Re: How much "protection" needs to be running all the time?

Jim Byrd wrote: 
Hi optikl - Thanks for the comments.  I'd be interested in knowing just what
parts of what I posted you found redundant, if you wouldn't mind following
up.  You can email me at:  jrbyrd   @    adelphia.net  , if you would,
please.


Just my opinion, but IESpyAd and Javacool's Spyware Blaster basically provide the same kind of protection. When you add a HOSTS file to the mix, I'm just trying to see the real incremental benefit you get from all 3. The problem I think I see with loading up on multiple, overlapping security programs is that, like a patient who loads on on multiple medications to control a problem, there's a sense that this will solve the problem and minimizes any incentive to change behavior.

Spyware and other malware problems aren't like weeds. You treat weeds by proactively administering preventative applications of chemicals. This generally keeps them from showing their ugly heads. There is no necessary behavior change you can make to keep from having a weed problem, other than by administering preventative applications (perhaps changes in mowing *might* help.

With malware, there are behavior changes you can make that are optionally desirable to loading up your system with all kinds of security applications. In the absence of any safe computing regimen, loading up on security utilities gives users a false sense of security, much like the high blood pressure patient who loads up on medication so that they can keep eating chicken fried steak and Big Macs.

Maybe redundant was a poor choice of wording on my part. Maybe superfluous would have been a better choice?
.