B
bomb#20
Alias said:
Tried it - total crap. It screwed up my hard disk so much it wouldn't boot. I ended
up having to edit the disk with a hex editor to get a dos format to work.
..
Tried it - total crap. It screwed up my hard disk so much it wouldn't boot. I ended
up having to edit the disk with a hex editor to get a dos format to work.
..
B
bomb#20
Steve said:
I think expecting honesty is taking it a bit too far!
..
X
xfile
Hi,
I don't remember when was the last time I was infected but I still use AV
for precautions. The following article explains some new tactics used by
hackers, such as using applications or web-based programs.
You may, say, open a document or presentation file from your colleague that
has been infected and the virus would be transferred to your computer.
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-178936.html
They always target the vulnerable ones first and then use them as a bridge
to attack other victims, and the question is, we, or at least I, don't
always know their latest tactics for doing so. AV for me is a passive
defense (vs. active defense) mechanism which cannot replace safe practice
such as those you've mentioned.
Good luck though.
I don't remember when was the last time I was infected but I still use AV
for precautions. The following article explains some new tactics used by
hackers, such as using applications or web-based programs.
You may, say, open a document or presentation file from your colleague that
has been infected and the virus would be transferred to your computer.
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-178936.html
They always target the vulnerable ones first and then use them as a bridge
to attack other victims, and the question is, we, or at least I, don't
always know their latest tactics for doing so. AV for me is a passive
defense (vs. active defense) mechanism which cannot replace safe practice
such as those you've mentioned.
Good luck though.
A
Alias
bomb#20 said:
How long ago, what version?
Funny, I've installed it on dozens of computers and all the
installations were smooth. You do know how to set your BIOS to boot from
the CDROM and follow simple instructions, don't you?
Alias
J
john
Steve Thackery said:
from my viewpoint, it's because if you don't know what's wrong with surfing
the internet without antivirus, then I doubt I could explain it to you.
just be careful giving out that kind of advise though, otherwise you'll get
nominated for MVP.
S
Steve Thackery
Colleagues,
Only one of you took up my challenge: to find a website for me to explore
that will infect my unprotected Vista machine:
http [colon] [double forward slash] astalavista [dot] box [dot] sk
Well, I spent about 40 minutes there, clicking around and following all the
links I could find. Only one - 'contact the Webmaster' - popped up a
warning saying it wanted to run my email client outside of IE7's protected
zone, to which I clicked 'Cancel', obviously. In fairness, I believe all
mailto: tags produce this warning regardless of their safety. This may or
may not have been benign.
After exploring the site I immediately went to Kaspersky and installed their
on-line scanner, which claims to be just as effective as their full-blown
product. I did a scan and here are the results, cut and pasted:
Total number of scanned objects: 43981
Number of viruses found: 0
Number of infected objects: 0
Number of suspicious objects: 0
Duration of the scan process: 00:11:10
Obviously, one cannot prove a negative, but so far all the evidence is on my
side: that you don't need an antivirus product when using Vista, unless you
DELIBERATELY ignore UAC prompts and other safety warnings.
So, colleagues, I shall regard my argument as vindicated and continue
without any antivirus product.
SteveT
Only one of you took up my challenge: to find a website for me to explore
that will infect my unprotected Vista machine:
http [colon] [double forward slash] astalavista [dot] box [dot] sk
Well, I spent about 40 minutes there, clicking around and following all the
links I could find. Only one - 'contact the Webmaster' - popped up a
warning saying it wanted to run my email client outside of IE7's protected
zone, to which I clicked 'Cancel', obviously. In fairness, I believe all
mailto: tags produce this warning regardless of their safety. This may or
may not have been benign.
After exploring the site I immediately went to Kaspersky and installed their
on-line scanner, which claims to be just as effective as their full-blown
product. I did a scan and here are the results, cut and pasted:
Total number of scanned objects: 43981
Number of viruses found: 0
Number of infected objects: 0
Number of suspicious objects: 0
Duration of the scan process: 00:11:10
Obviously, one cannot prove a negative, but so far all the evidence is on my
side: that you don't need an antivirus product when using Vista, unless you
DELIBERATELY ignore UAC prompts and other safety warnings.
So, colleagues, I shall regard my argument as vindicated and continue
without any antivirus product.
SteveT
D
dennis@home
Steve Thackery said:
Security is layered.
It won't hurt to add another free layer such as avast AV.
B
bomb#20
Alias said:
About a year ago, Ubuntu something or other.
Yes, I can follow simple instructions.
..
A
Alias
bomb#20 said:
No wonder. Ubuntu has had a new versions out since the, each more user
friendly.
Then try it with Ubuntu 7.10, aka Gutsy Gibbon.
Alias
T
TheBosst127
What antivirus software do you reccommend for Vista Home Premium. I was
running McAfee and ran into multiple problems so I uninstalled. I installed
CA which was free through my ISP, and that was no better. I am currently
running with nothing.
running McAfee and ran into multiple problems so I uninstalled. I installed
CA which was free through my ISP, and that was no better. I am currently
running with nothing.
N
NoStop
Alias said:
Which he'll never find out if he doesn't scan his crappy box with some AV
software. He might find that over time his Windoze box is running slower
and slower, but that's just the way Windoze works, regardless if it's clean
of malware.
Cheers.
--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo
Frank - seek help immediately! Visit ...
http://www.binsa.org/
X
xfile
Interesting logic.
Your test/logic is similar to those who insist that they don't need to
fasten seat belts because they have never experienced a crash car accident.
Good luck.
Your test/logic is similar to those who insist that they don't need to
fasten seat belts because they have never experienced a crash car accident.
Good luck.
B
bomb#20
TheBosst127 said:
I woudn't hold your breath waiting for an answer from Mr. Andre Da Costa.
I am still waiting to hear about the viruses he says Norton found in his
Windows directory.
If Norton had found something that Vista didn't block then I'm sure they would
have told the world about it.
So, I wouldn't trust any advice from Mr. Da Costa.
..
S
Steve Thackery
Your test/logic is similar to those who insist that they don't need to
Your logic is flawed, too. Why aren't you wearing a five point harness when
you drive? Why doesn't your car have a roll cage? Why, indeed, do you
drive at all, bearing in mind the risks?
I've done a risk assessment and can make an informed decision. You haven't.
SteveT
Your logic is flawed, too. Why aren't you wearing a five point harness when
you drive? Why doesn't your car have a roll cage? Why, indeed, do you
drive at all, bearing in mind the risks?
I've done a risk assessment and can make an informed decision. You haven't.
SteveT
X
xfile
Your logic is flawed, too.
That means you admitted your logic is flawed?
Anyway, risks are always there and you're absolutely right about it.
But it's all about to reduce the probability of "unnecessary" risk, and to
minimize the damage when the misfortune happened, right? Especially for
those we can't afford to lose or the costs will be too large? (e.g. data and
work hours)
Safe practice such as good driving habits, and in the case of using
computer, such as good programming practice and those you already mentioned
are active defense systems. But why do car manufacturers put air bags and
seat belts and so on? Those are passive defense systems for accidents that
are not caused by one's good driving habits. In that case, it's to reduce
the damage.
For virus infection, it's more than just how one wishes to use his/her
computer, for which case, I will totally respect one's choices and will not
join this thread. But if one gets infected, the system may become a bridge
for passing the virus to other systems, and that becomes a public safety
issue.
Admittedly, even AV is not 100% bullet proof but we can at least minimize
the risk to certain degree without exposing ourselves to all known and
unknown viruses. And if we are unfortunately infected, we could quickly fix
the problem or minimize the damage until a professional comes to rescue.
Vista has improved security and that's out of question, but it's not
invincible and I don't think any OS is invincible.
Honestly speaking, if your infection won't endanger others or if a reckless
driver won't hurt other innocent people or passengers in the car, I won't
care about it at all. But you may wish to reconsider not just for yourself
but also for others?
Unless of course, your system will never be online and you will never pass
any files from your system to others, it will be totally ok.
I think that I have made all necessary points, and the final choice is
yours, of course. So further decision may not be necessary.
Good luck.
That means you admitted your logic is flawed?
Anyway, risks are always there and you're absolutely right about it.
But it's all about to reduce the probability of "unnecessary" risk, and to
minimize the damage when the misfortune happened, right? Especially for
those we can't afford to lose or the costs will be too large? (e.g. data and
work hours)
Safe practice such as good driving habits, and in the case of using
computer, such as good programming practice and those you already mentioned
are active defense systems. But why do car manufacturers put air bags and
seat belts and so on? Those are passive defense systems for accidents that
are not caused by one's good driving habits. In that case, it's to reduce
the damage.
For virus infection, it's more than just how one wishes to use his/her
computer, for which case, I will totally respect one's choices and will not
join this thread. But if one gets infected, the system may become a bridge
for passing the virus to other systems, and that becomes a public safety
issue.
Admittedly, even AV is not 100% bullet proof but we can at least minimize
the risk to certain degree without exposing ourselves to all known and
unknown viruses. And if we are unfortunately infected, we could quickly fix
the problem or minimize the damage until a professional comes to rescue.
Vista has improved security and that's out of question, but it's not
invincible and I don't think any OS is invincible.
Honestly speaking, if your infection won't endanger others or if a reckless
driver won't hurt other innocent people or passengers in the car, I won't
care about it at all. But you may wish to reconsider not just for yourself
but also for others?
Unless of course, your system will never be online and you will never pass
any files from your system to others, it will be totally ok.
I think that I have made all necessary points, and the final choice is
yours, of course. So further decision may not be necessary.
Good luck.
X
xfile
I am tired, and I meant to say - further discussion may not be necessary.
Good luck.
Good luck.
D
DarkSentinel
bomb#20 said:
Well here is from MY scan logs from Norton...
12/10/2007 7:15:52 AM,Auto-Protect,CasinoOnNet,Removal not
attempted,File,2007.12.09.006,10.1.0.26,SYSTEM,KANG,"Source:
C:\Windows\Install.exe,Risk category: Security risk,Overall Risk Impact:
Low,Action taken: Removal not attempted"
12/10/2007 7:15:52 AM,Auto-Protect,CasinoOnNet,Removal not
attempted,File,2007.12.09.006,10.1.0.26,SYSTEM,KANG,"Source:
C:\Windows\Install.$$A,Risk category: Security risk,Overall Risk Impact:
Low,Action taken: Removal not attempted"
This little beauty popped an extra entry into my Vista start menu, BUT
didn't show up under the Classic start menu. Slipped past everything, and I
am protected out the wazoo. I had to do a manual removal.
So if this slipped past everything I have, there is INDEED a need for AV.
D
DarkSentinel
Steve Thackery said:
Not vindicated, sorry. See my response to bomb#20. Norton DID find a virus
in my C:\windows folder.
B
bomb#20
DarkSentinel said:
Well, if Norton classes whatever it found as :
Security risk,Overall Risk Impact:
Low,
then it doesn't sound like a virus to me !
..
D
DarkSentinel
bomb#20 said:Well, if Norton classes whatever it found as :
Security risk,Overall Risk Impact:
Low,
then it doesn't sound like a virus to me !
That wasn't the question, now was it? He said that nothing was going to slip
into the C:\windows folder. I just proved otherwise. Whether it is
low-impact or not, has no bearing. WAS it found in that directory? Yes, it
was. Be it virus, malware, trojan, whatever. Don't try changing the
parameters on the fly, just because you don't like the answer. Here is the
link to the description of the threat.
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-062612-1530-99&tabid=1
Notice what it says under behavior...
Behavior
CasinoOnNet is an application that allows users to play online gambling
games. The software has reportedly been installed on computers without
notice or consent and is a potentially unwanted program.
Without notice or consent it says. That fits the bill for needing
protection wouldn't you say? And it DID slip past Vista's built in security
as well. I don't game or gamble on line. So this crap got picked up
somewhere while I was researching something, and was added WITHOUT telling
me, and WITHOUT my consent. That alone fits the bill for needing protection
for me and others.
The question you have to ask right now IS...
If a low-risk threat got past, what's to stop a high risk threat from doing
the same thing? I for one would rather be overly anal about security, and be
protected, than lose my data because I took a lackadaisical view towards it.