943.
Cylance+Thor Home Premium, Syshardener executed once. Incredibly light and powerful.

 

[LDogg]

I'm assuming you're testing each software and uninstalling the prior AV you had installed?

This is also my mantra about layered security, be as light as possible with the most robust protection I can get. My setup currently is Zemana Antilogger Premium w/ Webroot + Malwarebytes Firewall Control + Syshardener w/ advanced settings, Configure Defender/Hard Configure.

I use ZAL based off the fact that Webroot isn't the best for stopping Malware, but my hypothesis here is Webroot is more pro-AV and ZAL is more pro-Anti-Malware, plus both I got for free, but still within my mantra of light & robust.

I do like how you have been testing each software. But you need to think about security with the light aspect too, it's in the good sauce to think about taking the load off your system, but don't sacrifice great protection in order to achieve lightest combo going.

~LDogg

 

[conceptualclarity]

I am just testing this, and wanted to report my results here. My quest starts with wanting to come from many angles and stay as light as possible.

So here is what I did, and the order of installation, with a note concerning it's effect on my PC, beside each, and an image made after each one, using Macrium.

1). Cylance. (LIGHT).
2). Heimdal Thor Foresight. (LIGHT)
3). Eset 32 AV. (LIGHTER)... (I know what your thinking, but even after 3 installs, Eset being last so far, apps open quicker).
4). MWBAM "Premium" w/ Full Time Protection On. (Tiny Bit SLOWER now)... I hesitated here, wasn't sure I needed it or wanted it...

Is Cylance known as a compatible anti-virus?

 

[17410742]

my current setup is as light & secure as id ever need.

VoodooShield + Shadow Defender (Always in Shadow Mode)

35mb Ram > 4 Processes (2 each)

Block All > No Signatures > No Real Time scanning or Scans in general

Cheap too, Voodooshield is free (although i use pro just to support dev) & ShadowDefender is a low priced Lifetime licence.

 

[LDogg]

my current setup is as light & secure as id ever need.

VoodooShield + Shadow Defender (Always in Shadow Mode)

35mb Ram > 4 Processes (2 each)

Block All > No Signatures > No Real Time scanning or Scans in general

Cheap too, Voodooshield is free (although i use pro just to support dev) & ShadowDefender is a low priced Lifetime licence.

The qualm I have with VDS is the fact it's App Whitelisting, I'm not a massive fan of software such as this. Even blocked ProcessExplorer and ProcessHacker xD. But for individuals who have a good knowledge of processes and software execution this would be a valuable bit if kit to employ on their system.

~LDogg

 

[Nightwalker]

It may run light on your machine, but this setup is far from being optimized and lean; there is too much redundancy and the layers are almost all about signatures (stacking security solutions together doesnt make a "layered combo")

A much better and lean setup would be:

1. ESET NOD32 with PUP enabled (it covers the malware landscape much better than Heimdal Thor Foresight/MalwareBytes Premium)
2. NoVirus Thanks OSArmor
3. NoVirus SysHarderner (zero weight, just tweaks)
4. Patch My PC (free software updater)
5. Backup Solution
6. Chromium based browser with a password manager and an Adblocker (uBlock Origin)

 

[Deckard]

Is Cylance known as a compatible anti-virus?

The question should be rather: are these heavy, mastodons, instrusives antivirus, breaking the SSL connection, tirelessly rescanning the same file after each new signature-based update, again and again, are compatible with Cylance?
You have the answer here:

Cylance Smart Antivirus Support

BlackBerry is no longer accepting new orders for SmartAV through the shop.cylance.com website. This contact form is for existing customer support issues.

home-support.cylance.com

 

[Burrito]

It may run light on your machine, but this setup is far from being optimized and lean; there is too much redundancy and the layers are almost all about signatures (stacking security solutions together doesnt make a "layered combo")

A much better and lean setup would be:

1. ESET NOD32 with PUP enabled (it covers the malware landscape much better than Heimdal Thor Foresight/MalwareBytes Premium)
2. NoVirus Thanks OSArmor
3. NoVirus SysHarderner (zero weight, just tweaks)
4. Patch My PC (free software updater)
5. Backup Solution
6. Chromium based browser with a password manager and an Adblocker (uBlock Origin)

Yes, this is it.

This will provide you both lighter and better protection.... covering all the surface area.

Heimdal is not that great. Testing here (search on @Evjl's Rain) demonstrates the filtering of Heimdal is not as good as other products. And the 'exploit protection' is better covered by Patch My PC.

Generally, the best products make sure they get tested... as they want to show the world how good they are. The less-than-great products avoid testing. Yes, Heimdal has been around for quite a while and has elected not to be tested.

 

[shmu26]

I am just testing this, and wanted to report my results here. My quest starts with wanting to come from many angles and stay as light as possible.

So here is what I did, and the order of installation, with a note concerning it's effect on my PC, beside each, and an image made after each one, using Macrium.

1). Cylance. (LIGHT).
2). Heimdal Thor Foresight. (LIGHT)
3). Eset 32 AV. (LIGHTER)... (I know what your thinking, but even after 3 installs, Eset being last so far, apps open quicker).
4). MWBAM "Premium" w/ Full Time Protection On. (Tiny Bit SLOWER now)... I hesitated here, wasn't sure I needed it or wanted it...

@RodM1956 None of the 4 are particularly strong protection.
At least Eset is a solid AV, if not the best. So use Eset, and add something else to it, like Syshardener or OSarmor or Hard_Configurator, or maybe Voodooshield if you like it, or Comodo Firewall, or whatever. The strongest "extra" with the lowest performance penalty is Hard_Configurator.

 

[Threadripper]

Using ESET Internet Security + VoodooShield Pro here and all is well. If you want lightness, MBAM isn't the way to go. Thor Foresight isn't bad but realistically not worth the money as you've got ESET with some of the best web filtration a home user can get with Zvelo, and paying for ESET NOD32 + Cylance or Thor doesn't seem logical to me. ESET and Voodoo is plenty, and like others have suggested SysHardener and Hard_Configurator are amazing tools.

 

[LDogg]

I agree with a lot of the above posters have typed about. ESET with App White listing or even OSArmor is fantastic with Syshardener.

~LDogg

 

[amico81]

you need a light and powerful solution?

-> Video - Bora tests Comodo Cloud Antivirus

 

[Deckard]

...paying for ESET NOD32 + Cylance or Thor doesn't seem logical to me...

This is what I am testing today.
NOD32 is known to be very light. It's also, for what I kwow, the first full 64-bit AV on the market; and since long time.
They are known to have a light and optimized AV and want to keep this longstanding reputation, I suppose.

An interesting point: during the Eset Internet Security installation, the soft checks for possible incompatibilities. The presence of Cylance did not raise any comment from the Eset installer .

As NOD32 has never been really good for me concerning the detection, adding a 'booster' for detections not seem to me absurd. Logic about buying and spending money, that's another topic.

 

[shmu26]

As NOD32 has never been really good for me concerning the detection, adding a 'booster' for detections not seem to me absurd

But there will be a performance penalty if you have two real-time protections of the AV type.

 

[Deckard]

But there will be a performance penalty if you have two real-time protections of the AV type.

I check that carrefully. This is my priorities; the latency.
I check that with AppTimer, on references software for tests:
-Irfanview loading the same picture
-PDF Xchange
-MPC-BE

 

[bribon77]

The best layers of security for me would be virtualization and anti-exe /o SRP and Frewall.
And signatures.
So I think Comodo Firewall with Cs configuration. They have three of the four that would be the 1-Sanbox and also acts as a 2-Anti-exe and a 3-Firewall. Therefore, only the missing signatures can choose an AV in real time or on demand. Simple and lightweight

 

[Ink]

Thread moved to Computer Security Configuration.

Please Edit Thread to fill out the custom field choices, just as everyone else has.

@harlan4096