Is all in one solution GOOD or BAD

Greeting's

Okay I'm sure everyone is going to have a different view on this one and thats why I want to know everyone's view on this one.

With entry of Microsoft in Antivirus and Anti-spyware "business" many companies having high percent of market share are trying to get more of the "pie".


Now most of you must know that Microsoft is offering "Windows Live OneCare" which has 'everything" a home user needs to protect his PC. Here are some of the package offering's

Quote:

---

* Protection Plus, with its antivirus and antispyware scanners and managed, two-way firewall, helps protect your computer from viruses, worms, Trojan horses, hackers, and other threats. It runs continuously in the background, but you can scan individual files and folders for viruses on demand simply by right-clicking them. You can even scan attachments you receive via Windows Live Messenger or MSN Messenger.
* Performance Plus regularly defragments your hard disk, removes any unnecessary files that can clog your PC, and helps make sure important security updates from Microsoft are installed efficiently and on time.
* Backup and Restore regularly copies your important files and settings to CD, DVD, or external hard disk.
* Instant Support provides online help anytime you need it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

---

For more information please visit : http://www.windowsonecare.com/prodinfo/default.aspx


Now,

Quote:

---

Microsoft describes OneCare Live as a "just take care of it for me" service for consumers.

---

and here is one more

Quote:

---

Ryan Hamlin said the following "Our Windows customers told us that they didn't have the time, or in some cases the expertise, to keep up with the protection and maintenance tasks required to keep their PCs running well"

---

So Microsoft is not just planning to make entry into Anti-virus but also in firewall and backup software (indirectly)

Following their trail Symantec (currently holing 54% market share) and McAfee (currently holding 19% of market share, they are the closest competators to Symantec) have announced launch of new products just like Norton 360 (previously known as genesis) (get more information here : http://www.symantec.com/about/news/r...id=20060531_01).

Hence its clear that almost all major company will try to sell thier upcoming versions as all-in-one solution.

Now after giving out all the information necessary here is my question :

Do you think its best to have a complete security software (solution) which takes care of everything (ALL IN ONE)

or

is it best to choose from different companies (best of breed).

I just voted best of breed because it seems to make more sense to have several different apps doing different things. If one of them goes down, then you will still have the others working. Compared to an all in one package, where if one thing goes down, you lose the lot. The unfortunate downside to this is memory usage; more apps will probably use more memory than a single app.

i would go with qwertymann66,

as one should always have scanners dedicated to ckeck for what ever they are designed for and not the lot.

well....some of the scanners do work in the background and get active if they feel something is out of place

Personally, I'd have to go with best of breed. One thing that I don't like about the "all-in-one" and "just take care of it for me" is the false sense of security such a product can foster to admins and management that are not very security savvy. I'd rather have an antivirus product that I know from experience is reliable. The same for any security application. If they come from different vendors, so be it. If I have to patch manually, so be it. Automation is great, but If I have to trade security for convienence, I choose security.

Just my 2 cents.

I also go for best of breed.
I doubt if a program has so many function, it will do it's job very good.
I like more to install 5 good programs then 1inall decent programs.
I also agree with querty, that if one goes down, you have the other 4
with oneInAll everything could be down.

-phunction

Well these days i prefer to use the all in one type packages, only because it's easier and less time consuming if you can install the one software that will do it all, where as if you use many software to do different things then you have to spend time configuring etc the different apps up.

I for one do not have the time nor resources to do that at the cafe, i have found that it is heck of a lot easier to just use the one software do a quick custom config and move to the next machine, where as when i was using numerous programs to do the different things, i was having to spend longer at each machine..

Thus i'm sure that bigger company's with more resources and staff would be better of doing the opposite.

So i chose the All In One solution..

cheers
f2B

I have to go with diversity. "A jack of all trades, master of none" just doesnt cut it for me.

This is an interesting question.

I can remember when both Microsoft and IBM had antivirus products.............. they dropped out of it in favour of McAfee and Norton. Obviously, the market has blossomed, and Gates is regretting that error of judgement ;)

From an administrative viewpoint the "one stop shop" is attractive in terms of licensing, updating and the rest. However, it is not so good from a security angle as it presents a single target.

I am also rather concerned at how "bloated" these solutions have become; how they hog resources, and the number of conflicts that arise.

On the positive side, they are integrated within themselves, and represent a lower TCO than independent solutions.

:)

Quote:

---

From an administrative viewpoint the "one stop shop" is attractive in terms of licensing, updating and the rest. However, it is not so good from a security angle as it presents a single target.

---

True, multiple vendors to some extent could increase you defense in depth.

BUT...

Also consider that multiple solution from a single vendor will (should) be made to work together so will not introduce the same risk of incmpatability that the best of breed options might.

And every different piece of software you introduce into a network carries additional risks just by it's presence. The more stuff you have, the greater the risk of a vulnerability from that stuff.

Nihils mention of licencing is probably the ultimate point in business for purchasing software.

If it can be bought from the same supplier, possibly under the same licencing and support, probably with a discount for taking another product, probably all products are integrated and guarenteed to work together.
All of that probably outweighs the benefits from defense in depth.

I guess you need to look at the "market" side of things as well?

From an OEM (Dell, IBM, HP) side of things, dealing with Microsoft for an integrated "bundle" of software would probably make sound economic sense.

Also, we need to consider the type of "home user"?

"Granny" would probably be better off with the integrated package that updates itself. The impoverished IT student would probably prefer to use freeware from a variety of sources?

From a small OEM viewpoint, I think that it would be attractive as well, as it would save us time and allow more competitive pricing?

:)

Interesting topic indeed. One that I think warrants my long-winded explanations.

( Keep in mind that this is time based, and may not be accurate a year from now, even six months. )

On the one hand:

I don't like integrated solutions.
I did not like when they put a turntable together with a tuner, tape decks ( sometimes a cassette and eight track, later dual cassettes, ) and amplifier.
I did not like when the radio was integrated into the car with the controls on the steering wheel.
I did not like the idea of a phone integrated into a car.

As indicated before by others, when one fails they all fail. The repair or replacement costs ( and sometimes the operating costs ) outweigh the initial savings to the consumer.

On the other hand:

( history )
I have been using products from Trend Micro for years, long before they were even distributing it in the U.S. themselves ( they had contracted another company to do so. )

I, like nihil, used the original Microsoft antivirus solution before this, but they dropped it, and support for it ( I think there were reasons other then nihil implied as I recall, but that is not relevant here. But I agree, it was a major blunder on their part. )

I decided on this brand after examining all the others at the time, which were blotted, slow in response, and lacked compatibility with other software, etc. Trend's solutions seemed to work the best.

There was a very rocky period when the license agreement of the other company ran out that was licensed to distribute Trend's products in the U.S. and Trend took it back over, but that was understandable, IMO.
( /history )

I currently use PC-cillin Internet Security
I repair a lot of boxes for people, often using other solutions, ( well, so far none using Trend Solutions which have been updated regularly, but some with none at all, ) and still find the others solutions overly blotted, lack compatibility, etc. Each time I find my initial decision to stick with Trend was correct.
And yes, I also experiment routinely with the others, checking available resources, etc., just to keep myself abreast.

Disclaimer here: My above findings may be the result of a superior product ( which I believe it is or I wouldn't be paying for and using it, ) but it may also be so do to Trend Micro's marketing strategy, or lack thereof.
At this time, and for several years, in my area a consumer can not go to a store and purchase their products off the shelf.
Distribution was limited to specific resellers ( good for corporations, ) or via the net, which I don't purchase anything from. To say the least it was a hassle for me to obtain licenses in the past, but I believe in keeping things legal.
The situation may change as I have noticed that now some major computer manufacturers have recently been including Trend products with their systems.

Anyway, back to the topic.

Although I have used Trend's integrated solution for a number of years, I have always shut off everything but the antivirus portion ( which is where I think they shine ) and used solutions ( firewall, spam, etc., ) from other vendors, until recently.

I have recently found the need to utilize the firewall portion of the Trend integrated solution, though my son has been using it for a while. Although it seems to work exactly as I wish, easily configured, I found it not so intuitive to set up. The average user would either not bother or shut it off completely.
I have also found the other aspects of it to be not as complete as other available solutions, and found the need to run them as well.

So to sum up what I am saying, no integrated solution at this time ( even Trend's ) would cause me to recommend using and relying upon it solely.

As far as Microsoft?
They bailed out of this area years ago and concentrated on the OS and other add on features to make things easier with no regard for security, and since have not been able to get these systems right as far as security. Why should I, or anyone else consider them for such an integrated security solution until they fix what they chose specialize in? No mater the ease, why should we trust them ( WGA ring a bell ? )

Just my thoughts, FWIW.

"God" boxes are the marraige of two forces -- lack of manpower and security market warfare.

You, the customer, never have enough man power. This was realized as the security sector was being carved up among those fighting for dominance. As these companies sucked up excellent point solution providers, their marketing people spun this out as a major benefit to you because vendor X can provide all of your perimeter services in a single box that requires no maintenance.

And now, reality. You don't have to look far (erm, Symantec) to see how this idea, while in a vacuum is wonderful, but in reality sucks big hose. Many times, all in one boxes do many things pretty good and nothing excellent. They also require some type of maintenance in the form of OS upgrades. Early versions of these beasts were particularly annoying because you had to upgrade them with a CD instead of live updates.

Anyway, that's the cut down version of how these things came into existance. Now, which is better? That's easy. Whichever one fits your requirements better. All roads begin with requirements. As F2B mentioned, he had a requirement for less boxes to maintain. God boxes fit the requirement. Problem solved.

Happy 4th. Time to go prepare the munitions...

--TH13

Greeting's

After reading all the post it seems to me as choosing which package depends on lot of factors. Also it is very hard to conclude that a particular type of package is good for all types of users.

But the way it seems to me is industry is taking a turn on its own and users may not have much choice . This is where commerce comes into picture. Till date Symantec sold its package differently as antivirus or firewall or both or both plus system utilities, But by the looks they are going to concentrate on the last choice (Anti-virus + firewall + utilities) more then just individual development.

I know most of the world has free market economy but it isn't there is practice. Although you can turn off the firewall in a particular package but when you install firewall from another developer how sure can you be that they will not conflict (to whatever extent). I saw this coming a long time back with Zonealarm started selling anti-virus with their firewall. At the very beginning when I tested it I found it completely useless. Also most of the users here (at antionline) I think must be using BEST OF BREED products. But as Nihil pointed out that for some users its better to have all in one product so it becomes easy but hardly anyone will agree on this same reason for themselves here because for us security is more important then just clicking update and getting everything update. I've also seen a trend where most of the developers are making their security products easy to use but when you see the options they provide very less security in their default configuration.

Coming back to reality (or the future possiblity) I see most of the developers giving more attention on ALL IN ONE product and giving less attention on INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS. I'm not sure if that's the best thing to do. They may do this to achieve complete market dominance but in turn providing less security.

Like I said it in the end boils down to Commerce, for example Sygate firewall (now taken over by Symantec) if there are no options available what can the user do ? But I think this is still to far fetched and *MAY* not happen.

Also deciding which product to buy depends on your requirements too....... And we can just keep on going....

me would go for the specialists.

would you like SWAT to handle a tricky situation or the patrol guy?

I always feel microsoft is trying to bully itself into all businesses.

Quote:

---

Do you think its best to have a complete security software (solution) which takes care of everything (ALL IN ONE)?

---

All-in-One is a bit of a misnomer, as it implies you'll need nothing else for securing your PC. Circumstances will inevitably arise (i.e., when you get infected) you'll need more than an all-in-one. The fact is, all-in-one or not, nothing's going to make you bulletproof when it come to viruses and spyware, especially on a multi-user machine.

A buddy of mine runs a small PC shop (a dying breed he is) and sells a lot of McAfee's suite. I see PC's he installed it on routinely returned infected.

Another problem with all-in-ones is they're going to run crappy on older machines. Go out and buy Norton's Internet Security Suite and then install it on a 5-year-old computer. LOL!

In defense of all-in-ones, it makes it easier for many, many users to put in place basic protection, much of which is pretty good. But again, basic protection is just that...basic.

Perhaps my biggest gripe with all-in-ones is...it's a marketing gimmick. Consumers are lulled (and stupified). The more things change, the more they stay the same.