digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at arstechnica.com

5 Important Security Apps for Linux, Mac, and Windows

arstechnica.com — We've got you covered with five freeware or shareware security tools for Linux boxes, Macs, and Windows machines, all recommended by Ars staffers.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 26, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

127 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BigManOnCampus, on 04/26/2008, -19/+109I'm laughing because the apps listed for windows are essential to keep Windows running, while the apps for Linux don't enhace security but rather are network manager tools that are meaningless to the average user.
  • ProphetSix, on 04/26/2008, -3/+56Whether you agree/disagree, use or don't use these apps, you have to admit, it's a good article to pass onto the lay person. Educating the masses is good on any level. I'm definitely sending this to a couple of "problem children" who constantly need help.
  • Heidenreich12, on 04/26/2008, -4/+32an article that shows security tools for OS X? I was actually curious because i really haven't seen any before (besides the default)...
  • coheedcollapse, on 04/26/2008, -4/+24I use a hardware firewall and ClamWin Antivirus (no resident scan, just once weekly). For anyone who actually knows what the hell they're doing that's all you'd need. Even with Windows. The list is by no means "necessary to keep it running" unless you're clicking on every damn thing that pops up in Internet Explorer.
  • nathum, on 04/26/2008, -0/+18I have a list too :D

    1. SpyBot S&D
    2. Sygate Firewall
    3. Peerguardian
    4. AVG
    5. Port Routing
    6. SiteAdvisor

    All I been using for years.
  • KillPenguin, on 04/26/2008, -5/+20Where's Spybot?
  • jeriqo, on 04/26/2008, -0/+11Fits in enveloppe
  • estvir, on 04/26/2008, -5/+14All I have is a firewall and I haven't had a single security problem on Vista for over a year. I'm still waiting for the massive Vista security problem, we'll be nearing 2 years and you doom foreseers have let me down. :(
  • jordyhoyt, on 04/26/2008, -0/+9well it never said that! it said vista's built in firewall is all you need for a software firewall. later it suggests what to do about spyware (i completely disagree that windows defender is better than spybot... spybot finds tons that windows defender doesn't.) and viruses.
  • pilot101, on 04/26/2008, -1/+9they forgot clamwin, open source antivirus prgm, and winpooch (open source anti spyware) NOTE: winpooch doesn't like playing with vista
  • jakem1, on 04/26/2008, -4/+11Great propaganda. Can you name another current OS that's not a work in progress? Last time I checked that's the sort of thing users expect. Would you be happy to run an EOL OS that isn't being updated?
  • TeacherOfHeroes, on 04/26/2008, -3/+10AppArmour isn't just a network manager tool, but it looks to be the only one thats not. But you're right, most of these are pretty useless, and AppArmour is the kind of thing that just comes with the distro and users never touch it.
  • estvir, on 04/26/2008, -2/+9A bunch of hypocritical, lying whores on the Internet does not constitute everyone and as jakem1 pointed out, every OS is a work in progress. Why do you think Leopard shipped with [apparently] so many problems? Why the hell do you think any piece of software is still in development with updates pushed out?
  • bigBADguy, on 04/26/2008, -1/+7believe it or not, i use vista with no anti-virus s/w installed. bitdefender scan in the morning. More than half year past, no virus, or malware affected! UAC is annoying, but as long as i am not running on administrator on daily appz... it is very solid (and m$ should do this 13yr before)
  • TippyTom, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6Hear!Hear!
    I still have People who think Norton is great!
  • ileftfark, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5http://url.ie/c64

    If i remember, it had more to do with a flaw in Safari...
  • computergod, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5When it comes to spyware, it is generally good to run multiple removal programs, since none get everything, and they overlap without interfering with each other.

    Also, NOD32 is excellent, especially with that new worm out now (forget the name, replacing storm) that mutates fast and remains undetectable to many other AV tools. Norton is still great for known threats, but you need something else for the new stuff.
  • songfire, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6Whoa, little sensitive there? I don't sense any fanboyism in the OP. It sounds like an honest comment.

    I read lots of computer articles, and I come across very few articles on Mac security. That statement alone says nothing about whether Macs are safe or not; it just says that few people are writing about it. As Macs gain popularity, this may become more of an issue, so Mac users should not fall asleep on it.
  • crownedgriffin, on 04/26/2008, -1/+6While I don't join the "Microsoft is the devil" crowd, I must say, STFU n00b cakes.
  • pilot101, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5u know the sad thing is? Asian sites such as Korean ones aren't optimized for firefox, so ie is the only alternative T_T
  • plasmic, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6If Linus is rock, and Windows is scissors, does that make Mac paper?
  • ORBAT, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5"winpooch doesn't like playing with vista."
    That's fine, neither does anybody else.
  • crownedgriffin, on 04/26/2008, -3/+7Throw Outlook into the fire with it.
  • withinavoid, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4You can run nmap and wireshark on the Mac, along with countless other great unix apps. I think you can even run those on Windows.
  • karolisonline, on 04/26/2008, -2/+6ok, so I am now running windows XP in my office for 11 months and it has no anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware ... nothing.. and I use it for work - flash, photoshop, zend... no problems with windows... (of course one time a month admin insists to scan it with portable antivirus)...
    what I wan't to say, is people who are able to use linux are usually able to use windows. give linux to the person who understand nothing about pc's and gets lot of viruses - give him linux box and he will screw it... and if You have problems with windows - don't go to porn sites and don't install hundreds of apps You don't need..
  • leaflord, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Ars named it 'virus' so that people will understand that UAC stopped a virus from executing....
  • Heywoodj, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4On the Linux side of things no mention of Firestarter?
    Not a firewall but a front-end for your IPV tables.
    Very quiet in normal use behind a router but if it starts going nuts have a look around your rig .
  • deuceswilde, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3There were so many flaws with that test. For one the computer was directly connected, and he used a program he had already written. Macs aren't invulnerable, but they are still much more secure.
  • ORBAT, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3So lemme get this straight:
    No updates == secure
    Lots of updates == insecure

    Allrighty then.
  • triskele, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4A large portion of people are clicking on every damn thing that pops up in internet explorer.
  • aliguana, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4my AVG/Spybot/Comodo combo has seen me ok so far. Although that doesn't help Linux or Mac users - I would argue that because Linux and OSX are "safe" from virii, that doesn't mean they are running an optimal set-up out of the box. Or that the firewalls are even switched on...
  • MattBD, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3True - until Hardy was released Ubuntu didn't ship with a firewall installed, although to be fair it also comes with all ports closed by default. But Hardy has the excellent uFW, and AppArmor has been installed by default since Gutsy.
  • neopherine, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3List of Vulnerability Scanners to see how secure your system really is:
    http://www.windowhaxor.net/2007/09/25/list-of-vuln ...
  • anothernerdgeek, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Those tools are a mere "first step" toward safeguarding your PC from intrusive things. Don't stop at only acquiring these minimum basics... do some research about security issues and take further steps to protect yourself and your valuable data.
    Your browser exposes the vulnerability of your PC to the world! So, turn off Java-script, or use a tool that allows you to select when it is on/off while you surf:
    http://noscript.net/
    You can discover any vulnerabilities in your browser by clicking on "ShieldsUP!" logo here:
    http://www.grc.com/intro.htm
    A more intensive browser test can be found here:
    http://www.copperheadsecurity.com/check.html
    And....for those paranoid about revealing their identity to the world, learn to use a proxy:
    http://proxylist.sakura.ne.jp/
    http://www.proxy4free.com/index.html
    http://www.samair.ru/proxy/type-01.htm

  • therightclique, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3I NEVER come across any and I spend most of my day on the internet. I can't comment on foreign sites, but the majority of the internet works fine on Firefox, even if IE is the standard.
  • Brendan371, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2that's cool. i don't think pc users appreciate the power under the hood of osx that someone with reasonable computer skills can make use of
  • rowjimmy, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3it's not that a site is "optimized" for firefox; it is that a site follows the w3c standards, and it works perfectly (or 99% perfectly) on firefox. a site is "optimized" for ie (or created from the get-go without following w3c standards). a site that doesn't work in firefox is, simply put, INCORRECT. any designer worth the massive amounts of caffeine s/he drinks knows you make a site follow w3c standards first, then add hacks so it works in standards non-compliant browsers. you don't use proprietary M$ tools from the get-go, and you certainly don't assume the incorrect behaviour IE renders to be the standard.
    now, that said, your point is still valid - there are a lot of designers (esp, it seems, east asian) who design solely for ie and don't follow w3c standards. this is seriously bad design, but at the end of the day, the user is SOL.
  • anothernerdgeek, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3You didn't see the second page?? When people say "Read the freindly article before commenting" they mean the ENTIRE FRIENDLY article!
  • ugopozo, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2For Mac OS X, while it may not be the preferred way for the average user, learning how to use ipfw and natd may be incredibly useful. I wrote a rough and simple startup shell script for it and it has been serving me well enough in the firewall department.
  • afx1, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2maybe it's to protect your mama and grandma
  • alexforcefive, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2It wasn't a test, it was a competition. People should stop using it as a benchmark for security.
  • rowjimmy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2i'm really surprised they don't mention Firestarter for *nix. If you cant figure out how to use iptables by hand, or just don't want to take the time to do so, or want nice colourful logging of attempted connections either failing or going through based on your iptables settings, it is a good utility. of course, it doesn't actually do anything but set iptables and monitor, but i've noticed a lot of "entry-level" *nix users have trouble figuring out iptables (not really sure why, as you can always type man iptables or iptables --help and it will tell you how to use it) and Firestarter allows them to be empowered without having to look at the command line.
  • ORBAT, on 04/26/2008, -2/+42. ???
    3. Profit
  • richthomas, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2here are my recommendations for Windows and Mac OS X . i dont use Linux so cant comment on that.

    Windows

    1. Anti Virus - i recommend either Kaspersky, Vet or the free AVG.
    2. Spybot S&D
    3. Spyware Blaster
    4. Ad-Aware
    5. Windows Defender

    Mac OS X

    1. Little Snitch - good for stopping pirated apps from "phoning home".

    Little Snitch only as the Firewall and Open Firmware are built-in, ClamXAV only scans for Win viruses as theres currently none for OS X and WaterRoof is completely unnecessary.
  • sudowrestler, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2One Safari vulnerability, found and demonstrated by an expert Mac security researcher, never maliciously exploited, and patched very quickly. On the other side, literally hundreds of thousands of different exploits, active, malicious, and in the wild, against Windows and Windows software. Which security scenario objectively sounds better?
  • mwalker05, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2true. but at least what they recommend for vista comes standard on it from MS so you know it will stay up to date. getting a good antivirus isnt hard.
  • Throlkim, on 04/26/2008, -2/+4No need to be an arse Orbat.
    Frankly, OSX comes with most of the security software a standard user will need. This article lists a few nice additions, but they're by no means necessary.
    It's also nice to see a firewall configuration program that comes in between the absurdly simple standard OSX controls and the full and complex ones of OSX server.
  • pvliii, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3You don't by any chance have anti-virus, firewall, or anti-spyware protection at the network level do you? If you do, you'd *probably* be ok for a while on the client level.
  • mfrieze, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I use:
    Avira
    Comodo
    SUPERAntiSpyware
    works for me and works great
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.