Hello i got a question for you 
If i ;
install comodo firewall ( only this one )
install something like site advisor ( i prefer AVG Linkscanner because it has realtime shield against web threats )
disable autorun
visit only safe websites
download only known and good softwares
and check the downloaded files and external storages on demand with MBAM and SAS etc
Is it possible that my pc will be infected ? Is it necessary to have a realtime shield ?
I think you can’t live without a resident shield.
It could be the Defense+ and CAV. Why did you do not install it?
On the review videos i see that weird executables infect pc. But normally i don’t even click run to those files that i am not sure. Also i don’t surf and i don’t do risky things. My resident shield never warned me except the viruses coming from USB drives. I feel like i am feeding an army where there is no enemy to fight. I may be wrong that’s why i asked my question.
If you write here your opinions i will be very glad. Thank you
ilkerol, a good resident protection shouldn’t interfere that much on the performance.
At least, use Defense+ in the Safe Mode.
[attachment deleted by admin]
visit only safe websitesIt'll will greatly improve your odds, but when safe sites can get attcked and unknowly serve malware. Here's a yahoo news artile on Department of homeland security website serving malware http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20100628/tc_zd/252299
visit only safe websites download only known and good softwaresIMO, you don't need a linkscanner because you only go to well known places and only download well known software. I feel it's more for warez and dark places on the net. IMO, your better off with WOT
also
i prefer AVG Linkscanner because it has realtime shield against web threatsscanning web links and scanning stuff you are downloading to your computer are 2 seperate things
Is it necessary to have a realtime shield ?There's people that don't, but while theres still a risk. Nobody can answer that question but you
Thank you guys for your opinions. :-TU
According to Avast, “the statistics are clear - for every infected adult domain we identify there are 99 others with perfectly legitimate content that are also infected.” See http://www.avast.com/en-gb/pr-legitimate-websites-outscore-the-adult for details.
Just use WOT
WOT? I think security is a matter for specialists and not for users to vote…
They have terrible missing detections, many false positives, etc.
In my opinion, it’s not trustable.
+1
The problem today is the “good” sites.
WOT? I think security is a matter for specialists and not for users to vote... They have terrible missing detections, many false positives, etc.Agree, but you got to start somewhere. Reading the votes can give you clues, but common cents is still needed. If there's quite a bit of complaints of a website site "abcdefg" is redirecting your web browser no matter where you surf ever since going to that site. It's a good indication, not to go there. Even if it's normal every day users and not some specialist that report that.
The way I see it, It does a better job of blacklisting, then whitelisting <—That’s just my opinion
For each bad review of WOT there are thousands of positive ones.
I’ve tried SiteAdvisor, LinkScanner and Norton Safe Web. Then I discovered WOT and never went back. I will never surf without it and it never let me down.
The idea of using users ratings may sound strange at first but it’s a brilliant one, and it works.
It’s one of the best security apps around (all included) and it should be mandatory for all those average and below average users that can’t (and realy don’t want to) use sofisticated things like HIPS or two ways FW and so on.
WOT, like Wikipedia and others, is an exemple of the best the Net has to offer; simple to use and yet so effective, made by the user for the user. Online Democracy indeed.
CIS in background and Firefox+NoScript+AdBlock. No need for anything else during browsing.