Jump to content



Photo

Free 360 Total Security, not bad at all.


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 08 July 2014 - 20:26


360 Total Security

http://360safe.com/totalsecurity.html

 

10689.jpg

 

 

 

As some of you have noticed, I have been responding to a few av threads regarding my 360 Total Security Experiences. I've always been a fan of Avast, stretching back quite a ways. I've never liked AVG or Microsoft Security Essentials. So a month or so ago I installed 360 Total Security on my dual monitor couch computer in replacement of Avast to try it out.

 

Over all I've been very happy, while Avast is great, I hate the fact you always have to register the stupid thing one a year for reasons I still don't quite understand. They also popup update notifications even though I've told them not to.

 

360 Total security is very Quiet. The only time it nags you about anything is to tell you how fast (or not)your boot time was, but even that is easily disabled via a single check mark box in settings. It does alert you when viruses defs have been updated but they do so via a VERY small unobtrusive bubble, which i'm sure you can turn off.

 

It also uses 5 Scanning Engines

 

360 Cloud Scan Engine

System repair engine (pretty much a junk file cleanup of sorts)

QVMII AI Engine

Bit Defender (optional)

Avira (optional)

 

You turn on Bit Defender and Avira under Virus scan. At the bottom you click on the B and A and move the slider to on.

 

Recently i've replaced Avast with 360 Total Security on most of my computers. I also booted up 2 Windows 7 VM's. One with Avast and one with 360 Total Security. I then proceeded to do what any normal person would do. I did a search for Firefox, Avast and one other application via Google. I then clicked on the very first link I saw which was an ad of course, and proceed to try to install it. By install, I just wanted to see if either would let me start to run the poo pack setup.

 

360 total Security detected and deleted all 3 poo packs.

 

Avast missed all 3 poo packs. I then turned on (or thought I Turned on) PUP detection in avast and it still missed it. Which is strange, because I uploaded all of them to virus total, and virus total told me Avast should have been able to detect one of them.

 

So I would be curious for anyone currently running a Free AV other than 360 total Security to maybe install it and report back to others.

 

 

v1.45




#2 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 08 July 2014 - 20:53

Poo packs?

 

What's memory usage compared to avast? And are there other sites that compare all the engines used? I imagine using all those engines at one time is memory consuming? ( I know, modern systems come with huge amounts of ram and processing power, I just want my AV to be as streamlined as possible)



#3 xendrome

xendrome

    In God We Trust; All Others We Monitor

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 05-December 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 08 July 2014 - 20:55

I dunno I just checked it out, first quick things I noticed.

 

1: It wants to install extra Microsoft KB updates for Windows 8.1 in the "Patch up" section, which are not showing up for me in Windows 8.1 Windows Update.

2: It's trying to tell me under "Speed Up" to disable my Google Software Update services, Adobe Update Service (3rd Party) and then Microsoft stuff it is saying disable "Encrypting File System", "Windows Font Cache Service" ad "Distributed Link Tracking Client" 

 

So it wants me to basically run an outdated version of Chrome/Adobe Reader, that seems safe.

 

Oh also it wants to tweak my MTU, DNS, WINS, etc etc which are all snake-oil settings from Windows 95/98 days.

 

Uninstalled.



#4 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 08 July 2014 - 20:57

Poo packs?

 

What's memory usage compared to avast? And are there other sites that compare all the engines used? I imagine using all those engines at one time is memory consuming? ( I know, modern systems come with huge amounts of ram and processing power, I just want my AV to be as streamlined as possible)

 

Poo packs is a new term, that Neowin (Me) coined for installers that bundle numerous pieces of crap with the installer of something you googled on the internet. The sort of thing you get when you type in avast in firefox and you click on the first ad.

 

You are correct that this AV does use more memory than Avast. It uses more than avast but still less than AVG. At the moment i'm showing 63 megs of memory usage. When checking AVG it was using around 150. Though i'm not noticing any noticeable slow down.



#5 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 25
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:00

If you have comcast, they offer symantecs norton 360 or rebranded to norton security suite for free to their users.

 

http://customer.comc...security-suite/



#6 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:01

If you have comcast, they offer symantecs norton 360 or rebranded to norton security suite for free to their users.

 

http://customer.comc...security-suite/

 

That is another one i've never really liked. I've found the Regular norton AV to be ok but I hate the IS or 360 versions.



#7 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:02

Memory is the least of my concerns with AV. it's the runaway CPU usage a lot of them, Avast and Avira included go on about. 20-30% cpu just to the AV on a 6 core system when downloading something, or worse when patching or installing something, some of these will literally make an install choke and take hours instead of minutes. 



#8 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:02

Poo packs is a new term, that Neowin (Me) coined for installers that bundle numerous pieces of crap with the installer of something you googled on the internet. The sort of thing you get when you type in avast in firefox and you click on the first ad.

 

You are correct that this AV does use more memory than Avast. It uses more than avast but still less than AVG. At the moment i'm showing 63 megs of memory usage. When checking AVG it was using around 150. Though i'm not noticing any noticeable slow down.

Aye IIRC I think i've read a member who has it in his sig.

 

Yeah, I stopped using AVG, because added bloat just kept adding and adding unnecessary bloat.



#9 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:11

That is another one i've never really liked. I've found the Regular norton AV to be ok but I hate the IS or 360 versions.

 

Norton ever since the 2009 version when they finally recovered from the disaster that was 2007 and earlier has been one of the smoothest and most optimized AV's I've run. it did have one hickup where it would make mail retrieval near impossible one and a half to two years back though. 

 

It is the only AV I've used in the last few years that won't do runaway CPU hogging. as for the IS version, I don't mind it's just the AV plus a firewall. I don't care much for the firewall but it's no big deal and can easily be disabled. same witht he 360 which is more or less the only version you can really buy today, anything extra can be disabled. Though some of it can be annoying. And I never saw the point in AV packs to first scan your internet traffic, then your "web" traffic" then your mail traffic, and somewhere in thee memory and HDD activity. basically your poor e-mail gets scanned at LEAST 3 times often 4 or 5 before you get to read it in some of these internet security packages :)


Poo packs is a new term, that Neowin (Me) coined for installers that bundle numerous pieces of crap with the installer of something you googled on the internet. The sort of thing you get when you type in avast in firefox and you click on the first ad.

 

You are correct that this AV does use more memory than Avast. It uses more than avast but still less than AVG. At the moment i'm showing 63 megs of memory usage. When checking AVG it was using around 150. Though i'm not noticing any noticeable slow down.

 

The correct term is a PUP. Potentially Unwanted Program. 



#10 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:12

The correct term is a PUP. Potentially Unwanted Program. 

 

Technically they install PUP's but the installer it's self is a poo pack. Though others call the installers pups.



#11 Deleted Bye

Deleted Bye

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 08 July 2014 - 21:55

i second this assessment, if you are looking the best FREE real-time protection, this 360 total security (roughly ~25 megs) and its full featured 360 total internet security (roughly ~225 megs) is all you ever have to look for. Although it is the best I have tested (of the free a/v's out there) it does miss somethings that Malwarebytes (free scanner) can easily pick up and remove. In 360's defense, all the other major Av's (est, avast, norton, kaspersly etc) missed more then 360. So for a 100% FREE solution, get the 360 + free malwarebytes and feel good for the rest of your day! :)



#12 Luc2k

Luc2k

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 08 July 2014 - 23:10

I dunno I just checked it out, first quick things I noticed.

 

1: It wants to install extra Microsoft KB updates for Windows 8.1 in the "Patch up" section, which are not showing up for me in Windows 8.1 Windows Update.

2: It's trying to tell me under "Speed Up" to disable my Google Software Update services, Adobe Update Service (3rd Party) and then Microsoft stuff it is saying disable "Encrypting File System", "Windows Font Cache Service" ad "Distributed Link Tracking Client" 

 

So it wants me to basically run an outdated version of Chrome/Adobe Reader, that seems safe.

 

Oh also it wants to tweak my MTU, DNS, WINS, etc etc which are all snake-oil settings from Windows 95/98 days.

 

Uninstalled.

Ended up with a similar conclusion when I tried it. I also made the mistake of pressing the "do everything" button which removed several legitimate programs from startup without prompt and with no way of restoring.



#13 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 08 July 2014 - 23:37

Ended up with a similar conclusion when I tried it. I also made the mistake of pressing the "do everything" button which removed several legitimate programs from startup without prompt and with no way of restoring.

 

The 5.0 beta, which i'm using now, does have a details button before you tell it to finish the cleanup so you can see and uncheck what you don't want it to remove.



#14 Raa

Raa

    Resident president

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 03-April 02
  • Location: NSW, Australia

Posted 08 July 2014 - 23:50

Had a bit of fun with this in the past, and now it's on my automatic removal list.

 

I'll stick with ESET's product line-up. (Y)



#15 Kaze23

Kaze23

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 20-January 05
  • Location: Calgary, AB
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64 w/Update 1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5

Posted 08 July 2014 - 23:52

Yeah I gave it a shot. This is crap.