Internet Security software and F@H

[Baowoulf]

I have had an random issue with F@H not being able to get a new WU after completing one without me disabling my security software and then restarting F@H. Now my current software is about 6 years old. It's been good, but I've decided to switch for F@H reasons and others. I just recently bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 and was wondering if there are any known problems with it and F@H? I've heard of false postives with Avast I think, but nothing more then that so far.

I did a quick search and all I got so far was a few random issues that could just as easily come up with any software someone could use and messing with options in your computer so so far so good.

[Qinsp]

No experience with Kaspersky, but I've heard a lot of great reviews on it.

I'm using MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials - Free) on all my machines now, and have had far fewer problems than other "paid" AV products I've used, like Norton and McAfee.

A good resource to read on AV issues is www.dslreports.com . A lot of IT pros read and post in there concerning today's latest security matters.

[RAH]

The first issue, you might have, not knocking any AV software. If the hardware in your profile is correct, you don't have the memory (512meg)
needed to run a security suite. The bigger the suite, the more memory/resources they take up. Getting all the settings correct for the
apts/etc you want to run, can be a full job for an IT division.
I agree with MSE, being good for a personal computer. I switched from AVG (getting bloated to me) and I'm happy with MSE now.

[7im]

A quick forum search shows several posts about Kaspersky blocking fah, or blocking a fah connection. You will most likely need to configure K to allow the connection. You may also want to put en exception on the FAH folder (and/or program) to exclude it from scans.

[gwildperson]

There's nothing wrong with Norton/McAfee/Kaspersky except that they're in competition so each one has to out-do the other every year with some new feature that the other one doesn't have. They tend to get big, use more processor time, and sometimes add features that fix problems you didn't know you had. (Well that, and the deceptive marketing methods where the first year is free, especially if you switch, but you have to pay again every year.)

For example, I used Norton AntiVirus for a long time and was happy with it. Their periodic updates and scans met my needs and blocked a few problems that I ran into. One year they added real-time protection. While that's a useful feature, it also slows down opening and closing of files and I'm not convinced I needed it but my computer was fast enough that I tolerated it. Then one year, I got Norton 360. It added anti-spyware protection. What's that, you say? It prevents some evil program from sending information (like your passwords or your Social Security number) from your computer to some evil site. How does it do that? you ask. It assumes that you have certain trusted programs on your computer which are allowed to connect to the internet and any other program is "untrusted" and therefore blocked from connecting to the internet. Were each of the FAH clients "approved" by Norton or where they "unknown" and therefore blocked? I think you can guess the answer. Each person running Norton360 had to come here and ask why FAH was not working and be told that they had to manually add an exception allowing FAH to talk to the servers.

Was that good or bad? It's a little like airport security. How much protection is too much? For me, N360 was too much and now I'm very happy with MSSE. YMMV.

[Baowoulf]

Thanks guys. Sounds I shouldn't run into any big problems with it and F@h. 7im that's about the same as I found during my search so I'm just going to go ahead and install it as soon as my current WU is finished.