Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

[Guest Danger_Duck]

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]

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]

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 \(MVP\)]

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 \(MVP\)]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.·.. >]

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]]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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