Is Defender alone sufficient???

  • Thread starter Thread starter e
  • Start date Start date
E

e

Core2Duo, Vista Business

I've been using Avast! plus Defender. Is that redundant?

I *never* visit risky sites or open questionable email
attachments, etc. There are no games or entertainments
on this machine.
 
e said:
Core2Duo, Vista Business

I've been using Avast!

Good idea.
plus Defender.

Fox guarding chicken coop.
Is that redundant?

What firewall do you use, Vista that let's MS phone home whenever it
wants or a real firewall? Have you got a router between your Internet
modem and your computer?
I *never* visit risky sites or open questionable email attachments, etc.
There are no games or entertainments on this machine.

You might want to consider adding Spybot, Search and Destroy, AVG's anti
root kit program, spywareblaster and spywareguard to your arsenal or,
even better yet, get rid of the virus and malware prone Windows Vista
and upgrade to Ubuntu, http://www.ubuntu.com/

Alias
 
Alias said:
Good idea.


Fox guarding chicken coop.


What firewall do you use, Vista that let's MS phone home whenever it wants
or a real firewall? Have you got a router between your Internet modem and
your computer?


You might want to consider adding Spybot, Search and Destroy, AVG's anti
root kit program, spywareblaster and spywareguard to your arsenal or, even
better yet, get rid of the virus and malware prone Windows Vista and
upgrade to Ubuntu, http://www.ubuntu.com/

Alias

Do Not Use Ubuntu On Any Machine. Just FYI. I Used Ubuntu On My Pc And I
Was Not Happy. Just FYI. I Reformatted My PC And Installed Windows 2008
Server, Just FYI.

Run Windows 2008 Server. Just FYI
 
Go Away Imposter, Just FYI.

Do Not Use Ubuntu On Any Machine. Just FYI. I Used Ubuntu On My Pc And I
Was Not Happy. Just FYI. I Reformatted My PC And Installed Windows 2008
Server, Just FYI.

Run Windows 2008 Server. Just FYI
 
From known microsoft vista Ad>>>

Defender unleashes thousands of electronic lassos that secure your pc.
It uses the same filters that the cigarette companies use to filter smoke
and have more holes than
a big yellow sponge. Its equippted with the revolutionary DCS technology
(doesnt catch sh#t)

--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free
 
Alias, I am opening dialogue with you
by sending you an email
I won't bother you again.
 
I've been using Avast! plus Defender. Is that redundant?



No, it's not redundant. They are two different things. Avast! is an
anti-virus program, but Defender is anti-spyware.

As a matter of fact, it's not even sufficient. A single anti-spyware
program such as Defender, no matter how good it is, is not good enough
to fully protect you. Note what Eric Howes, who has done extensive
testing on Anti-Spyware products, states:

"No single anti-spyware scanner removes everything. Even the
best-performing anti-spyware scanner in these tests missed fully one
quarter of the "critical" files and Registry entries" See
http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm

So given that a single product is not enough for good protection, two
are better than one, three are better than two, and so on.

Do you "need" more than two? There's no clear answer to those
questions. My own practice is very conservative, and I
personally run

Spybot Search and Destroy
Adaware
Spyware Blaster
Windows Defender
Super-Antispyware
A-Squared


but not at the same time.


I *never* visit risky sites or open questionable email
attachments, etc.


Taking such care is a very good thing to do, but there are two
problems:

1. Although there are some web sites that are clearly risky to visit,
with others it isn't so clear, and it's very hard to sure that you
don't make a mistake. That's why it's good to add anti-spyware and
anti-virus software to your protection, and not *just* rely on staying
away from risky sites.

2. Similarly, it's very hard to know in advance which E-mail
attachments are questionable. You often see advice not to open
attachments from people you don't know. I think that that's one of the
most dangerous pieces of advice you see around, because it implies
that it's safe to do the opposite--open attachments from friends and
relatives. But many viruses spread by sending themselves to everyone
in the infected party's address book, so attachments received from
friends are perhaps the *most* risky to open.

Even if the attachment legitimately comes from a friend, it can
contain a virus. I'm not suggesting that a friend is likely to send
you a virus on purpose, but if the friend is infected without
realizing it, any attachment he sends you is likely to also be
infected.

Personally I never open executable attachments at all, except from a
*very* few trusted sources, and then only when I'm expecting them.
 
Microsoft itself has security center that advises you to have antivirus

You cannot have windows without an antivirus.. lets get serious here



--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free
 
you are giving ill advice in a public forum..

I can roam around without antivirus or even firewalls with windows because I
know what Im doing,

but you cannot advise people that this is OK, because its not.

if you want to take risks do it by your own

having windows without an antivirus is stupid and I dont like your idiotic
attidude either.

Microsoft doesnt agree with you.... and its all over their sites that vista
needs antivirus protection.

If you use linux or macs ok.. But not windows.



--
50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free
 
you are giving ill advice in a public forum..

Said the troll who gives ill advice in public forums.
I can roam around without antivirus or even firewalls with windows because
I know what Im doing,

Ok, but can you roam around without getting propositioned in male public
toilets?

Only a fool would be without both an antivirus and a firewall, you fool.
but you cannot advise people that this is OK, because its not.

Yet you just implied it is because you know what you're doing, or so you
claim.
if you want to take risks do it by your own

having windows without an antivirus is stupid and I dont like your idiotic
attidude either.

Hey, I don't like yours, which is why I've singled you out for special
attention.
Microsoft doesnt agree with you.... and its all over their sites that
vista needs antivirus protection.

If you use linux or macs ok.. But not windows.

If that statement is true, why do linux and macs have antivirus software and
firewalls, hmmm?

You're talking out the gaping hole between your legs. You've probably never
seen a Mac or linux either.
 
On the Bridge said:
Microsoft itself has security center that advises you to have antivirus

You cannot have windows without an antivirus.. lets get serious here

Hey, you top-posting nitwit, where did the poster make such a claim?

He didn't, did he? Hmmmm?
 
Back
Top