Guest Roger Fink Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection [snip] > Emphatically agree, but would add that with 98, 98SE, you need to > deal with this: > http://www.avast.com/eng/webshield_issues.html#idt_6869 > > which you can do by viewing these: > > http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ieproxy.htm > http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ffproxy.htm And for IE dial-up: http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ieproxy_dialup.htm [snip]
Guest dph Posted November 18, 2007 Posted November 18, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection PA bear, why don't like AVG? "PA Bear" wrote: > <IMHO> > > 1. Uninstall NIS via Add/Remove Programs. > > 2. Run the Norton Removal Tool (Win98/WinME version): > http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039 > > 3. Install ANY reliable anti-virus application OTHER THAN Norton AntiVirus > or McAfee VirusScan. I do not recommend AVG Anti-Virus (Free or Pro). > > 4. Install a firewall that's _supported in Win98_ (e.g., > http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/download.php). > > </IMHO> > -- > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) > MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User) > AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org > > lutra wrote: > > Hello, > > I am STILL running Windows 98SE and have been using NORTON INTERNET > > SECURITY. So far without too many hitches.......but it is time for a new > > subscription and curious whether anyone out there has any other positive > > suggestions??? > >
Guest glee Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection Have a look here: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_thread/thread/e3ebca0a07280daa?hl=en&tvc=2 -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+ "dph" <dph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4298DA90-20B8-4505-B483-F610B626074D@microsoft.com... > PA bear, > why don't like AVG? > > "PA Bear" wrote: > >> <IMHO> >> >> 1. Uninstall NIS via Add/Remove Programs. >> >> 2. Run the Norton Removal Tool (Win98/WinME version): >> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039 >> >> 3. Install ANY reliable anti-virus application OTHER THAN Norton AntiVirus >> or McAfee VirusScan. I do not recommend AVG Anti-Virus (Free or Pro). >> >> 4. Install a firewall that's _supported in Win98_ (e.g., >> http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/download.php). >> >> </IMHO> >> -- >> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) >> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User) >> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org >> >> lutra wrote: >> > Hello, >> > I am STILL running Windows 98SE and have been using NORTON INTERNET >> > SECURITY. So far without too many hitches.......but it is time for a new >> > subscription and curious whether anyone out there has any other positive >> > suggestions??? >> >>
Guest MEB Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection Okay, so what was the point of directing to that... if one checks one can find failures for every Anti-v at some point. It is an imperfect world, which changes with each outside effect. For instance, when the servers of the world were taken down a few years ago by virus, which anti-v progs did not fail,,, and why didn't they... when Love was rampant, which ones worked perfectly from the start, any??? ,,, seems every program needs a hotfix if the virus is new or has been significantly modified... I saw no discussion related to the circumstances involved [which appears to relate to the supposed failure of AVG to protect two Sororities or something], the actual usage [i.e., were the systems used in EXACTLY the same fashion and at the same sites, etc.]. Seems more like an improperly configured network, or perhaps a failure to properly configure the program, or lack of update.. for instance, was AVG configured to just use definitions or were heuristics being used... was on access properly configured or were just supposed infectable files being scanned ... was the email scanner turned on or off, and were the ports properly configured ... To base a choice upon those limited aspects within that discussion, leaves one with nothing much more than personal choice of users, direction to the standard issues of what works best in certain circumstances, hardly a definitive work on the subject, moreover, here's the question: could there be an actual work of that nature, who would be so bold to make such a claim which could stand review. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________ "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:e458lBkKIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | Have a look here: | http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_thread/thread/e3ebca0a07280daa?hl=en&tvc=2 | -- | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+ | | | "dph" <dph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message | news:4298DA90-20B8-4505-B483-F610B626074D@microsoft.com... | > PA bear, | > why don't like AVG? | > | > "PA Bear" wrote: | > | >> <IMHO> | >> | >> 1. Uninstall NIS via Add/Remove Programs. | >> | >> 2. Run the Norton Removal Tool (Win98/WinME version): | >> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039 | >> | >> 3. Install ANY reliable anti-virus application OTHER THAN Norton AntiVirus | >> or McAfee VirusScan. I do not recommend AVG Anti-Virus (Free or Pro). | >> | >> 4. Install a firewall that's _supported in Win98_ (e.g., | >> http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/download.php). | >> | >> </IMHO> | >> -- | >> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) | >> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User) | >> AumHa VSOP & Admin; DTS-L.org | >> | >> lutra wrote: | >> > Hello, | >> > I am STILL running Windows 98SE and have been using NORTON INTERNET | >> > SECURITY. So far without too many hitches.......but it is time for a new | >> > subscription and curious whether anyone out there has any other positive | >> > suggestions??? | >> | >> |
Guest MEB Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection Alright, so what was Pa referring to? These: C:\PROGRAM FILES\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGCC.EXE C:\PROGRAM FILES\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGAMSVR.EXE O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [AVG7_CC] C:\PROGRA~1\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGCC.EXE /STARTUP O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [AVG7_AMSVR] C:\PROGRA~1\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGAMSVR.EXE -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Guest glee Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Ov9EqfmKIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uzWdEqmKIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... The Original Poster (OP) posted asking Robear why he didn't like AVG anti-virus. I posted a link to a thread where Robear (and some of his colleagues in the security newsgroup) mentioned their reasons for not recommending it. That's pretty simple to follow, I thought. It refers the OP to a discussion about exactly what he requested....why doesn't Robear like AVG. While their discussion is largely anecdotal, it is based on rather extensive experiences beyond the simple sorority girls story mentioned. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
Guest MEB Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Re: virus/firewall protection "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:O$iJgwmKIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:Ov9EqfmKIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:uzWdEqmKIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | | The Original Poster (OP) posted asking Robear why he didn't like AVG anti-virus. I | posted a link to a thread where Robear (and some of his colleagues in the security | newsgroup) mentioned their reasons for not recommending it. | | That's pretty simple to follow, I thought. It refers the OP to a discussion about | exactly what he requested....why doesn't Robear like AVG. | | While their discussion is largely anecdotal, it is based on rather extensive | experiences beyond the simple sorority girls story mentioned. | -- | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+ | | Okay, I'll start with: this ISN'T a personal attack against PA Bear... Let's begin: Robear posted * that opinion * in the discussion here, was politely questioned related to this opinion, and never bothered to post a response or direction, such as you have, so some basis could have been reviewed ... in apparent fact, someone had to poke the bear in the butt with a sharp stick to even get links to his site and forums posted in here pursuant my request [is it that 98 is below discussion level of an expert].... Moreover, he also continues to suggest that email scanning be turned off; as if this is still just the old VBS scanning of old ... if perhaps it was that way in those situations which seem to be mentioned in that Google reference; can it be reasonably stated that sufficient protections had been established by that or those supposed networking/security *specialist(s)* that configured those systems, I think not. Were those networking "experts" which controlled those systems, competently examined related to the entire network they had established, or was this just the easiest route to point the accusatory finger at, i.e., "its not me, its the AVG program". For instance, a Suite was apparently used upon those other non-compromised systems which contained such scanner,,, AVG did not have such at that time period,, so was something else used to fill the gap or was this incompetently left exposed? Was an anti-Spyware application used to cover the then (now available in NT based suite) AVG failure to include such deterrence/protection? Or were these conveniently overlooked? The point: was the comparison based upon the actual circumstances *in toto* or were the findings leveraged against an untoward comparison? It is extremely easy to point to software as the supposed culprit when a "network specialist" is *caught with their pants down* and the system they were to protect was compromised. In fact, its just as easy to point to supposed hardware failures [such as in VISTA] in attempt to cover-up programming failures... such as WHY did all those Beta testers and Microsoft fail to recognize, point out and work to correct the networking issues PRIOR to the retail release, as if the world should comply with VISTA rather than VISTA working in conjunction with the rest of the world [as example; I'll leave the rest of the VISTA issues alone as they are off topic]... So again, there is no attack placed against any individual or even some "profession" or "specialty" here, but reality prevails; only when these parties can proof they are completely without culpable error, should some measure of excuse be granted. One can not necessarily rely upon others in the profession/specialty to openly expose others in that area whom have failed [or even general failures in their area of supposed expertise]; look no further than the legal profession filled with incompetents or worse, which are rarely exposed and removed.. there is apparently a marked reluctance to interfere with life or enrichment,, to the detriment of those victims upon whom this has been levied. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________
Recommended Posts