NAV did not protect

J

jimhend1

My PC became infected by a trojan , Troj_Agent-1, and a virus,
OptixPro.C, that NAV 2004 Auto-Protect(subscription up to date)failed
to trap. Ultimately I used Adaware-SE and Panda free virus scan to
clean both of them. In neither case did NAV website have any record of
the virus names and it took adaware and panda to clean them. In
fact,the Troj_Agent-1 would disable NAV and
not allow it to run. That was how I knew I had a problem, NAV kept
shutting down and I could not restart it. Why did they not have these
items in your database. My subscription is due for renewal in March
2005. Why should I stick with NAV and not switch to Panda?
 
I

Ian Kenefick

My PC became infected by a trojan , Troj_Agent-1, and a virus,
OptixPro.C, that NAV 2004 Auto-Protect(subscription up to date)failed
to trap. Ultimately I used Adaware-SE and Panda free virus scan to
clean both of them. In neither case did NAV website have any record of
the virus names and it took adaware and panda to clean them. In
fact,the Troj_Agent-1 would disable NAV and
not allow it to run. That was how I knew I had a problem, NAV kept
shutting down and I could not restart it. Why did they not have these
items in your database. My subscription is due for renewal in March
2005. Why should I stick with NAV and not switch to Panda?

Consider an alternative to Norton Antivirus!


Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com
 
J

jmarsh1000

I seem to have found holes in Norton AntiVirus also...the 2005 version
is on the main PC here, which I use for webpage & utility downloads.
These are then used on an older machine (Research Machines
Accelerator(!)P3), which is now even slower than previously. So it's
out with the 'free' magazine CDs, and Spybot etc. I presume that the
main PC is comprehensively infected; it just shows up less, as it runs
faster (AMD Athlon).
I spotted a new product on the Symantec US site, that's supposed to
deal with all this crap effectively. Why bother, if the free stuff is
fine?...
 
S

Spin Dryer

On 22 Jan 2005 20:15:54 -0800, [[email protected]] said :-
My PC became infected by a trojan , Troj_Agent-1, and a virus,
OptixPro.C, that NAV 2004 Auto-Protect(subscription up to date)failed
to trap. Ultimately I used Adaware-SE and Panda free virus scan to
clean both of them. In neither case did NAV website have any record of
the virus names and it took adaware and panda to clean them. In
fact,the Troj_Agent-1 would disable NAV and
not allow it to run. That was how I knew I had a problem, NAV kept
shutting down and I could not restart it. Why did they not have these
items in your database. My subscription is due for renewal in March
2005. Why should I stick with NAV and not switch to Panda?

The question begs here - how did you get affected in the first place ?

Trojans and viruses just don't happen, unless you've got a poorly
patched windoze box.

_NO_ AV softwarre is ever going to be 100% accurate or up to date.

Dump NAV, use Avast, or AVG7
 
A

Andrew Sayers

Ian Kenefick said:
Consider an alternative to Norton Antivirus!

Consider ANY alternative to Norton Antivirus. Avast! 4.5 is free for home use and is
excellent, or NOD32 which is subscription based (not sure how much the home licence
is as we have a multi-user licence). NOD32 has the smallest effect of you system as
it used very few resources and is reliable.
 
D

Dale Benjamin

No AV catches all of them, it seems. Norton is usually among the first
with a fix for the latest nasties, but there is an awesome number of
virae that have been produced. Most are very rarely seen anymore, and
so many AVs do not scan for them.

Don't dump Symantec, but do use another, or several other AVs too.
msconfig lets you set up your Startup programs so you can choose which
AV and firewall to run.
 
I

Ian Kenefick

No AV catches all of them, it seems.
True!

Norton is usually among the first with a fix for the latest nasties,

You couldn't be further from the truth, quite the opposite is true of
Symantec's response times. -
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executive_tech/article.php/3316511
Take this as one example, there are many more!

Making new words are we :)
Most are very rarely seen anymore, and so many AVs do not scan for them.

What? That's not true!
Don't dump Symantec

Why? There are far better and cheaper AV available.
but do use another, or several other AVs too.

Yes! but not all at the same time - no more then one resident product
simultaneously! The best and fastest way to find scan a file with
multiple engines is www.virustotal.com
msconfig lets you set up your Startup programs so you can choose which
AV and firewall to run.

This is not a good idea. Many AV and firewalls run as services - you
can't disable these using MSconfig.

Back to the drawing board with your theories I'd say :-(


Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com
 
D

Dale Benjamin

Many thanks for the reply, Sir!

Ian Kenefick said:
nasties,

You couldn't be further from the truth, quite the opposite is true of
Symantec's response times. -
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executive_tech/article.php/3316511
Take this as one example, there are many more!

That's interesting, but I think Symantec's share of the internet
security market earns them a lot of flak. It may be well deserved, have
to see.
Making new words are we :)

Pardon my crummy 6th grade Latin
them.

What? That's not true!

I read an article on the web somewhere to that effect, and it does seem
reasonable enough, the stuff that was coming out in the mid 90s
generally doesn't get back on the net anymore. The author's point was
it takes time to scan for a virus, and the more virae are scanned for,
the longer the operation takes. So they don't scan for those rarely
seen in the 'wild' anymore. To what extent the author was correct and
my understanding of the author's assertions is correct is dubious, true.
Why? There are far better and cheaper AV available.

Redundancy. Already paid for, and it's cheap after the ubiquitous
discounts. And I like the ad blocking, too.
Yes! but not all at the same time - no more then one resident product
simultaneously! The best and fastest way to find scan a file with
multiple engines is www.virustotal.com


This is not a good idea. Many AV and firewalls run as services - you
can't disable these using MSconfig.

May be something to that, it's kind of hard to tell what's running and
where it comes from. Oh, yes, I know that System Information > System
Summary, etc. does list a lot of stuff, but checking all that out could
get to be work!

Far as I could tell msconfig dealt with it just fine, just hard to
remember what program was from which program set.

I'm reinstalling anyway, so I'll maybe see if I can do something towards
dealing with the services angle. I was hoping the necessity wouldn't
arise.

Back to the drawing board with your theories I'd say :-(

Notions, Mr. Kenefick, nothing more. I'm at a loss on how to deal with
malicious hackers, but I run an anti virus and a firewall whenever I
dialup.

So long as I'm reinstalling Windows Millenium anyway, I suppose I should
use System Information > System Summary, etc. to determine what programs
( or tasks ) are running under what conditions, and what else runs when
firewalls and anti virus programs, plug ins, alternative browsers, email
clients, etc. are instaled and run. Not a really optimum approach
because a malware could run and terminate in between my checks. Need
something that could check every few seconds, and make a log of what is
running. I mess around with BASIC a little, and it shouldn't be real
hard to compile a simplification.

File corruptions are also a concern. I use Sygate Personal Free
Firewall, and it cathes a lot of port scans. In between the possibility
of someone getting in, or visiting a malicious web page, there seem to
be substantial possibilities someone could mess a system up. I reckon
the md5 algorithm is the way to check this out. I'll have a linux
partition on the same disk, and use it to check my windows partitions
daily, I reckon.

These again are only notions, nothing more. But I'd be interested if
you know of any work already done along these lines. Thanks again.
 
I

Ian Kenefick

That's interesting, but I think Symantec's share of the internet
security market earns them a lot of flak.

Flak - caused by bloated software and overall detection leaves a lot
to be desired
It may be well deserved, have to see.
Yep!

Pardon my crummy 6th grade Latin

Plural of Virus is 'Viruses' and not 'virii' or 'virae'

I read an article on the web somewhere to that effect, and it does seem
reasonable enough, the stuff that was coming out in the mid 90s
generally doesn't get back on the net anymore. The author's point was
it takes time to scan for a virus, and the more virae are scanned for,
the longer the operation takes. So they don't scan for those rarely
seen in the 'wild' anymore. To what extent the author was correct and
my understanding of the author's assertions is correct is dubious, true.

If the author did say this he was incorrect.
Redundancy.
Explain?

Already paid for, and it's cheap after the ubiquitous
discounts. And I like the ad blocking, too.

You choose an Antivirus because of it's ad-blocking capabilities? Try
Mozilla - it's free!
May be something to that, it's kind of hard to tell what's running and
where it comes from.

No - quite easy - use the Windows registry :)
Far as I could tell msconfig dealt with it just fine, just hard to
remember what program was from which program set.

No! as mentioned MSCONFIG doesnt handle services.
I'm reinstalling anyway, so I'll maybe see if I can do something towards
dealing with the services angle. I was hoping the necessity wouldn't
arise.

Try Kaspersky :)
Notions, Mr. Kenefick, nothing more. I'm at a loss on how to deal with
malicious hackers, but I run an anti virus and a firewall whenever I
dialup.

Antivirus & Firewall & Fully up to date patched Windows.
So long as I'm reinstalling Windows Millenium anyway, I suppose I should
use System Information > System Summary, etc. to determine what programs
( or tasks ) are running under what conditions, and what else runs when
firewalls and anti virus programs, plug ins, alternative browsers, email
clients, etc. are instaled and run.

Use a good third party process manager -
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml

File corruptions are also a concern.
ok?

I use Sygate Personal Free Firewall, and it cathes a lot of port scans. In between the possibility
of someone getting in

No IDS with the free version - try Zone Alarm free version
or visiting a malicious web page

Use firefox
there seem to be substantial possibilities someone could mess a system up.

How?


Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com
 
D

Dale Benjamin

Ian Kenefick said:
Flak - caused by bloated software and overall detection leaves a lot
to be desired


Plural of Virus is 'Viruses' and not 'virii' or 'virae'

true.

If the author did say this he was incorrect.


You choose an Antivirus because of it's ad-blocking capabilities? Try
Mozilla - it's free!

At the risk of seemin xenophobic or something, I chose it because
Symantec and McAffee are abuot the only internet security from the USA,
and the post USSR seems distinctly less friendly to America and
Americans.
No - quite easy - use the Windows registry :)

If there's some way to get it to keep a log ( on Windows Millenium ), I
would certainly be much pleased to learn of this! I looked at
procexp.exe from SysInternals, didn't see where to do a log there.
Seems like if would be nice to have a log of what is running and for how
long.
No! as mentioned MSCONFIG doesnt handle services.


Try Kaspersky :)


Antivirus & Firewall & Fully up to date patched Windows.


Use a good third party process manager -
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/procexp.shtml



No IDS with the free version - try Zone Alarm free version


Use firefox
system up.

How?

Darned if I know, but the buffer overflow exploits I've read a little
about seem to open up possibilities. I use Firefox more than MSIE for
browsing, it looks good now, but as it gets a larger market share it
will be a more inviting target for malicious hackers. And with the
entire source code available to anyone, it will be an easier nut to
crack. I intend no disrespect to the many folk who contributed to the
effort, but security is one of many goals in a project, and a line has
to be drawn somewhere.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Dale said:
Darned if I know, but the buffer overflow exploits I've read a
little about seem to open up possibilities. I use Firefox more
than MSIE for browsing,

You would have a safer surfing experience if you used Firefox all the
time, except perhaps for Windows Updates.
it looks good now, but as it gets a larger market share it will be
a more inviting target for malicious hackers. And with the entire
source code available to anyone, it will be an easier nut to crack.

Do you think the code for IE hasn't been reverse-engineered by the
hackers? Crackers, actually; hackers are good guys. The fact that
Firefox is open-source means that thousands of programmers can see if
a hole exists.
I intend no disrespect to the many folk who contributed to the
effort, but security is one of many goals in a project, and a line
has to be drawn somewhere.

Draw that line at .. products that begin with .. Microsoft ? Security
certainly *is* a goal of the Mozilla folks.
 
K

kurt wismer

Beauregard said:
Dale Benjamin wrote: [snip]
it looks good now, but as it gets a larger market share it will be
a more inviting target for malicious hackers. And with the entire
source code available to anyone, it will be an easier nut to crack.

Do you think the code for IE hasn't been reverse-engineered by the
hackers? Crackers, actually; hackers are good guys. The fact that
Firefox is open-source means that thousands of programmers can see if a
hole exists.

not only that, but they have a bounty system for finding security
bugs... there's an actual financial incentive for people to look at the
mozilla codebase and find and report security related bugs...
 
D

Dale Benjamin

Thanks for the comments!

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
You would have a safer surfing experience if you used Firefox all the
time, except perhaps for Windows Updates.


Do you think the code for IE hasn't been reverse-engineered by the
hackers? Crackers, actually; hackers are good guys. The fact that
Firefox is open-source means that thousands of programmers can see if
a hole exists.

Reverse-engineering, or decompiling machine code for Intel x86
processors and compatibles into c language source, is an awesomely
difficult task. It is possible to a limited extent, but the almost
unbelievable complexity and vagarity of x86 machine code guarantees such
efforts will meet with little success. Of course all camps have
defectors eventually, and what they can take with them they probably
will.
Draw that line at .. products that begin with .. Microsoft ? Security
certainly *is* a goal of the Mozilla folks.

I suppose one will find that line in all products where it is a concern.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top