Guest Danger_Duck Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Here's my perspective: I use the internet almost exclusively to: 1. Check e-mail 2. Check facebook 3. Read/post in newsgroups 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) 5. Watch youtube videos. 6. Occasionally download files. I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand? The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost money. Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? Thanks in advance for your input.
Guest Alias Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input. You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend Micro. Save your money and get Avast at http://www.avast.com. Enable the Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the hard firewall enabled. You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself. Alias
Guest AlmostBob Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? No If there is a problem the problem will most likely block you accessing the tools to remove it Macafee is crapware, remove and replace with something that works Email scanning is unneccessary and should be disabled A way large proportion of viruses are spread in "files somebody I know sent me" -- Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de spybot http://www.safer-networking.org AVG free antivirus http://www.grisoft.com Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.pandasoftware.com/ActiveScan/ Catalog of removal tools (1) http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/ Catalog of removal tools (2) http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387 Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before use Grateful thanks to the authors and webmasters _ "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com... > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" > sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url > make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent > me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for > viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input.
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com... > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" > sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url > make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent > me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for > viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input. You did not tell us how you connect to the Internet. If it's via a modem then you will get hacked in no time at all without a firewall. If it's via an ADSL router or similar then you have some reasonably good basic firewall protection. Not having virus protection makes your show risky. One wrong click and you're history.
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? "AlmostBob" <anonymous1@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%234Op1otAJHA.2056@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > No > If there is a problem the problem will most likely block you accessing the > tools to remove it Is this a self-blocking problem? Or a self-blocking virus, i.e. one that prevents itself from spreading?
Guest R. McCarty Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? All security measures only mitigate the risk. Everything has some kind of consequence. AV software will always impact performance. Other things like Firewalls require decisions on what to allow and disallow. A strict list of uses of a computer/internet guarantees nothing. The threats change daily. These days it's not so much the OS that is attacked as it is 3rd-party applications ( Java....) used on it. McAfee isn't one of the better choices for protection ( Compared to other products ). Behavior does increase risk ( Poker Games, Emoticons ) but you can never be assured that what you do use & access is safe. Even with protections you are exposed ( Zero Day Threats ). Whatever steps you take - you're still exposed to threats no matter what sites and services you make use of. It will always be a trade off, reaching a higher level of security verses a loss of performance. "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com... > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" > sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url > make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent > me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for > viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input.
Guest Danger_Duck Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)? I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or unknowingly) I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor. "Alias" wrote: > Danger_Duck wrote: > > Here's my perspective: > > > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > > 1. Check e-mail > > 2. Check facebook > > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > > 5. Watch youtube videos. > > 6. Occasionally download files. > > > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make > > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > > attachments/downloads on demand? > > > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > > > Thanks in advance for your input. > > You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend > Micro. Save your money and get Avast at http://www.avast.com. Enable the > Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the > hard firewall enabled. > > You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program > if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you > should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself. > > Alias >
Guest HeyBub Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about > "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any > facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only > click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of > virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most > of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I > know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that > will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only > takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip > files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much > longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost > money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal > tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input. Your "friend" may have a virus that surreptitiously sends a copy of itself to everybody on your "friend's" mailing list. It's like sex; when you accept an email, you're simultaneously exposing yourself to everybody the sender has had email contact with. You can get infected without doing anything by the simple expedient of malicious port scans. Some goblin scans for every open port on your IP address and, finding one, BINGO! There are various time intervals reported for infection of an unprotected machine. I think the most common reported time is less than a minute.
Guest Alias Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Danger_Duck wrote: > How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not > "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)? > I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask > for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or > unknowingly) > I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken > over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor. No firewall, open computer. That simple. A hacker can get into it and put viruses and other malware to their heart's content. You may think you're visiting a safe site but that doesn't mean you are. If you haven't been using even the Windows firewall, your computer is probably compromised and I would download Avast and do a boot scan ASAP and also run the Spybot and Superantispyware programs but, hey, it's your computer, do what you want. Alias > > "Alias" wrote: > >> Danger_Duck wrote: >>> Here's my perspective: >>> >>> I use the internet almost exclusively to: >>> 1. Check e-mail >>> 2. Check facebook >>> 3. Read/post in newsgroups >>> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) >>> 5. Watch youtube videos. >>> 6. Occasionally download files. >>> >>> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites >>> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), >>> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make >>> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). >>> >>> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my >>> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. >>> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan >>> attachments/downloads on demand? >>> >>> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes >>> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses >>> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to >>> slowing down my computer, they also cost money. >>> >>> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at >>> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your input. >> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend >> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at http://www.avast.com. Enable the >> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the >> hard firewall enabled. >> >> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program >> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you >> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself. >> >> Alias >>
Guest Gerry Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Sooner or later you will have to rename yourself Dead_Duck! You can get reasonable anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes for free so why play russian roulette? -- ~~~~ Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about > "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any > facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only > click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of > virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most > of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I > know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that > will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only > takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip > files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much > longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost > money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal > tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input.
Guest smlunatick Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? On Aug 20, 5:07 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote: > Danger_Duck wrote: > > Here's my perspective: > > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > > 1. Check e-mail > > 2. Check facebook > > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > > 5. Watch youtube videos. > > 6. Occasionally download files. > > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about > > "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any > > facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only > > click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of > > virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most > > of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I > > know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that > > will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand? > > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only > > takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip > > files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much > > longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost > > money. > > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal > > tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > > Thanks in advance for your input. > > Your "friend" may have a virus that surreptitiously sends a copy of itself > to everybody on your "friend's" mailing list. It's like sex; when you accept > an email, you're simultaneously exposing yourself to everybody the sender > has had email contact with. > > You can get infected without doing anything by the simple expedient of > malicious port scans. Some goblin scans for every open port on your IP > address and, finding one, BINGO! There are various time intervals reported > for infection of an unprotected machine. I think the most common reported > time is less than a minute. I have also seen a virus (MS Blaster) arrive on a PC that was not protected. No browser or email was opened. The PC was just connected to the Internet.
Guest Ken Blake Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com... > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail Do you read HTML E-mail? If so, you are susceptible to attacks within that HTML. > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups Again, in HTML? > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" > sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url > make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent > me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for > viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. Some cost money; others (including some of the best ones) are free Some slow down your computer; others have an unnoticeable effect on performance. You've chosen to use one of the poorest anti-virusprograms available. Only Norton is worse than McAfee. > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? Maybe, maybe not. Do not assume that a virus infection is simply a nuisance, that can be removed. Most of these things are designed to do irrevocable damage to your files. Any many are extremely difficult to remove. Prevention is far better than eradication. There are those who run without any kind of security software at all, and recommend the same to others. My view is that they are foolhardy, and if they recommend doing this, they are irresponsible. Yes, if you are savvy enough to know all the things you shouldn't do, and exercise great care in everything you do do, it may be possible to remain secure without running security software. But none of us is perfect, and there is always risk of letting your guard down when you are tired, drunk, had a hard day at work, had a fight with your spouse, etc. I think running without security software is foolhardy. Everyone should always use a firewall, an anti-virus program, and two or more anti-spyware programs.
Guest db.·.. > Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? it's rare that people get infected because they ask for a virus. instead, the strategy of the infection is to gain access in a covert manner. one would have to be a genius to know how to avoid being infected because the creators of the infections are themselves evil genius's that want to destroy the data or greedy genius's wanting access to your computer. there are all kinds of infections so there are different places on the computer that require protection. so there is never a 100% assurance that all infections can be prevented or eliminated because the evil genius's become more creative. the best thing to do is to protect yourself from the most common varieties of infections that are found almost everywhere on the internet and in software. it is also necessary to be prepared in the event of becoming infected. for example, do you keep copies of your personal pictures, documents, emails in a safe place like a cd or dvd? do you have a backup of your hard drive or the system? if not, then you should change your handle to Sitting_Duck, because you are the perfect person that the underground wants to compromise and they are probably reading your posting at this time. here is more info: http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/default.mspx -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:447BB61B-BCA9-4F3C-8A86-1CF8D11BAA13@microsoft.com... > How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not > "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)? > I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask > for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or > unknowingly) > I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken > over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor. > > "Alias" wrote: > >> Danger_Duck wrote: >> > Here's my perspective: >> > >> > I use the internet almost exclusively to: >> > 1. Check e-mail >> > 2. Check facebook >> > 3. Read/post in newsgroups >> > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) >> > 5. Watch youtube videos. >> > 6. Occasionally download files. >> > >> > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites >> > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), >> > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make >> > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). >> > >> > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my >> > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. >> > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan >> > attachments/downloads on demand? >> > >> > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes >> > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses >> > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to >> > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. >> > >> > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at >> > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? >> > >> > Thanks in advance for your input. >> >> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend >> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at http://www.avast.com. Enable the >> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the >> hard firewall enabled. >> >> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program >> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you >> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself. >> >> Alias >>
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Firewall: *absolutely*! AV: Better to have it and not need it then the other way around. Anti-spyware (e.g., Defender): Ditto. Protect Your PC! http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/computer/default.mspx Learn how to protect your PC by taking three simple steps http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=3AD23728-4973-4DA5-9836-602954130D38 > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail Attachments and links in emails are a major source of infections! > 2. Check facebook A major source of infections! > 3. Read/post in newsgroups If you read all messages in Plain Text and do not open any attachments, you should be OK. > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) Even those sites can contain malvertizements that could infect your machine! > 5. Watch youtube videos. Flash is a major source of infections! > 6. Occasionally download files. Depends on the source; ideally, such files should be scanned prior to being opened/used. Benefits & Risks of P2P File Sharing http://www.microsoft.com/protect/yourself/downloads/filesharing.mspx -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" > sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url > make sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent > me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for > viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input.
Guest John Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uFu1mGuAJHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > Sooner or later you will have to rename yourself Dead_Duck! > > You can get reasonable anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes for free so > why play russian roulette? because his name is "Danger" *doh* :-) > > -- > ~~~~ > > > Gerry > ~~~~ > FCA > Stourport, England > Enquire, plan and execute > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Danger_Duck wrote: >> Here's my perspective: >> >> I use the internet almost exclusively to: >> 1. Check e-mail >> 2. Check facebook >> 3. Read/post in newsgroups >> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) >> 5. Watch youtube videos. >> 6. Occasionally download files. >> >> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about >> "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any >> facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only >> click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of >> virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). >> >> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most >> of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I >> know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that >> will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand? >> >> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only >> takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip >> files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much >> longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost >> money. >> >> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal >> tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? >> >> Thanks in advance for your input. > >
Guest Danger_Duck Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Ok-like I said, I have McAfee (I hate it), so it's not like I have no protection right now. On that note, can anyone recommend a good, free virus-scanner/firewall that does not slow down running time significantly (by which I mean I can CHOOSE whether to scan downloaded files rather than it automatically doing so, and I KNOW if virus scan is running in the background so I can pause it or shut it off). Thanks again for all the tips. I'm still not quite sure how a computer that's simply connected to the internet can get infected without the user doing something (how did bad guy X find my comp in the first place?), but I'll take your word for it. "Ken Blake" wrote: > "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com... > > > Here's my perspective: > > > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > > 1. Check e-mail > > > Do you read HTML E-mail? If so, you are susceptible to attacks within that > HTML. > > > > 2. Check facebook > > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > > > Again, in HTML? > > > > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > > 5. Watch youtube videos. > > 6. Occasionally download files. > > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" > > sites > > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url > > make > > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent > > me. > > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > > attachments/downloads on demand? > > > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for > > viruses > > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > > Some cost money; others (including some of the best ones) are free Some slow > down your computer; others have an unnoticeable effect on performance. > > You've chosen to use one of the poorest anti-virusprograms available. Only > Norton is worse than McAfee. > > > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > > Maybe, maybe not. Do not assume that a virus infection is simply a nuisance, > that can be removed. Most of these things are designed to do irrevocable > damage to your files. Any many are extremely difficult to remove. Prevention > is far better than eradication. > > There are those who run without any kind of security software at all, and > recommend the same to others. My view is that they are foolhardy, and if > they recommend doing this, they are irresponsible. Yes, if you are savvy > enough to know all the things you shouldn't do, and exercise great care in > everything you do do, it may be possible to remain secure without running > security software. But none of us is perfect, and there is always risk of > letting your guard down when you are tired, drunk, had a hard day at work, > had a fight with your spouse, etc. > > I think running without security software is foolhardy. Everyone should > always use a firewall, an anti-virus program, and two or more anti-spyware > programs. > > >
Guest John Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:19D0FEA2-884B-4F2F-A82B-6D5EB23084D1@microsoft.com... > On that note, can anyone recommend a good, free virus-scanner/firewall > that > does not slow down running time significantly (by which I mean I can > CHOOSE > whether to scan downloaded files rather than it automatically doing so, > and I > KNOW if virus scan is running in the background so I can pause it or shut > it > off). Free AV choices are: Avira Antivir Avast AVG > I'm still not quite sure how a computer > that's simply connected to the internet can get infected without the user > doing something (how did bad guy X find my comp in the first place?) Port scanning on a range of IP addresses and see which ones respond. This is followed by an attack on an unpatched vulnerability on the PC. An unpatched Windows exposed on the internet with no firewall may be infected in a matter of minutes/hours. You don't have to do anything other than turning the PC on and have it connect to the internet with no firewall and no security patches. Try it yourself with a spare PC.
Guest Frank Church Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input. A good backup scheme is critical to antivirus and spyware protection. Keep your data files in a separate partition. There are some UI settings and also some registry settings that allow you to store most of your critical data on a separate partition, My Documents and the files in the Document and Settings folder, such as D: or E: drive. If you get a serious infection you can restore from a previous backup and still have most of your data intact, or reinstall Windows and your programs. But run an AV check on the data partition as well. Something like Acronis True Image will stand you in good stead. /frank
Guest N. Miller Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:14:59 +0200, Alias wrote: > Danger_Duck wrote: >> "Alias" wrote: >>> Danger_Duck wrote: >>>> Here's my perspective: >>>> >>>> I use the internet almost exclusively to: >>>> 1. Check e-mail >>>> 2. Check facebook >>>> 3. Read/post in newsgroups >>>> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) >>>> 5. Watch youtube videos. >>>> 6. Occasionally download files. >>>> >>>> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites >>>> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), >>>> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make >>>> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). >>>> >>>> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my >>>> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. >>>> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan >>>> attachments/downloads on demand? >>>> >>>> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes >>>> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses >>>> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to >>>> slowing down my computer, they also cost money. >>>> >>>> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at >>>> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? >>> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend >>> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at http://www.avast.com. Enable the >>> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the >>> hard firewall enabled. >>> >>> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program >>> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you >>> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself. >> How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not >> "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)? >> I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask >> for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or >> unknowingly) >> I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken >> over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor. > No firewall, open computer. That simple. Not quite that simple. > A hacker can get into it and put viruses and other malware to their heart's > content. A hacker needs a point of access to place viruses and other malware on a computer. No open ports, no points of access, firewall, or not. Ports are opened by services, including "File and Printer sharing for Microsoft Windows". Disable the services, and there are no open ports, no points of access; even without a firewall. > You may think you're visiting a safe site but that doesn't mean you are. > If you haven't been using even the Windows firewall... Not even the Windows firewall can do much when you visit a web site. The moment you connect your browser to a web site, you give whatever access permissions are set in your browser to that web site, even with a firewall in place. Secure browsing depends upon a secure browser. No firewall can stop what the browser allows, unless it actually stops the browser from accessing the site. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Guest N. Miller Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:25:01 -0700, Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > and spam/phishing e-mails... > (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks... | http://ws.copernic.com/copern/ws/results/0/facebook%20vulnerabilities/1/417/topnavigation/Relevance/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true Just because you aren't looking doesn't mean there isn't anything to look for... > (2), newsgroups are simply http requests... Wrong. Newsgroups use the NNTP protocol. Just because *you* use a browser to access an HTTP-to-NNTP site doesn't change that. > (3), I only click on links whose url make sense... I can make any URL "make sense" to you; even a dangerous one. (4), (5). ...and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube... | http://ws.copernic.com/copern/ws/results/0/youtube%20malware/1/417/topnavigation/Relevance/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true Just because you aren't looking doesn't mean there isn't anything to look for... > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. There are better AV applications than McAfee. Even free ones. AVG (from Grisoft), and Avast (from Alwil). > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? If you are ever compromised, then restoration from a known good disk image is probably your best option. But isn't prevention easier than curing? As for the firewall issue: If Windows did not start up with a number of potentially vulnerable services running, you wouldn't need a firewall. But Windows installs, right out of the box, with a number of vulnerable services running. People have put a computer with a fresh install of Windows, no patches, or firewalls, directly on the Internet, just to watch what happens. Compromise takes less than 60 seconds. Windows 9x systems are fairly easy to lock down without a firewall (but you need to do it *before* connecting to the Internet); Windows XP and later are not so easy. OTOH, even when you are locked down, the moment you start accessing the Internet with clients (including web browsers), you are exposing your computer to potential malicious activity. If you like all that nifty interactive stuff, like Facebook and YouTube offer, you are probably running JavaScript and Flash. You are allowing the sites you visit permission to do stuff on your computer. You are asking for trouble if you don't take prophylactic measures while doing do. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Guest FredP Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:23:12 -0700, "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote: Snipped ..... > >> No firewall, open computer. That simple. > >Not quite that simple. > >> A hacker can get into it and put viruses and other malware to their heart's >> content. > >A hacker needs a point of access to place viruses and other malware on a >computer. No open ports, no points of access, firewall, or not. Ports are >opened by services, including "File and Printer sharing for Microsoft >Windows". Disable the services, and there are no open ports, no points of >access; even without a firewall. Have a look at http://www.grc.com/intro.htm and do the ShieldsUp test. Your computer is tested for open ports. Greetings, FredP
Guest FredP Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:25:01 -0700, Danger_Duck <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Here's my perspective: > >I use the internet almost exclusively to: >1. Check e-mail >2. Check facebook >3. Read/post in newsgroups >4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) >5. Watch youtube videos. >6. Occasionally download files. > >I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites >and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), >newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make >sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > >As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my >downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. >And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan >attachments/downloads on demand? > >The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes >time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses >every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to >slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > >Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at >that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > >Thanks in advance for your input. I use Avast! antivirus and Comodo firewall. Also running is BOClean which last month catched something that slipped through. Wow. BOClean is a program that every 10 seconds tests which programs are active by using a signature data base: 60213 trojans are covered in the current file. Updates every 2-3 days and is freeware. It does not slow down your machine. Have a look at http://www.comodo.com/boclean/boclean.html Here is an old review (2004) explaining the principles: http://www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com/review-boclean.htm In the summary the reviewer sees the absence of disk file scanner as a minus point. He missed the idea behind BOClean; not preemptive but a catcher in the act. Enjoy & take care, FredP
Guest sgopus Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 RE: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? your info is considerably limited, as I was just reading an article about frame injected malware on facebook sites, so yes you need AV and firewall protection asa well as malware and spyware protection, hardware firewalls are good, but still you need to watch for the occasional engineered e-mail to trick you. "Danger_Duck" wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > > Thanks in advance for your input.
Guest Kayman Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:25:01 -0700, Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail > 2. Check facebook > 3. Read/post in newsgroups > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) > 5. Watch youtube videos. > 6. Occasionally download files. > > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. McAfee Consumer Product Removal Tool 2.0.155.1 ....Will remove all 2005, 2006, and 2007 versions of McAfee consumer products. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/Uninstallers/McAfee-Consumer-Product-Removal-Tool.shtml Excellent alternative: Avira AntiVir® Personal - FREE Antivirus http://www.free-av.com/ (The free version won't scan your emails.) Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to Scan Your E-Mail http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm Ensure your e-mail program is configured to display e-mail messages in 'Plain Text' only. You may wish to consider removing the 'AntiVir Nagscreen' http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? *Security is a process not a product*. (Bruce Schneier) For Win XP the most dependable defenses are: 1. Do not work as Administrator; For day-to-day work routinely use a Limited User Account (LUA). 2. Secure (Harden) your operating system. 3. Don't expose services to public networks. 4. Keep your operating (OS) system (and all software on it)updated/patched. (Got SP3 yet?). 5. Reconsider the usage of IE and OE. 5a.Secure (Harden) Internet Explorer. 6. Review your installed 3rd party software applications/utilities; Remove clutter, *including* 3rd party software personal (so-called) firewall application (PFW) - the one which claims: "It can stop/control malicious outbound traffic". 7. If on dial-up Internet connection, activate the build-in firewall and configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135,137-139 and 445 (the most exploited Windows networking weak point) closed. 7a.If on high-speed Internet connection use a router. For the average homeuser it is suggested blocking both TCP and UDP ports 135 ~ 139 and 445 on the router and implement countermeasures against DNSChanger. (Is the Firmware of your router up-to-date?). And (just in case) Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) has been superseded by Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA). 8. Routinely practice Safe-Hex. Also, ensure you do: a. Regularly back-up data/files. b. Familiarize yourself with crash recovery tools and re-installing your operating system (OS). c. Utilize a good-quality real-time anti-virus application and some vital system monitoring utilities/applications. d. Keep abreast of the latest developments. And finally: Most computer magazines and/or (computer) specialized websites are *biased* i.e. heavily weighted towards the (advertisement) dollar almighty! Therefore: a. Be cautious selecting software applications touted in publications relying on advertisement revenue. b. Do take their *test-results* of various software with a *considerable* amount of salt! c. Which also applies to their *investigative* in-depth test reports related to any software applications. d. Investigate claims made by software manufacturer *prior* downloading their software; Subscribing to noncommercial-type publications, specialized newsgroups and/or fora (to some extend) are a great way to find out the 'nitty-gritties' and to consider various options available. The least preferred defenses are: Myriads of popular anti-whatever applications and staying ignorant.
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary? Danger_Duck wrote: > Here's my perspective: > > I use the internet almost exclusively to: > 1. Check e-mail ... A constant source of malware delivery. > 2. Check facebook ... An occasional source of malware infestations, just like MySpace, or any other social networking site with loose controls. The administrators try to keep them clean, but things slip through every now and then. > 3. Read/post in newsgroups If you're using a text-based news-reader, exclusively, and never downloading images or binaries, that's mostly safe. > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia) Anyone can post to Wikipedia, so anything can be encountered there.... > 5. Watch youtube videos. Another common source of malware, embedded in videos and some advertisements. > 6. Occasionally download files. > A frequent source of malware. > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), So? That's got *NOTHING* to do with protecting you from malware. > I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2), That doesn't mean they haven't or can't happen.... > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5). Now you're really out of touch. > > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. Yes, a big one. > But most of my > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me. > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan > attachments/downloads on demand? > Sure, but, just like any other AV solution, they need tpo be installed and running, first. > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). So, you're annoyed that McAfee is doing exactly what it's designed to do? That's the whole point of using an AV. Granted, McAfee is probably one of the worst examples of AV software there is. > In addition to > slowing down my computer, they also cost money. > There are many free alternatives, most of which won't slow down a computer as much as Norton's or McAfee's bloatware will. > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data? > Your choice, of course, if you don't mind wasting time unnecessarily. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." There are several essential components to computer security: a knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly configured firewall, reliable and up-to-date antivirus software, and the prompt repair (via patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known vulnerabilities. The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the computer user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be no harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the inclination or desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All too few people keep their antivirus software current, install patches in a timely manner, or stop to really think about that cutesy link they're about to click. Firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be running, are important components of "safe hex," but they cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to secure his/her own computer. To learn more about practicing "safe hex," start with these links: Protect Your PC http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/default.asp Home Computer Security http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/ List of Antivirus Software Vendors http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;49500 Home PC Firewall Guide http://www.firewallguide.com/ Scumware.com http://www.scumware.com/ -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
Recommended Posts