I am getting inundated with all the "bad stuff" stoppers I have on my
computer! How much do we need? For example, if I'm running Zone Alarm,
and Microsoft Anti-Spyware, do I really need Avast? (Used a lot of my
resources.) I mean, how much of this stuff do we actually need? I've
got SpywareBlaster running...SpyBot...I'm spending a lot of time on the
computer just checking, updating, all these things.

DavyWavy -

ZoneAlarm is a firewall, MS Anti-Spyware is a spyware monitor and Avast is an anti-virus. They do different things, and should all be kept. Spybot and Spywareblaster do not use resources all the time so they should also be kept.

I would say that the question of "How much is enough?" depends on your risk aversion. I use them all, and have never had a serious issue with my machine. One nasty incident can give you hours (or more) of work...

Yeah...what JohnnyReb said.

1) Microsoft Firewall
2) Spybot
3) An Antivirus

and enjoy your computer

Thanks for the replies...I'm nervous about Microsoft Firewall (as opposed to Zone Alarm)...I'm using both at the moment. Can't recall why
I'm skeptical about Microsoft Firewall...maybe a few bad writeups here?
Whatever...thanks again...I'll probably keep all.

Edit : I did get rid of A2 a few days ago.

DavyWavy -

If you're using ZA, then also using the Windows ICF is both redundant and may actually cause you conflicts/flaky behavior somewhere along the line. I'd turn ICF off. Pete

*Hmm - actually, I'm reading that ZA automatically disables Windows ICF. Perhaps another ZA user can confirm. or perhaps I should say that Windows ICF shuts itself off if it detects the presence of another running firewall?

Hi, Spy...thanks for the reply. I think I'll turn off ZA and just use
Microsoft Firewall & see how things go.

DavyWavy -

If I were already running ZA, I'd stick with ZA and forget ICF. This is just the latest issue with ICF:

http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=144 .

I use ICF here, myself - but I'm used to checking things daily to make sure nothing "added" itself (plus, I've got ICF covered by ProcessGuard). Pete

I Spy...(just like playing with your name)...re: Microsoft Firewall - I'm pretty diligent, also, about Maintenance, etc. However, I appreciate the info you gave me, and will probably go back to ZA...
thanks again.

DavyWavy -

MS Firewall only blocks incoming.
ZA blocks incoming and out going.

LilJoe

Gracias, LJ! (Although I don't send out many viruses, personally.)

DavyWavy -

AntiVir XP
Spyware Blaster
Adaware SE
Sbot Search & Destroy

D-link Router/NAT/Firewall

I use Zone Alarm, Spywareblaster, AdAware and Spybot, and Norton AV. MS firewall disabled.

I regularly clean out my temp directories, internet cache, and any cookies not on my save-list with CCleaner.

I hardly ever run AdAware or Spybot - and when I do, they usually don't find anything (always updated defs of course). Most of the time if I don't run CCleaner beforehand, they may find tracking cookies, but that's about it.

Maybe it's my surfing habits - I usually visit only a few sites regularly (forum boards like here, yahoo, etc.). Occasionally I'll visit some new sites. Any downloads NAV scans automatically, but I'll scan again to be sure. I do not have ActiveX set to be automatically installed.

If you practice safe surfing, I think ZA, NAV, SpywareBlaster, AdAware, and Spybot are fine.

Thanks again for your replies...I appreciate it.

DavyWavy -

Looks to me like you are running the bare minimum protection, Davy. And giving up ZA in favor of the minimal protection of the MS firewall makes no sense at all.

MS only included that firewall because they are painfully aware that most of their customers are clueless about security, and are blissfully contaminating everyone else, equally clueless, that they contact. This is what caused the recent rampant spread of worms that were designed to attack windows systems, and Microsoft itself.

Shelly

Yeah, I've already downloaded ZA and will install soon...thanks, Shelly.

Edit : Okay, ZA back up and running...and yes, it DOES shutdown the
Microsoft Firewall automatically when ZA is installed.

DavyWavy -

I agree that this stuff is too much.
I have NAV 2005 but I keep it turned off and only scan periodically.
It has never found a virus except in my deleted e-mails.
Otherwise it does slow my machines down.
I use ZA pro and spybot with immunization only.
I have Win2000Pro and XP
I am connected to the internet all day on my business machines with DSL and at home I have cable.
I do use a router between the modem and the computer.
I don't use outlook express and don't open attachments unless I am expecting them.
I know I'll draw a lot of flack but for the last 8 years I have never had a problem period.
For insurance I have all my hard drives Ghosted to a spare hard drive that I plug in as a slave as needed, but usually keep on a shelf.
I do backup my financial and client records daily at work.
And 2 or 3 times a year I'll backup my saved files to the same hard drive.
The only time I needed to restore have been after using Qwest tech support or after installing and deleting too many programs. (I couldn't get rid of Diskkeeper any other way even after cleanning out the registry by hand)
I can restore everything in 20-30 minutes (less than 5GB), and I know I've got a clean system.

>I have NAV 2005 but I keep it turned off and only scan
>periodically.
>It has never found a virus except in my deleted e-mails.
>Otherwise it does slow my machines down.

A major mistake!

Without full time protection running, in your case "Auto Protect" you are wide open to infection, and could be riddled with virus infection already. Modern Viruses are designed to make themselves invisible to your virus program once they get into your machine. The only protection is to block the virus in real time before it infects you. Periodic scans are increasingly useless.

If you are running your business computers without adequate protection, and a poor understanding of the risks involved, I'm sure your customers will appreciate being infected by you. If your computer is bogged down from having necessary protection in place, it's time to think about more capable computers. None of mine, either in my home or my business seem to be suffering, and I generally have four or five programs, including the very resource demanding AutoCAD, open at the same time.

Shelly

Fix the underlying issues: IE's Internet Options Security Zone, Privacy, Advanced settings, and Windows SP2 firewall configurations. Disable or set to manual unnecessary, unused services per Black Vipers Services Configuration guidelines.

Install passive, stand alone, spyware/malware/adware defenses, SpywareBlaster, IE-SPYAD, hpguru HOSTS file w/eDexter+JavaDog.

After verifying browser-firewall settings are correct, services are disabled, and the computer is free of all malware, you can chuck Zone Alarm and Avast, use Windows SP2's excellent firewall, and Trend Micro's Housecall online scan service on the rare occasion that you believe a trojan/virus has snuck on to your machine.

Yeah, I know. Unorthodox. That's just me.

>Fix the underlying issues: IE's Internet Options Security
>Zone, Privacy, Advanced settings, and Windows SP2 firewall
>configurations. Disable or set to manual unnecessary, unused
>services per Black Vipers Services Configuration guidelines.
>
>Install passive, stand alone, spyware/malware/adware
>defenses, SpywareBlaster, IE-SPYAD, hpguru HOSTS file
>w/eDexter+JavaDog.
>
>After verifying browser-firewall settings are correct,
>services are disabled, and the computer is free of all
>malware, you can chuck Zone Alarm and Avast, use Windows SP2's
>excellent firewall, and Trend Micro's Housecall online scan
>service on the rare occasion that you believe a trojan/virus
>has snuck on to your machine.
>
>Yeah, I know. Unorthodox. That's just me.
--------------------------------------------------
Sounds like a good case of the Bird Flu to me

LilJoe

Sounds to me like you've got a case of, "I can't secure my own computer properly so I need to have a bi-directional firewall and anti-virus software running".

Sounds to me like you don't know much about security.

Shelly

I'm not exactly alone. According to any number of self annointed computer gurus on the net, neither does multi-billion dollar OS software giant, Microsoft Corp.

Okay...once again, thanks to all...and I'm outta' here.

DavyWavy -

Did you read Shelly's post re : Microsoft's Firewall?

DavyWavy -

Something about bi-directional outbound traffic control Windows SP2 firewall lacks.

Don't even need bidirectional control. If you've got malware on you're computer the firewall isn't the issue, but why/how the malware made its' way onto it.

A bi-directional firewall cures the symptoms without addressing the disease. It's a Band-Aid, not a fix.

Shelly's remedy is for people who are unable to secure their computer's properly, and recklessly download (e.g., email attachments) infected files.

I see outbound notification more as information than security. Usually it's some program that defaults to auto-updates or something else innocuous, but having a firewall and it's logs to let me know just what's trying to connect is very handy. I suppose there might be little stand alone utilities that would suffice, but then if I wanted to block it (like say, Windows constantly wanting to connect to update, even though auto-update is turned off and the service is disabled), I'd have to go back to the firewall anyway.

Bi-directional firewalls do have their useful features, however they are not necessary for securing a computer. Incoming traffic is where the real malicious network vulnerabilities lie, and Windows SP2 does an superb job on that front.

Nothing will get by it unless the user opens the door and says, "Common in bad guys! Have at my computer. It's all yours!"

BTW, Windows SP2 has a firewall logging feature as well.

But the ever progressing methods of incoming egress don't really jump out and yell, "Hey, you missed me and I'm here now". Since the bad guys almost immediately reverse engineer the patches (some before they are announced) they've got an opportunity to get in before you can shut the door.

It's certainly your right to set up your PC however you wish. Hope you don't screw up and pass it on to someone else.

"Hope you don't screw up and pass it on to someone else."

That rings similar to the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times".

Funny. The Microsoft code crunchers didn't have the same opinion when the designed their one-way firewall.

Thank you for your genuine concern that I don't screw up.

http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=144

Quotes from the article:

"As long as the person currently logged into the computer has Administrative privileges, an application can easily add an entry into the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/Services/.../FirewallPolicy/StandardProfile/AuthorizedApplications/List/ key that will allow any application full rights to and from the computer without the user's interaction or knowledge.

I have added another article that explains that Microsoft's AntiSpyware Beta also ignores any changes to the registry for this key.
You can read the article here http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=146

While we're all quite thrilled that you (and others) have taken the time and made the effort to learn how to totally secure your computer without the actual need for a firewall, the simple fact of the matter is that - for whatever reason - the vast majority of Internet users will not take that time or make that effort.

For them, a software firewall with both inbound and outbound protection makes a lot of sense (granted, only if they learn how to properly install, set up and maintain that firewall and give proper permissions).

The ICF is a whole lot better than nothing, but as can be seen from the article quoted above, it's certainly not the "be-all", "end-all" that you're apparently claiming it is.

I know of no one besides myself who goes into their Security Center every day to make sure nothing "new" has appeared by itself - nor do I forsee masses of people suddenly starting to do so.

Your arguement also totally (and conveniently) ignores the certain fact of whatever "zero-day exploit" comes down the pike next.

I've found it best not to make judgements on people based on my level of knowledge, because theirs is what we're all dealing with. Waving the "I'm smarter than you are" flag is generally counter-productive to actually helping people stay safe - whatever the tools employed. Pete

>http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=144
>
>Quotes from the article:
>
>"As long as the person currently logged into the computer
>has Administrative privileges, an application can easily add
>an entry into the
>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/Services/.../FirewallPolicy/StandardProfile/AuthorizedApplications/List/
>key that will allow any application full rights to and from
>the computer without the user's interaction or
>knowledge.
>
>I have added another article that explains that
>Microsoft's AntiSpyware Beta also ignores any changes to the
>registry for this key.
>You can read the article here
>http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=146
>
>While we're all quite thrilled that you (and others) have
>taken the time and made the effort to learn how to totally
>secure your computer without the actual need for a
>firewall, the simple fact of the matter is that - for whatever
>reason - the vast majority of Internet users will not
>take that time or make that effort.
>
>For them, a software firewall with both inbound and outbound
>protection makes a lot of sense (granted, only if they learn
>how to properly install, set up and maintain that firewall and
>give proper permissions).
>
>The ICF is a whole lot better than nothing, but as can
>be seen from the article quoted above, it's certainly
>not the "be-all", "end-all" that you're apparently
>claiming it is.
>
>I know of no one besides myself who goes into their
>Security Center every day to make sure nothing "new" has
>appeared by itself - nor do I forsee masses of people suddenly
>starting to do so.
>
>Your arguement also totally (and conveniently) ignores the
>certain fact of whatever "zero-day exploit" comes down the
>pike next.
>
>I've found it best not to make judgements on people
>based on my level of knowledge, because theirs is what
>we're all dealing with. Waving the "I'm smarter than you are"
>flag is generally counter-productive to actually
>helping people stay safe - whatever the tools
>employed. Pete
>
>

Windows ICF will ask if the user wishes to allow an app access to the net with a popup dialog box. So, the user is not in the dark about an app making a connection. He/she is forewarned, and must make a conscious decision by clicking, Yes/No.

Who's 'WE'? You mean to say, 'I'm quite thrilled that you....'

Your assertion that I'm not using a firewall is inaccurate. As I've indicated, I use Windows SP2's firewall. I'm very pleased with its' capacity to protect my computer from incoming threats/hacks, just as the MS designers intended it to. It is what I - not 'WE' - recommend to all home computer users.

As you've stated, the vast majority of users do not know how to secure their network connections. That's a fact. However, my approach is to tell them what I've found to work best for myself, on my computer. Everyone's computer profile, and how they use it, is going to be different from my own, or your computer. So, by default, securing a computer has a trial-and-error process that each user will need to address on his/her own.

But, as far as net security goes, a correctly configured Windows SP2 firewall, and IE Internet Options Security Zone, Privacy, Advanced settings is adequate for home operators - provided they avoid risky behavior. I know, because I'm a home user, and it works for me. I don't know what 'WE' would advise, or who 'WE' is. I only know what I would advise.

Two-way firewalls and anti-virus software doesn't make a computer any more secure. For validation of this fact, visit any computer help forum and notice all of the requests for assistance by users who have two-way firewalls, and anti-virus software, but have, nevertheless, been compromised by all manner of trojans, viruses, spyware, etc.

I - not 'WE' - believe the only/best approach to securing a networked computer is to go without all of those third-party resource hogs (adding yet another layer of confusion to the securing process), and learn how to operate a computer responsibly.

Hmmm, personally ive had some pretty slow pcs in the past and have never noticed any degradation of resources using ZA.I now have a high end pc and so the concern of resource usage is in the past, not that it was a concern
Personally i feel we can never be 100% sure that a pc has been infected with something, and if a bi directional firewall is the way to find out, so be it.
Assuming that you have your pc locked down and no one is ever going to breach it is foolhardy. There are a lot cleverer people than me working on getting into my pc and the risk is not worth it.

just my 2cents worth


Ant

>Hmmm, personally ive had some pretty slow pcs in the past and
>have never noticed any degradation of resources using ZA.I now
>have a high end pc and so the concern of resource usage is in
>the past, not that it was a concern
>Personally i feel we can never be 100% sure that a pc has
>been infected with something, and if a bi directional firewall
>is the way to find out, so be it.
>Assuming that you have your pc locked down and no one is ever
>going to breach it is foolhardy. There are a lot cleverer
>people than me working on getting into my pc and the risk is
>not worth it.
>
>just my 2cents worth
>
>
>Ant

"Assuming that you have your pc locked down and no one is ever going to breach it is foolhardy."

I - not 'WE'- agree. There's no such thing as 100% inviolability.

Congratulations on speaking for yourself instead of hiding behind collectivist pronouns, and speaking for WE's, US's, OUR's, etc.

>>http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=144

>>Quote from the article:
>>
>>"As long as the person currently logged into the
>computer
>>has Administrative privileges, an application can easily
>add
>>an entry into the
>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/Services/.../FirewallPolicy/StandardProfile/AuthorizedApplications/List/
>>key that will allow any application full rights to and from
>>the computer without the user's interaction or
>>knowledge.

>Windows ICF will ask if the user wishes to allow an app
>access to the net with a popup dialog box. So, the user is not
>in the dark about an app making a connection. He/she is
>forewarned, and must make a conscious decision by clicking,
>Yes/No.

Apparently you can't read, either. I underlined the applicable part this time since you've already missed it twice.

And now "we'uns" is quite done with "you'uns". (Signed) "We"

>>>http://habaneronetworks.com/viewArticle.php?ID=144
>
>>>Quote from the article:
>>>
>>>"As long as the person currently logged into the
>>computer
>>>has Administrative privileges, an application can easily
>>add
>>>an entry into the
>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/Services/.../FirewallPolicy/StandardProfile/AuthorizedApplications/List/
>>>key that will allow any application full rights to and
>from
>>>the computer without the user's interaction or
>>>knowledge.
>
>>Windows ICF will ask if the user wishes to allow an app
>>access to the net with a popup dialog box. So, the user is
>not
>>in the dark about an app making a connection. He/she is
>>forewarned, and must make a conscious decision by
>clicking,
>>Yes/No.
>
>Apparently you can't read, either. I underlined the
>applicable part this time since you've already missed it
>twice.
>
>And now "we'uns" is quite done with "you'uns". (Signed) "We"
>
>

Well, WE, I'll believe it when I see it. I - not 'WE' - have never witnessed this phenomena first hand.

WE, you'll also be disappointed to note, my machine has no viruses, trojans, spyware on board using Windows SP2 firewall w/no anti-virus app's.

I now have some idea of what the round-Earth people had to deal with from the flat-Earth people.

I - not 'WE' - will not be dissuaded, however. I - not 'WE' - declare the Earth is, indeed, round, and not flat!!!

You make some interesting points, but ultimately this is a meaningless discussion

My experience is that the smart guys are outnumbered by the bad guys, and they're both outnumbered by the "uninformed" guys. In other words, the best we, the informed, can do is fight a holding action.

It's human nature for most not to change habits until there's an obvious, negative consequence to those habits. It seems to me that "spyware" is the current threat most likely to screw up a common user's computer. The "thrill" of downloading stuff, especially FREE! stuff is compelling to the uninformed. The bad guys obviously take advantage of this. Trying to tell the average user what a danger it is usually falls on deaf ears until ...

So it's a bit of a catch-22. A knowledgeable user wouldn't be in much more danger if he got rid of most of the stuff most of us run - our computing habits provide the basic protection. An uninformed user would be in just as much danger no matter what they ran because their habits are so poor. All we can do is try to educate.

The biggest advantage we have is if personal computer usage levels off, so that there isn't a constant influx of new users. I think this is happening. Then, the communal learning curve will have a chance to take hold, and if nothing else, the bad guys will at least have to work a little harder

I concur, for the most part, with the assessments you've made.

"AvianFlux"....must be short for "BirdShit". And I see you're full of it.

>"AvianFlux"....must be short for "BirdShit". And I see you're
>full of it.

You probably strained every last little brain cell you have to come up with that not-so-witty diss, aye, dipstick?

You just hate to see success where you've so miserably failed, that's all.

>I - not 'WE' - believe the only/best approach to securing a
>networked computer is to go without all of those third-party
>resource hogs (adding yet another layer of confusion to the
>securing process), and learn how to operate a computer
>responsibly.
>

No, it's 'WE' who believe that, though at the very least a simple incoming port filter (or NAT router) and non-resource hogging antivirus software are necessary for Windows.

Yes, when an app adds itself to the registry key, a dialog is presented a second or two later when Windows detects the change. I saw that very thing in action today, coincidently. After installing SP2 on a system, a file sharing app (Ares) informed me that I had a firewall and asked if I wanted it to make that change for me. I said Yes and then a dialog from the Windows Firewall came up where I again had to click Unblock. This was at startup (Ares loading with Windows), before an internet connection was even made. The people who owned that computer need their apps to work whether I like them or not.

Edit: mmm, no it didn't. It must have been something else that triggered the alert rather than the registry change. I just silently added an app using a vbs script sample and nothing popped up. Sorry about that.

I don't really believe in application filtering firewall software, but why fight it. At least the Windows XP SP2 firewall is something that users are likely to keep enabled because it doesn't cause problems.

Grogan

Ouch, and something I just discovered that's even sillier. I just added an Exception titled Outlook Express that allowed a completely different app access. So people would see Outlook Express allowed in the list, indistinguishable from a legitimate entry. Great

OK, so the outbound protection is worse than useless. Sorry.

Grogan

>>I - not 'WE' - believe the only/best approach to securing
>a
>>networked computer is to go without all of those
>third-party
>>resource hogs (adding yet another layer of confusion to
>the
>>securing process), and learn how to operate a computer
>>responsibly.
>>
>
>No, it's 'WE' who believe that, though at the very least a
>simple incoming port filter (or NAT router) and non-resource
>hogging antivirus software are necessary for Windows.

I don't like communist-collectivist We's, Us's, Our's, The American People, blah, blah, blah , blah, blah. It engenders a herd mentality (group think) and consensus building among individuals who should be expressing their own ideas instead of those arrived at, and agreed to, by the collectivist WE's.

I'm not, and have no wish to become, a team (communist) player.

I prefer, you and I, over WE.

>>>I - not 'WE' - believe the only/best approach to securing
>>a
>>>networked computer is to go without all of those
>>third-party
>>>resource hogs (adding yet another layer of confusion to
>>the
>>>securing process), and learn how to operate a computer
>>>responsibly.
>>>
>>
>>No, it's 'WE' who believe that, though at the very least a
>>simple incoming port filter (or NAT router) and
>non-resource
>>hogging antivirus software are necessary for Windows.
>
>I don't like communist-collectivist WE's, Us's, Our's, The
>American People, blah, blah, blah , blah, blah. It engenders a
>herd mentallity (group think) and concensous building among
>individuals who should be expressing their own ideas instead
>of those arrived at and agreed to by the collectivist WE's.
>
>I'm not, and have no wish to become a team (communist)
>player.
>
>I prefer, you and I, over WE.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------

That is where We and you differ,We consider us a family here on PCQand A.
I really do believe you have contracted the bird flu
If you have no wish to be a team player,you are on the wrong forum.
Gee,I'll be glad when spring break is over

LilJoe

>That is where We and you differ,We consider us a family here
>on PCQand A.
> I really do believe you have contracted the bird flu
>If you have no wish to be a team player,you are on the wrong
>forum.
>Gee,I'll be glad when spring break is over

Speaking for We's, are ya?

>>That is where We and you differ,We consider us a family
>here
>>on PCQand A.
>> I really do believe you have contracted the bird flu
>
>>If you have no wish to be a team player,you are on the
>wrong
>>forum.
>>Gee,I'll be glad when spring break is over
>

Speaking for We's, are ya? Do these We's have names?

Spring break will soon be over, and you'll be back in school.

"a family here on PCQand A ... a team player"

A family & a team can exist with dissenting views.

Here's my prophylactic proggie list...

SPF(Sygate Personal Firewall)
NOD32 anti virus
MSAS(Microsoft/Giant Anti Spyware)
Spybot(immunization done with each update) Run once a week only.
router

I keep most of the other ones like CWS, AdAware, SpyWareBlaster, Shootthe Messenger on my programs partition in case of need. I keep them and any updates for both myself and to burn cd's for ts'ing friends' systems which are compromised.
The setup has worked very well for me but I am VERY conservative with emails and attachments...if I don't know it's coming...it's deleted before it's opened...PERIOD!
Nothing showing in the email Subjest line? Deleted!
Nothing showing in the From line? Deleted!
My email addie showing in the from line? That's deleted without prejudice!

The setup is very easy on system resources.

Different strokes...

DavyWavy -

I don't have such luxury, being in business I get mail without subject lines all the time. I can't force a customer to use a subject line, but it would cost me a fortune to not get their messages. for the same reasons I receive lots of attachments from sources i'm not expecting, there called orders, and RFQ's (requests for quotations).

Shelly

What about this selection:-

Kasperesky AV,
Spyware Blaster,
MSAS,
SpyGuard,
Ewido (Dont know much about it just trying it out)

I dont think that spybot or Adaware would be neccessary with the above.

Edit Oops I left out the firewall -Sygate/ZA pro.

Vijay

>What about this selection:-
>
>Kasperesky AV,
>Spyware Blaster,
>MSAS,
>SpyGuard,
>Ewido (Dont know much about it just trying it out)
>
>I dont think that spybot or Adaware would be neccessary with
>the above.
>
>Edit Oops I left out the firewall -Sygate/ZA pro.
>
>Vijay

I just tried Sygate and found bugs that should be addressed in the next release.

I think ZA is fine. Just watch out for the upgrades. Take the clean upgrade route and don't save settings. I tried saving settings twice and ended up having to do full manual uninstalls before re-installing ZA.

With Kaspersky on board and configured for extended bases and hacktools, you probably don't need Ewido.

It won't hurt to have Ad-Aware onboard to scan for tracking cookies that may not be included with MSAS.

The rest of the list looks good.

What bugs are there in sygate? Should I replace it with ZA now.

Vijay

I encountered a bug in a recent release that caused some problems. However, at this moment, I can't recall every detail except that some processes were either hanging or that an error message was generated. My research at Sygate forums found that an upcoming release should correct it.

If your version is working fine and you're satisfied, I suggest you keep it.

SuSE 9.2 Linux with built in firewall is just about right.

I'm using this as a dual boot with XP on one of my machines and it's so nice not to have to do all of this crap. I will eventually change over every machine that I can, but some will have to remain with XP for business reasons.

With those I use ZAPro, NAV2005, Spybot S&D, Adaware, and M/S AntiSpyware.

My NAV catches 1-5 virus laden files from unsuspecting people who send me RFQ's and orders via business. I rarely get emails from friends (most of whom are computer savvy) that have any viruses because they are all well protected or run Linux.

Paul

"SuSE 9.2 Linux with built in firewall is just about right."

yep...

Yikes, I had to stop reading the reponses as it was turning into a pissing contest, so I may be repeating what has already been said.

That said, you can never have enough protection against the bad guys. But please don't try to run more than one software firewall at a time. Don't try to run two AV's in real time. Don't have all of your Anti-spyware apps and your AT apps running in real time.

Are you using IE? Are you the only one using the computer? Do you "delete emails and then ask the sender if they really sent that email?"

In using many AV's, AT's, antispyware apps, etc., you have to be very careful when one of them has an "oops moment" and the report is not true, that is, it's a "false positive." Never trust what the program tells you is "bad stuff," instead investigate and verify that you don't have malware on your computer.

Yes, it takes time to keep your computer secure. But, do you want to lose important files, or have your computer turned into a zombie bot running a program that hacks into a website?

Let's talk about cars. I'm sure you have one, and I'm sure you have it inspected each year to get the little sticker placed on your windshield. You have to purchase new plates or tags each year. Responsible car owners have insurance. You have to put gas in the car, have the oil changed, etc. If you are responsible driver, you don't drive drunk nor drive when you are taking allergy/sinus or other meds that affect your driving, because you don't want to cause an accident because you shouldn't have been driving the car that day. You probably do everything possible to keep that car running, because you depend on reliable transporation. You also need a valid drivers license to drive your car.

Back to computers, as they also need care and feeding to run properly. You need insurance, in the form of anti-malware software. You need to learn how to be a safe computer user, so that you protect your system and other folks systems, just like you don't drive drunk or when you are taking meds that may impair your driving abilities.

Didn't intead to rant so much here, but I do participate in security forums where folks are either ignorant or lazy and end up with computers that really need a reformat/reinstall to get rid of the malware. Then they need to learn how to take care of their computer so it never happens again.

marti

Hi Marti...nice to see you posting. You said, "you can never have enough protection against the bad guys. But please don't try to run more than one software firewall at a time. Don't try to run two AV's in real time. Don't have all of your Anti-spyware apps and your AT apps running in real time.

Are you using IE? Are you the only one using the computer? Do you "delete emails and then ask the sender if they really sent that email?"

I went back to ZA, with WXP Home Firewall on deck, but not in use unless
I want it. I'm using Avast, having dropped AVG awhile back. I also have dropped A2. So, bottom line is : ZA, Avast, SpywareBlaster, & MS
Anti-Spyware running in real time, with SpyBot and AdAware checking on
things every other day or so. I am mainly using Mozilla Firefox, altho
I sometimes have to use IE6 when Firefox won't work for some programs...
(like Symantec Online Scan)...I AM the only one using the computer, and
I delete 95% of junk email...I don't respond to them in any way.

So, what kind of grade do I get, Marti?

DavyWavy -

Tell me your system is also behind a router and you pass with flying colors.

Even without a router you are in the "safe zone". As long as you update regularly, but from your posts on other threads I think you do that.

I guess I have to jump into this threat - LOL - As most of you know I am one of those that DOESNT use AV software and I can understand Shelly's point because a business is totally different than a home computer -
It has been proven time and time again that most virus s are let into the system by people even that they have AV software

And who ever said that "educating the public" is a big part of the problem is 100 percent correct -

Yesterday in my friends store - he sold a computer - the first thing he asked the custome to purchase with his system was AV software
After about 20-25 minute explaintation of AV - the customer was thinking that we were pading the bill. he was going on line anyway - was he shocked when my friend showed him the purchase contract - that stated in BIG bold words - no AV software - no warrentty
period -

If forcing people to use AV is the only way - o well -

Personnelly I only use ZA & Sypbot - AND shelly has chastised me because of it - knowleadge is power - and knowing what to do and not do is more powerful than any AV software IMHO

Two Cents

Starship Warrior

I'd eat that fool for breakfast for making such a statement. No warranty, no payment for the system would be my response. (If you think that the terms could be changed, and the sale could be irreversable if money had already changed hands, that would be a very grave mistake)

Warranty is for the hardware anyways, you can't guarantee the integrity of the software load beyond that it was working when it left the shop. To think you can extort someone into purchasing additional software is the height of arrogance. I should think your friend would have offered to install one of the capable free antivirus products if he was so worried about it.

Grogan

Sort of suprised you would say something like that.

I guess the shop is inundated with calls where people have been infected. And they are expecting the shop to do it for free.

I suspect that you tell people up front, hey, you are not running an AV. If you get infected, you can come to me, but I'm going to charge you to fix it.

And while that may be different from "no warranty", I suspect that the meaning is the same. Just stated differently.

Oh, well sure I'd agree that you'd pay for that kind of fixing. I think I said that. You'd be working for free for the rest of your life if you tried to guarantee the software. Fixing it for free wouldn't be something a customer could demand anyways, if they screw up the OS.

If you run a computer shop, the answer to most every question is "bring it in" and you would assess the problem at that time.

Grogan

Maybe the shop owner should just automatically include AV software as part of a new computer package. If a customer questions it, just explain that it's a package deal and the AV software is included for their protection.

Behind every good computer... is a jumble of wires 'n stuff.

So then the shop down the road is $40 cheaper for the same components. Profits on building a PC aren't very high, you can't afford to eat the cost of anything. You obviously can't afford to do what Dell does. (actually OEMs are assholes these days... you get what amounts to a 60 or 90 day trial of McCrappy or Norton because you have to pay after that point)

When I buy a PC, my instructions have to be followed exactly or I'm not doing it. I specify every component, from the motherboard to the sound card. I don't care for building them but I would if I had to. Bundling of software is unacceptable and I'd just go elsewhere. I'd let them put Windows on though, because it would be unreasonable to expect them to have everything in working order with no OS, but that's it. No software, just a plain Windows installation and if they don't follow my partitioning instructions (small partition for Windows and the rest unallocated), I'll blow the setup away immediately upon receipt. They'd only try to pull warranty shit with me once. Defective hardware is defective hardware and that's the only reason they'd be hearing from me.

While pricing out the PC with the customer, there's nothing wrong with trying to convince them that they should have antivirus software but you can't force them to buy it.

Grogan

Then would the alternative Of placing a freeware AV be something to offer? At least the PC would leave the shop with some kind of protection. The time involved in the install would be minimal and a good "service' talking point.

Actually you really couldn't ship a PC with one of the free versions of antivirus products as part of your software bundle. That would be violating the license. You could probably do it with a trial but you'd want to make sure even that is permitted.

Technically, so would installing it for the customer afterwards but I think if you had them involved in the process ("yes I'd like to download AVG") it would be construed as them doing it for personal use, assuming they are home users. There's nothing in a software license that says a user must install it themselves, but there are usually restrictions on distribution.

Grogan

"Bundling of software is unacceptable and I'd just go elsewhere. I'd let them put Windows on though, because it would be unreasonable to expect them to have everything in working order with no OS, but that's it. No software, just a plain Windows installation and if they don't follow my partitioning instructions (small partition for Windows and the rest unallocated), I'll blow the setup away immediately upon receipt. They'd only try to pull warranty shit with me once. Defective hardware is defective hardware and that's the only reason they'd be hearing from me."

That's how I have been doing it lately for average systems.. It's worth it to pay the shop the extra 40 or 50 to put it together, load XP, do the updates..My partitioning instructions: one ten gig. only. (if you don't say anything, you'll get the whole drive on one primary.)

I get the customer to give me the software they want on the machine, and I look at it before installing it.
I put a good virus scanner on it (usually AntiVir), a software firewall, and some malware fighters. Give them printed instructions for updating these programs, Windows maintanance, and some basic instructions on avoiding problems, set it up for them, and tell them that if I have to come out and fix software problems related to their kids downloading crapware, or anything else, it will cost them the going rate.

I don't build that many, maybe 7 or 8 a year, but rarely hear from anyone with anything that can't be solved over the phone in a couple of minutes.

Pretty well all the average users I deal with, think that they have to buy Norton or McAfee,.They are pleasantly surprised to hear that there are free alternatives for the home computer.