Security and Performance

Security and Performance

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Security and Performance

Post by AF »

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000803.html

Thats right, Vista boost, switch your user account type to a standard user and get an instant performance boost!

And get rid of that norton antivirus, 2368% slower disk access? 48% slower boot time? 20% cpu speed degradation? wtf?
User avatar
Ishach
Posts: 1670
Joined: 02 May 2006, 06:44

Post by Ishach »

antivirus is like sawing off your leg so you dont ever stub your toe
User avatar
LathanStanley
Posts: 1429
Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16

Post by LathanStanley »

ANTI-VIRUS DOES FUCKUP YOUR SYSTEM...


Seriously, I haven't used anti-virus in about 9 years...

Sure I've had a few viral hits, irritating, but nothing I couldn't fix.

the computer runs like a friggin champ without it too :wink:
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

"I don't use condoms because sex feels better without them and I pull out"
-Many unwilling fathers before the fact :P

Wow that standard user thing is crazy!
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Post by lurker »

AVG 7.1 Free 15% 0% 19%
0% O_o

I don't download random files, but I don't want a browser exploit to lead to a reformat. This computer only spends .01% of the time booting, and the harddrive is plenty fast. AVG ftw.
User avatar
LOrDo
Posts: 1154
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 00:21

Post by LOrDo »

Antivirus's dont have to suck if you can get the right ones.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

AVG seems the best for minimal system performance hit.

Although XP or Vista in a virtual machine will give better performance than Norton antivirus.
User avatar
iamacup
Posts: 987
Joined: 26 Jun 2006, 20:43

Post by iamacup »

avg also happens to be shit

avast! 4.7 Home 4% 8% 115%

use this instead.
User avatar
clericvash
Posts: 1394
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 01:05

Post by clericvash »

avast! rocks, i use it whenever i am on windows
User avatar
Comp1337
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Oct 2005, 17:32

Post by Comp1337 »

Aye, avast! is the way to go imo
User avatar
genblood
Posts: 862
Joined: 19 Jan 2005, 03:37

Post by genblood »

Avast! is the best solution ... IMO at the moment.
User avatar
gamer17
Posts: 235
Joined: 21 Feb 2007, 23:51

Post by gamer17 »

I use nod 32
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Post by lurker »

iamacup wrote:avg also happens to be shit

avast! 4.7 Home 4% 8% 115%

use this instead.
Assuming this is at least mildly accurate... slow disk access over 50%? No thanks. Avast! has better anti-spyware iirc, but I don't really need realtime protection for that...
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

gamer17 wrote:I use nod 32
I prefer GDI
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

avast! 4.7 Home 4% 8% 115%
AVG 7.1 Free 15% 0% 19%
AVG does the job, may not be brilliant but its the least impacting antivirus. The real security breaches are from the users who dont think or systems that havent got the latest patches.

http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/other/ ... ows_down/5
User avatar
JimmyJ
Posts: 84
Joined: 21 Dec 2005, 05:52

Post by JimmyJ »

I'm using avast, tried nod 32, didn't like it as well..
Also, lol command and conquer.
User avatar
Lindir The Green
Posts: 815
Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09

Post by Lindir The Green »

Interesting... But running in a protected account would I think be much more inconvenient than having slower disk access (I have AVG and windows defender.)

Is there a reason though to use a protected account instead of user account control? (currently I do neither.)
Last edited by Lindir The Green on 20 Aug 2007, 01:27, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

Under Vista, Administrator accounts are subject to numerous additional security features when things like UAC are turned on.

For example, registry virtualization, preventing arbitrary registry changes.

However under a standard account these proactive features arent necessary. The vast majority of attack avenues for malware become dead ends on a standard suer account. Sadly Microsoft started a convention in windows a few years ago where the default account type was administrator, which persists. To get around this they implemented a lot of proactive security features to protect administrator accounts.

The morale of the storey:

Only use admin accounts when you really need to. Standard accounts are always safer and faster, regardless of wether your running Vista XP 2000 or Ubuntu/redhat/etc
User avatar
Lindir The Green
Posts: 815
Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09

Post by Lindir The Green »

But is there actually anything that an administrator account + UAC is vulnerable to that a protected account is not vulnerable to?
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

User runnign UAC+Admin looks at a shady website.

Shady website uses exploit to install spyware.

UAC might give a warning but therell always be that 1 method of getting around it.

OR

User running standard account looks at a shady website.

Shady website uses exploit to install spyware. Exploit runs into dead end and fails to install, as standard users dont have the necessary access.

User continues surfing shady websites.

Never run as an administrator. Vista changes some things around so you really can work under Vista as a standard user without constantly flitting back and forth between an admin account and a standard account.

The simple act of switching to a standard account makes a huge swathe of exploits useless and renders a lot of malware inert.
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”