• On GameSpot: Thinking about buying a Wii?
November 25, 2009 3:51 PM PST

Big changes in Security Starter Kit 2010

by Seth Rosenblatt
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 35 comments

Black Friday is almost upon us, and the steep hardware discounts mean new computers for many. To help you during these tough economic times, we've refreshed the Download.com Security Starter Kit for 2010. Although nothing can replace common-sense browsing, this collection of freeware security tools will help you protect new machines and old from pernicious threats, large and small. Longtime readers will notice that in addition to changing up our recommended antivirus program, we've fleshed out the Web browsing safety category, and made other changes as well. If you're looking for more than freeware security programs, check out the CNET Download.com Windows Starter Kit for 2010.

In this year's version, you can expect to see Avast chosen ahead of AntiVir as our most favored antivirus app. Despite its odd interface, Avast scored higher than any other freeware antivirus in a third-party test, and it doesn't skimp on protection, either, with e-mail, network, rootkit, and behavioral guards along with its top-rated virus protections.

We're still recommending Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for spyware removal, but we've also added PC Tools' standalone ThreatFire as an excellent way to strengthen behavioral detections and prevent spyware from infecting you in the first place. Recent improvements to the program have made it incredibly light on resources, and in our days of empirical testing we didn't notice it slowing down our computers at all.

New this year is the expanded in-browser security category. We've recommended five browsing tools that are available as add-ons, and we took care to make sure that they applied to as many of the major browsers as possible. However, Firefox's deep add-on toolbox makes it naturally the browser with the most diverse collection of security tools, so expect to see it heavily, although not exclusively, represented.

PC Tools' ThreatFire.

(Credit: Screenshot by Seth Rosenblatt/CNET)

Firewalls used to be the forefront of security, but now they're just another tool you should have. Microsoft has made the native Windows 7 firewall impressively useful, but we realize that not everybody has Windows 7, and even those who do might want an alternative. This year, Online Armor joins Comodo on the list.

In Encryption, TrueCrypt remains the gold standard. The Thunderbird extension Enigmail joins it as a must-have tool for keeping your private e-mails as you intended them--away from prying eyes. In Parental Control, we've added OnlineFamily.Norton. It's not strictly desktop based, although to use it you must use its desktop hook, called Norton Safety Minder. Symantec has created what looks to be a unique and free approach that includes an emphasis on parental education and attempts to foster parent-child communication about how to use the Internet safely. We're of the opinion that anything that helps parents realize that browsing the Internet is far more than a TV with options is a good thing.

If you disagree with our security and safety choices for the Security Starter Kit, please let us know in the comments below.

Seth peers into the deep, dark corners of software so that you don't have to. He has yet to suffer a single nightmare about OS/2. You can follow him on Twitter.
Recent posts from The Download Blog
Log in with your face
See what's under McAfee's new interface
Tales2Go: Get on-demand audiobooks for children
Microsoft, Google split over browser bug bounty
Mozilla plans to drop Mac OS X 10.4 support
TweetDeck gets a few tweaks
Adobe promises faster Flash on Macs
Security software maker Vitamin D exits beta
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (35 Comments)
  • prev
  • next
by Orion Blastar November 25, 2009 6:26 PM PST
Yeah sounds great for Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP. But what if you have relatives still running old computers with Windows 95 or Windows 98 and refuse to upgrade or buy a new computer because they cannot afford to do so?<br /><br />A lot of software is Windows 2000 or Windows XP and up now. Hardly anything left for Windows 9X. Can CNet and Downloads.com do an article for Legacy Windows Systems that run Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME and software like Unhackme, Avast! Home, Spybot: Search and Destroy, etc for Windows 9X systems that are Legacy Windows Systems. Some people also do Retrocomputing in running old operating systems and hardware, and you'd be amazed that those who still use MS-DOS and Windows 3.X and refuse to upgrade, but hardly any security software still exists for the 16 bit Windows and 16 bit DOS environments anymore.<br /><br />Just that nobody seems to support Windows 9X via web browsers, shockwave/flash players, PDF readers, Java runtime updates, or even Office software anymore. I think that there may be a market for the commercial software developers to tap into the Legacy Windows Software market, because many Legacy Windows users use IE 5 or 6, or old versions of Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, etc that don't work with modern web standards. Since the Internet and WWW is supposed to support everyone, the Windows 9X users feel left out in security software, Internet software, and even application software. Can't even get the media players to play the new media formats for Windows 9X, ouch!
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Mr. Dee November 25, 2009 7:09 PM PST
Legacy systems should not be on the Internet or a network and should be shutdown and put in a closet or used only for solitaire.
1 person likes this comment
by solitare_pax November 26, 2009 3:06 AM PST
With all due respect to Mr. Dee and others who maintain Legacy users ought to buy something new, or new/used for cheap, some people out there are on fixed budgets, or purchased the computer thinking that it was like a TV or a blender and would have a useful lifespan of several decades, not a mere two to five years. <br /><br />They invested time and money into it and are either not in the position or frame of mind to move onward and upwards. I know people who have this frame of mind, and I currently work at a company that is locked into this frame of mind. <br /><br />I can assure you, they probably don't even know that CNET exists.<br /><br />On the flip side, I imagine they are probably much safer from viruses and hackers, who won't bother writing code for such ancient machines any longer.
1 person likes this comment
by sparrowhyperion November 26, 2009 7:50 AM PST
Well if they have a machine that old that is still running, they are lucky. The MTBF on a system 10 years ago was about 5 years assuming 8hours a day and 5 days a week usage in a good dry environment. If they are running something that old, they should not be browsing anymore. The browsers that run on 95/98/ME are old and haven't been supported for years. No one really codes for them anymore. Microsoft hasn't even supported them for years. If you have relatives like this, then you really need to convince them to upgrade to something more modern before their current system simply dies and takes all of their important files with it. Not to mention the dangers of running a system as loosely protected as these would be. Systems like that are a hackers dream. Easily infected and easily turned into a zombie to spread more malware due to it's relatively wide open OS. Even car companies usually stop producing parts between 7 and 10 years after a model is discontinued. In short. They had a longer than usual run with their machines, and now it's time to move on to something better and safer...
1 person likes this comment
by davidlari November 30, 2009 6:19 AM PST
If your goal is to make use of old hardware and you really want to put the machine on the net, I would consider using Ubuntu Linux. It runs on Win98 era hardware and is usable for simple browsing, email, word processing, and other less intensive tasks. For those that must have a Windows OS, spend $150 on a refurb Dell desktop that comes with XP installed and keep your existing monitor, keyboard and mouse.
1 person likes this comment
by PoloMarkoPolo November 25, 2009 8:18 PM PST
With all due respect Orion Blastar, with computer prices the way they are, you could go on ebay or craiglist and buy a computer that would run XP for cheep cheep cheep. The whole "I can't afford it" excuse is just that. True, you might not be able to buy an uber quad core 2010-style computer, but you could easily get a computer that runs XP given to you, if you ask the right person.<br /><br />People who choose to stay technologically deficient shouldn't complain about their choice. If you want to use Windows 9X, fine.... just don't complain that the rest of the world has chosen to move on. You lay in the bed you made.
Reply to this comment
by Hey_Radar November 26, 2009 3:11 AM PST
You're right. You can find older computers for cheap (or free) I picked up a used HP 1.2 GHz computer at Goodwill for $15 that originally came with WinXP on it. Yes it was old, but it runs WinXP just fine. <br /> <br />It's sad to think, but within the next 3 to 5 years XP will be too old and will be in the same situation that Win95/98/ME/NT/2000 is.
by andrew9123 November 26, 2009 12:32 AM PST
What about Microsoft Security Essentials, this is a good anti- virus app.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by sparrowhyperion November 26, 2009 7:53 AM PST
It is good for a basic protection layer. If you run AVG, or Avast on top of it, then your pretty well protected. The new Windows 7 firewall is very good. I think it may be a zone alarm killer this time. It's good to see that MS did something right for a change.
by Jack_Smith56 November 28, 2009 1:42 PM PST
Agreed Microsoft Security Essentials is a Brilliant Anti-Virus!
by Uturnaroun November 29, 2009 4:04 PM PST
sparrowhyperion: You should never have multiple antiviruses running at the same time. It can be dangerous in some cases.<br /><br />In my opinion, Microsoft Security Essentials is a really great AV and should also be on the list.
by darko.zivkovic November 26, 2009 2:43 AM PST
Definitely Avast! New version is going to come very soon, so pay attention.
Reply to this comment
by cvonfeldt November 27, 2009 10:12 AM PST
Yeah Avast! I use a lot of different AV tools. none are perfect, but Avast is still my favorite. AVG's new release is pretty tight. i expect Avast to top it though.<br /><br />cvonfeldt
by Dan7637 November 26, 2009 10:20 AM PST
these old systems people talk about should be retired as there are plenty of cheap systems available on black friday
Reply to this comment
by Demiwonder November 26, 2009 7:49 PM PST
A list for free anti-virus that I recommend in order of popularity, but please choose the right one for you <br />(install only one): <br /> <br />1. AVG Free <br />a. A simple interface (easier to use than Avast! and Avira) <br />b. Can detect about 82.82% of viruses <br />Cons: low virus detection <br />2. Avast! <br />a. Real-time protection <br />b. It has an option to delete a virus once found <br />c. Can detect about 87.46% of viruses. <br />Cons: Too many icons and confusing user interface <br />3. Avira AntiVir <br />a. It can detect malware better than Avast and AVG <br />b. It?s cute umbrella icon <br />c. Can detect about 94.26% of viruses <br />Cons: A very sluggish update <br />I advise against Norton anti-virus, it?s bloated software that slows your computer down. The best anti-virus available is Kaspersky or NOD32 (recent tests at av-comparatives.org).
Reply to this comment
by G33k2G0 November 27, 2009 5:11 AM PST
All of those are bloated AV. MSE has a high detection rate with little false positives. I actually had AVG and it refused to allow a purchased Add-on from Rail Simulator to install. That's pathetic. After uploading the file to Virus Total, it turns out that AVG and McAfee were the only AV to detect this file as a virus.<br /><br />Conclusion: The opposite of false positive is false negative. Why over bloat your system, when you can use MSE and Windows FIrewall and leave it at that.
by cvonfeldt November 27, 2009 10:16 AM PST
i'm not sure where G33k2GO is getting info on MSE detection rate... I've had it fail on client machines consistently.
by November 28, 2009 1:41 AM PST
Leave everything. Avira AntiVir rules, it has a cute umbrella icon which is so simple. A closed umbrella tells you that you are screwed. AVG Free is a sorry product now.
by darko.zivkovic November 30, 2009 3:39 AM PST
Avast is the only free AV that gained Advanced+ level in the latest reactive and proactive tests at AV-Comparatives: http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests, November and August 2009. You can find here correct detection rates, since given ones are not.
by sfarber53 November 26, 2009 10:56 PM PST
I'm sorry guys, but I can't even get involved in the "rich man" "poor man" computer debate. Simply put, anyone still dealing with Microsoft is an idiot. Redmond's software is crap, their security non-existent and they don't give a tinker's damn about the people that make them rich.<br /><br />It's time to grow-up and move on to real computing as defined by Mac or Linux. The days of Microbloze are numbered!
Reply to this comment
by G33k2G0 November 27, 2009 5:05 AM PST
If I move on to Linux, I lose the luxury of using my HD-PVR that supports ATSC/QAM. I used Ubuntu and could not find drivers for the life of me. Mac has drivers for it though, but Linux does not.
by bpike7 November 27, 2009 4:47 PM PST
The only reason Mac is safer is because of the low market share. Telling people to use your OS is stupid, if everyone switched from Windows the OS switched to would be bombarded with viruses. If you don't believe OSX is less secure read this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-hack,2254.html. As you can see he didn't talk about Linux security so I'm not gunna comment about that.<br /><br />Please stop being so ignorant. You're like the average 80 year old trying to talk about the internet. Just stop.
by Dani210 November 29, 2009 8:00 PM PST
@bpike7<br />You are like the average 10 year old trying to talk windows when you don't know anything about programming. Simply put: you are totally wrong.<br /><br />First I want to talk about Apple's lower market share. Macs make up 10% of all computers. PCs make up 90%. Yes that is small, but not that small. If Macs have that much less security embedded in them, then why wouldn't everyone just attack them? After all, the chance of breaking into a Mac are supposedly way higher than cracking a PC.<br /><br />There are two reasons. The first reason is what you said, but there is also another, better reason for why Macs are safer: Macs are far more close-sourced than any other OS. Not anyone can just make a program for a Mac. To say that if everyone switched to a Mac means that there would be tons of viruses for it is a lie. After all, internet security is only one aspect, which is what you are thinking of. But it is so easy to make a program for Windows and for Linux. Everything is so mainstream and reviewed with Macs that you can trust every program you are running because it isn't just a random program. This is not so for Windows.<br /><br />So although Windows has way better security than Macs (which is finally changing), Windows is a more intriguing target. It has easier tools to make an app, it has greater returns, and the challenge is intense.
by maxenzo December 10, 2009 11:07 AM PST
@Dani210<br />What? you are so full of it.<br />The mac is a pc its not the hardware that stops viruses,the only difference its the OS inside,its UNIX based,with the free BSD code that apple started to sell without giving any support to opensource.<br />Mac OSX is not more secure than windows,its a matter of where the money is,and the way the OS works,OSX and Linux are more secure in some way because windows lets anything to install without restrictions,on Linux(that i use) unless you give root access for something to install nothing will harm the system,and OSX its the same(but not on the same level as Linux).<br />But there is always vulnerabilities that Crackers or Hackers can explore with exploits and user stupidity.<br />Besides windows is where the money is,if you are going to waste your time,money and possibly freedom,its better to take the money from where you will be sure you will get success.<br />If OSX would have in the future more market than windows you would see a big jump on UNIX malware.<br />And one more thing the most secure OS its Linux,not just because of the system itself but because all the software you download its from reposytories,that are checked before they put them there.<br />Thinking that an OS is unbreakable its naive and stupid,but yes i can agree Unix systems are more secure in some way,but they are not unbreakable not even close.
by eli_ancheta November 27, 2009 6:38 AM PST
windows xp:<br /><br />1)avira antivir free - antivirus<br />2)comodo - firewall<br />3)malwarebytes - antispyware<br />4)ccleaner<br /><br />and you're good to go
Reply to this comment
by November 28, 2009 1:42 AM PST
The right combination to any security needs nowadays. Though, I hate CCleaner because it has a toolbar.
by darko.zivkovic November 30, 2009 3:41 AM PST
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests
by rick hutchinson November 27, 2009 1:41 PM PST
Avast over Avira any day. Online Armor is a real annoyance;Comodo is the best free firewall over all paid according to matousec.com .Ad-Aware free has found more than Malwarebytes' but I'm keeping it in my arsenal any how.Web of Trust is a user rated app and is untrustworthy. Most security experts reccomend that you don't save passwords in your browser,PC,or any program like Last Password Manager even if it encryts it. Firefox browser should be the first choice but should be loaded with Adblock Plus,Key Scrambler,BetterPrivacy,Ghostery,McAfee Site Advisor (AVG Link Scanner is a good choice too).NoScript is an annoyance and interferes with web pages loading and doesn't remember what you've set each page at so you've go to do it all the time,over and over and over again.
Reply to this comment
by rick hutchinson November 27, 2009 1:43 PM PST
Yes,I am annoyed.
by gogodgo November 28, 2009 9:18 AM PST
Gurus have their lists, Average Users do their best to interpret what the Gurus say, and then there are the rest of us. Cox Cable and Comcast both provide a McAfee Suite free to their customers. It has worked great with an easy install, easy interface, and automatic updates. Combined with a router firewall, only three threats have been found on my desktop (primary) computer. McAfee quarantined them right away (the default action). SO, when listing free software, do not forget to include those provided free by the ISPs.
Reply to this comment
by speedwaypc November 29, 2009 12:12 PM PST
Who cares about security software? it's a psychological scam designed to keep you scared and paying (even if it's "free" software, nothing is truly free). Be careful online, back up your data, and if you happen to be careless enough to screw up your computer oh no so what use the recovery partition most computers from the last 5 years have to easily restore your operating system to original factory condition. <br /> <br />I run a computer store and this is what I tell all my customers, not to worry about any garbagey security software and to concern yourself with making sure your data is backed up, because that is the only thing on your computer that is irreplaceable. <br /> <br />I have recently installed Microsoft Security Essentials on customer's computers, because it is very lightweight, non harrasive, and counts as an antivirus so Windows security center stops popping up. <br /> <br />Why has there never been an article on CNet that tells this truth of how security software is mind games full of false peace of mind. Oh, probably because they'd #&#38;%&#38;-off their numerous advertisers that have taken people's money for years with promises of "security".
Reply to this comment
by tigershima November 29, 2009 6:38 PM PST
i challenge you not to run any antivirus or firewall on your computer and surf using IE. See how much backing up your info is worth when your identity is stolen.
by speedwaypc November 30, 2009 4:54 AM PST
I've never run any sort of antivirus or 3rd party firewall on any computer I've ever had in my life and I'm doing fine. I don't trust evil for-profit companies such as Norton or McAfee with protecting my identity. I do trust myself and my care and safety while using the Internet. I also believe that there is a far greater chance of anything like identity theft occurring from "real life" activities than from anything online. There is nothing wrong with IE compared to any other redundant browser, people like yourself just like to hate on Microsoft.
by stylemax January 6, 2010 2:47 PM PST
@tigershima<br /><br />Your first mistake is using IE. The thing should be tagged malware in all these antiviruses as far as I'm concerned. But what you talk about is actually possible. Just get the NoScript firefox add-on, and you'll limit most of these intrusions you talk about. Oh and switch to a decent email client like Gmail.<br /><br />And the reason to back up your files, is not to avoid hackers etc. The reason is to avoid being screwed when your harddrive crashes. <br /><br />-Andrew<br />Founder<br />http://styleguidance.com
by terrawarra November 30, 2009 7:19 PM PST
Haven't any of you heard of "sandboxie",.. it kinda makes all of this top security software unnecessary. <br /> Trying to get everybody agreeing on the "best" antivirus, firewall or anti-spyware product is near impossible. It's like asking a Ford man to change over to Toyota or vice-versa. Seriously, if you're happy with your security set- up, then let it be. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Reply to this comment
(35 Comments)
  • prev
  • next

Search Download Blog posts

About The Download Blog

Download.com editors cover the world of downloadable software and beyond.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Download Blog topics