crap cleaner

[Shenan Stanley]

<snip>
Conversation in its entirety:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...bject:crap+insubject:cleaner#d7dbee82990e53bf


walt wrote:

Isn't the Windows Firewall a good enough Firewall? If not, what is
recommended?

No Windows firewall is not good enough, see Zone Alarm (free) or
others at: http://www.firewallguide.com/software.htm

I disagree with that answer in this situation.

I have reviewed the entire thread and stating outright that the Windows XP
SP2 Firewall is not good enough I believe is a careless statement based
off nothing. From what has been said in this thread - one cannot make the
conclusion that the Windows XP SP2 Firewall is not sufficient for this
particular user. Statements like that are what likely cause some people
to panic and purchase 'All-in-One' suites like those from Norton/McAfee -
that often do more damage than good (in terms of resource utilization vs.
protection they give) and have so many features - they end up confusing
the user more than helping.

walt,

We would need to know more about your configuration in order to make a
valid suggestion. For example:

- How do you currently connect to the Internet?
- If by 'high-speed Internet' such as Cable Modem, DSL, Satellite - is
there a router (netgear, linksys, d-link or even one provided by the ISP)
that separates you from the Internet and allows you to utilize more than
one computer on said connection (by ethernet cable or wireless?)
- How many users utilize your computer?
- Do you utilize an administrative level account for your daily
activities - or have you created a 'limited user' to use daily - only
logging in with administrative rights when you need to install/remove
software/etc?


In my experience - if you do have an Internet router that already provides
NAT (which is some level of protection between yourself and the
Internet) --> then the Windows Firewall is more than sufficient (in some
cases - the Windows Firewall is more than sufficient even without the
router - but the router definitely puts it over the edge.) The Windows
XPSP2 firewall is not a 'true' firewall by some definitions- because it
monitors incoming traffic - not outgoing. So if you infest yourself with
something and it secretly starts communicating with the outside world -
you may not know. However - if you utilize common computing sense - the
chances of you getting infested with anything drop considerably.

If you want to learn a bit about cleaning up and properly maintaining and
securing what you have, I suggest going through this list of tips and
doing so. You'll come out WAY ahead as far as your computer's (and thus
your data, etc) safety and security.

<snip list>

I did not recommend "All-in-One" software, just a better firewall.
I like to know what is trying to communicate to the Internet in
both directions. No software (legitimate or otherwise) should have
cart blanch ability to send anything from my PC to who knows where
without my permission!

I did not say you did recommend "All-in-One" software. I stated,
"Statements like that are what likely cause some people to
panic and purchase 'All-in-One' suites..." You may not be recommending it -
but it does cause unnecessary panic in some people and they go to a store
and see these 'packages' that claim to fix all their online problems and
secure their system and they have heard of "Symantec" and/or "McAfee"
because of their ISP or their job, etc - so they assume 'this is what I
need'...

As for what you like - that is fine - I have no problem with that. As for
your reasoning - that is fine as well - although many software packages that
you install (legit or not) will make changes to several different firewalls
allowing themselves through without you ever knowing *if* said firewall is
up and running when the package is installed. ;-)

What you said, however, is that "Windows firewall is not good enough" <-
which is a blanket statement that does not cover what the OP may need (in
terms of information to make a proper decision) and definitely gives them
little information on the 'why' of your answer. That is why I wanted to
give the OP an opinion that would allow them to make a decision based on
their needs and situation...

In case you or walt missed the tip on firewalls in my tip list:

Why you should use a computer firewall..
http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/firewall/choosing.mspx

You should, in some way, use a firewall. Hardware (like a nice
Cable Modem/DSL router) or software is up to you. Many use both of
these. The simplest one to use is the hardware one, as most people
don't do anything that they will need to configure their NAT device
for and those who do certainly will not mind fiddling with the equipment
to make things work for them. Next in the line of simplicity would
have to be the built-in Windows Firewall of Windows XP. In SP2 it
is turned on by default. It is not difficult to turn on in any
case, however:

More information on the Internet Connection Firewall (Pre-SP2):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320855

Post-SP2 Windows Firewall Information/guidance:
http://snipurl.com/atal

The trouble with the Windows Firewall is that it only keeps things
out. For most people who maintain their system in other ways, this is
MORE than sufficient. You may feel otherwise. If you want to
know when one of your applications is trying to obtain access to the
outside world so you can stop it, then you will have to install a
third-party application and configure/maintain it. I have compiled a
list with links of some of the better known/free firewalls you can choose
from:

Comodo Free Fireall (Free)
http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/

Jetico Personal Firewall (Free)
http://www.jetico.com/index.htm#/jpfirewall.htm

Outpost Firewall from Agnitum (Free and up)
http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpostfree/

Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall (KPF) (Free and up)
http://www.kerio.com/kpf_download.html

ZoneAlarm (Free and up)
http://www.zonelabs.com/

You should find the right firewall for your situation in that
list and set it up if you feel the Windows XP firewall is
insufficient.

Every firewall WILL require some maintenance. Essentially checking for
patches or upgrades (this goes for hardware and software solutions) is
the extent of this maintenance - you may also have to configure your
firewall to allow some traffic depending on your needs.

** Don't stack the software firewalls! Running more than one software
firewall will not make you safer - it would possibly negate some
protection you gleamed from one or the other firewall you run. It is
fine (and in many ways better) to have the software firewall as well
as a NAT router.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Reply at the bottom to maintain dialog order...

<snip>
Conversation in its entirety:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...bject:crap+insubject:cleaner#d7dbee82990e53bf



walt wrote:

Isn't the Windows Firewall a good enough Firewall? If not, what is
recommended?

No Windows firewall is not good enough, see Zone Alarm (free) or
others at: http://www.firewallguide.com/software.htm

I disagree with that answer in this situation.

I have reviewed the entire thread and stating outright that the Windows XP
SP2 Firewall is not good enough I believe is a careless statement based
off nothing. From what has been said in this thread - one cannot make the
conclusion that the Windows XP SP2 Firewall is not sufficient for this
particular user. Statements like that are what likely cause some people
to panic and purchase 'All-in-One' suites like those from Norton/McAfee -
that often do more damage than good (in terms of resource utilization vs.
protection they give) and have so many features - they end up confusing
the user more than helping.

walt,

We would need to know more about your configuration in order to make a
valid suggestion. For example:

- How do you currently connect to the Internet?
- If by 'high-speed Internet' such as Cable Modem, DSL, Satellite - is
there a router (netgear, linksys, d-link or even one provided by the ISP)
that separates you from the Internet and allows you to utilize more than
one computer on said connection (by ethernet cable or wireless?)
- How many users utilize your computer?
- Do you utilize an administrative level account for your daily
activities - or have you created a 'limited user' to use daily - only
logging in with administrative rights when you need to install/remove
software/etc?


In my experience - if you do have an Internet router that already provides
NAT (which is some level of protection between yourself and the
Internet) --> then the Windows Firewall is more than sufficient (in some
cases - the Windows Firewall is more than sufficient even without the
router - but the router definitely puts it over the edge.) The Windows
XPSP2 firewall is not a 'true' firewall by some definitions- because it
monitors incoming traffic - not outgoing. So if you infest yourself with
something and it secretly starts communicating with the outside world -
you may not know. However - if you utilize common computing sense - the
chances of you getting infested with anything drop considerably.

If you want to learn a bit about cleaning up and properly maintaining and
securing what you have, I suggest going through this list of tips and
doing so. You'll come out WAY ahead as far as your computer's (and thus
your data, etc) safety and security.

<snip list>

I have seen many of your posts (Shenan Stanley) and have followed
and passed on your comments. I respect all that give their opinions
and hope to learn from you all.

I use dial-up ISP do not have anything faster, live in a rural
area. Only my wife and I use the computer. Do not know alot about
computers I guess just enough to get myself in trouble at times
(like now)

Harry O. has helped with a lot of things in the past. My
wife surfs the net often but I try and keep the spam blocked as
best I can with the before mentioned software I also have the
"Google toolbar" My ISP is very good at filtering out spam from my
email. I use Outlook Express.

I will have to read through all your tips again as it has been a while
since last read. I do use Google for my search engine and home page.
If you need anymore information let me know, and again thanks for
all the input from all.

Given that information - I think you would end up with better overall
computer performance and sufficient firewall protection from just a properly
configured Windows XP SP2 firewall. Having dial-up - there is no one
constantly trying to hack into your system - not even 'bots'. The speed
(lack of? *grin*) of your connection and the liklihood that you are not
connected 24/7 help a lot in your systems security.

You will likely notice a large performance increase just removing the Norton
product and utilizing something that will surely utilize 2-5 times less
memory/processor time to do the same (or better) job at protecting you
against viruses. Combine that with a few antispyware products (you might
consider AVG AntiVirus and AVG AntiSpyware solutions - free, resident
protection and easy on system resources) to fully protect your system but
leave as much speed as you can muster out of it.

Tips 9 and 10 may be where you want to concentrate first out of the list I
gave you earlier. ;-)

 

[JS]

I have no problems with that, very good post/reply.

My main reason for the initial rejection of Windows built-in firewall is as
you stated (and I should have stated) is that's it is only one way. I'm sure
you are well aware of how many pieces of software want Internet access, even
things you would never suspect or think of, but most people are not and that
is part of my logic behind the original post. Yes most firewalls need to be
trained as to what to allow, ask when needed or block but this also trains
the user also.

JS

 

[Gerry]

JS

Why are other software firewalls better?



~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[JS]

Basically they have two way protection, as stated earlier I like to see
every application that attempts to contact the Internet.
As one example Adobe Reader will attempt to go find updates even if you are
opening a local document. As a safeguard I always perform an image backup of
my PC before applying any updates no matter who they are from, Adobe or Xyz.

JS

 

[Gerry]

JS

If you need to check outgoing traffic isn't that an indication that your
computer is compromised. If you cannot trust installed programmes you
should not have installed them. Some firewalls do not check the identity
of the sender of outgoing traffic properly and given this state of
affairs malware can piggy back on trusted software to render checking
outgoing software ineffective. Making certain your other protective
measures are fully effective surely negates the need for checking
outgoing trafiic?


--
~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[JS]

It's not that I don't trust installed programs, the updates can sometimes
have bugs and a prior backup can help.
No one piece of software (AV, Firewall, Etc.) is 100% effective.
Zone Alarm is just one of many tools I use and I know it's not perfect.
Comodo received some positive/detailed reviews lately and I might switch at
some point in time.

JS

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Comodo do a very good free firewall, said to be better than ZA..

http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Use Windows Defender, Hostsman and WinPatrol too..

 

[Olórin]

As I understand it, the latter (Spywareblaster) always runs in the
background.
I make it a habit to update the definition files of all three about
once a week, and then run adaware and spybot.

Spywareblaster doesn't always run in the background - you fire it up, grab
the updates, hit Protect All and close it. Love it. (I prefer to scan at
will rather than leaving something munching away at my resources.)

I remember reading negative reviews of the new version of AdAware when it
came out - related to having to leave its service running. Folk were going
back to the previous (SE?) version, though I don't know how long updates
will be issued for that.

I personally also like the AVG AntiSpyware (which you don't have to have
running in the background either -
http://free.grisoft.com/doc/downloads-products/us/frt/0?prd=asf) and
SUPERAntiSpyware <embarrassed at having to use those caps>
(http://www.superantispyware.com/superantispywarefreevspro.html)

As others have said, no one product alone will do the job; a mix of three or
so is far more effective. That plus good surfing practice.

 

[Brian A.]

I know you didn't ask me, but I use AVG Anti-Virus by Grisoft
www.Grisoft.com

AVG IMHO is sub-par and basically worthless.

I'm told that AntiVir is better, but I haven't used it.
(I believe it does not check email for viruses - AVG does.)
http://www.free-av.com/


As I understand it, the latter (Spywareblaster) always runs in the
background.

Spyware Blaster does not run in the background at any time what-so-ever. What it
does is add CLSID entries into the registry that block the nasties from any access to
the PC. The only time SB runs is when the user starts it, once closed it no longer
runs until the user starts it again.

I make it a habit to update the definition files of all three about
once a week, and then run adaware and spybot.

If you clean out your cookies and MRU's frequently, these programs
hopefully won't find too much.
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/mrublaster.html

I'm no expert, and none of the above is scientifically proven, but my
machine stays pretty clean.

Now, if only I could find a way to filter out the spam. Every time I
add filters, those @$!*&* spammers find ways of circumventing them.
Oh, wel . . . . . .

Cheers!
_________________________________
Old Enough
to know I don't know a thing ....

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

[Olórin]

AVG IMHO is sub-par and basically worthless.

Why do you say that? Just curious...

What free a-v product would you recommend (if any) and why?

 

[Brian A.]

Why do you say that? Just curious...

When I tested it, virus detection was lacking where a few slipped passed it, and
they weren't new ones. Also it wouldn't detect a virus a few levels deep in an
archive/compressed/zip file.

What free a-v product would you recommend (if any) and why?

Avast is the only one out of the few I recommended in the past that is free, not
the "free" many companies mention which are free to try (trial versions). I tend to
shy away from recommending free av apps anymore, my thoughts are you get what you pay
for.


--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

[walt]

OK I have decided to remove Norton 2008 and get something different. I don't
have to have a "free" anti-virus" program if something is better that
doesn't cost an arm and a leg. With so many being talked about, which would
be the best for me to get? I am on dial up so down loading a large program
could be difficult for me. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Olórin]

OK I have decided to remove Norton 2008 and get something different. I
don't have to have a "free" anti-virus" program if something is better
that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. With so many being talked about, which
would be the best for me to get? I am on dial up so down loading a large
program could be difficult for me. Any help would be appreciated.

<snip>

Eset's NOD32 is a frontrunner, certainly worth checking out. I think their
newest version now goes beyond AV to include security as well (firewall,
anti-malware, spam blocker); it would be a shame if they have stopped
offering just AV.

 

[walt]

Thank you for the tip, I will check it out.

<snip>

Eset's NOD32 is a frontrunner, certainly worth checking out. I think their
newest version now goes beyond AV to include security as well (firewall,
anti-malware, spam blocker); it would be a shame if they have stopped
offering just AV.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

OK I have decided to remove Norton 2008 and get something
different. I don't have to have a "free" anti-virus" program if
something is better that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. With so
many being talked about, which would be the best for me to get? I
am on dial up so down loading a large program could be difficult
for me. Any help would be appreciated. "Shenan Stanley"

I would go through some of the other options in my tips list.

Don't think that because you *pay* for something it will be any better than
a free option and don't think that the free options being pushed by people
on these newsgroups are *just* because they are free. They do their job as
well if not better than the pay options in the case of the ones that do get
pushed. In the case of AVG and AVAST, etc - the reason they get listed in
my tips as well as McAfee and Norton is that they do the same job as well or
better than the latter two *and* they end up costing less and using up less
of your valuable system resources to do their job.

Here's the tip I am referring to above:

Tip (9):
What about the dreaded word in the computer world, VIRUS?

Well, there are many products to choose from that will help you prevent
infections from these horrid little applications. Many are FREE to the
home user and which you choose is a matter of taste, really. Many people
have emotional attachments or performance issues with one or another
AntiVirus software. Try some out, read reviews and decide for yourself
which you like more:

( Good Comparison Page for AV software: http://www.av-comparatives.org/ )

AntiVir (Free and up)
http://www.free-av.com/

avast! (Free and up)
http://www.avast.com/

AVG Anti-Virus System (Free and up)
http://free.grisoft.com/

eset NOD32 (~$39.00 and up)
http://www.eset.com/products/

Kaspersky Anti-Virus (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_anti-virus

McAfee VirusScan (~$39.99 and up)
http://www.mcafee.com/

Panda Antivirus (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/antivirus/
(Free Online Scanner:
http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/activescan/)

Symantec (Norton) AntiVirus (~$39.99 and up)
http://snipurl.com/13e12

Trend Micro (~$44.95 and up)
http://us.trendmicro.com/us/products/personal/antivirus-plus-anti-spyware/index.html (Free Online Scanner: http://housecall.trendmicro.com/)Most of them have automatic update capabilities. You will have tolook into the features of the one you choose. Whatever one you finallysettle with - be SURE to keep it updated (I recommend at least daily) andperform a full scan periodically (yes, most protect you actively, but afull scan once a month at 4AM probably won't bother you.)--Shenan Stanley MS-MVP--How To Ask Questions The Smart Wayhttp://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[walt]

I did see this section of your tips, but being the novice that I am, I have
no idea which would be the better one for me. The easiest for me to use and
keep updated. I hear so much about AVG and AVAST it kind of confuses me of
which is the better (if there is) that is why I am asking the questions, not
to make another foolish choice. Thanks you very much for your help and
impute it is greatly appreciated.

 

[JS]

You can google for some reviews on products.
AVAST
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AVAST+review

AVG
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AVG+review&btnG=Search

Or:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=AntiVirus+review&spell=1

JS

 

[walt]

I don't know why but on the web based reader it started a new thread? At home
I can use Outlook Express and it's all in the same thread? Anyway thank you
everyone for your impute. I still don't know which is the best for me? All
the reviews say that their product is the best. Decisions, decisions.