Protecting against malware with combinations of free programs

[Ray K]

I've collected a bunch of free (or almost free) programs for preventing
malware from entering a computer and detecting any already present:
AdAware, AVG, Avast, Avira, SpyBoy, Malwarebytes, SUPERAntiSpyware. I'm
sure there are lots of others that I don't know about.

Any suggestions for program combinations that will prevent most of the
bad stuff from ever getting into my computer? I'm looking for
thoroughness, compatible with each other, and minimal slowdown of
incoming material of all sorts (mainly email, photos, videos, music).
XP, SP3, OS.

(I know this kind of question often triggers flame wars, but I hope this
doesn't happen here.)

One of the things I didn't like about AVG (or was it Avast?) was that it
was daily downloading huge update files, make the computer sluggish
while the d/l was in progress. I find it hard to believe that there are
that many new threats every day. I suspect it is a marketing ploy to
exaggerated the dangers. Then again, I may just be naive, but the other
programs don't update anywhere near as often.

Thanks for your advice.

Ray

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ray K" <[email protected]>

| I've collected a bunch of free (or almost free) programs for preventing
| malware from entering a computer and detecting any already present:
| AdAware, AVG, Avast, Avira, SpyBoy, Malwarebytes, SUPERAntiSpyware. I'm
| sure there are lots of others that I don't know about.

| Any suggestions for program combinations that will prevent most of the
| bad stuff from ever getting into my computer? I'm looking for
| thoroughness, compatible with each other, and minimal slowdown of
| incoming material of all sorts (mainly email, photos, videos, music).
| XP, SP3, OS.

| (I know this kind of question often triggers flame wars, but I hope this
| doesn't happen here.)

| One of the things I didn't like about AVG (or was it Avast?) was that it
| was daily downloading huge update files, make the computer sluggish
| while the d/l was in progress. I find it hard to believe that there are
| that many new threats every day. I suspect it is a marketing ploy to
| exaggerated the dangers. Then again, I may just be naive, but the other
| programs don't update anywhere near as often.

| Thanks for your advice.

| Ray

All the software in the world will NOT protect you if you do bot follow Safe Hex
practices.

That's what you need to learn.

 

[FromTheRafters]

I've collected a bunch of free (or almost free) programs for
preventing malware from entering a computer

Snort, on a dedicated firewall?

and detecting any already present:

It kinda has to 'be there' to be detected, no?

AdAware, AVG, Avast, Avira, SpyBoy, Malwarebytes, SUPERAntiSpyware.
I'm sure there are lots of others that I don't know about.

All of those require the malware to be 'on the computer'.

Any suggestions for program combinations that will prevent most of the
bad stuff from ever getting into my computer? I'm looking for
thoroughness, compatible with each other, and minimal slowdown of
incoming material of all sorts (mainly email, photos, videos, music).
XP, SP3, OS.

A dedicated firewall appliance running with your choice of tools.

Otherwise, you will have to analyse "on your machine" what was accepted.

(I know this kind of question often triggers flame wars, but I hope
this doesn't happen here.)

Bring it on, troublemaker! )

One of the things I didn't like about AVG (or was it Avast?) was that
it was daily downloading huge update files, make the computer sluggish
while the d/l was in progress. I find it hard to believe that there
are that many new threats every day. I suspect it is a marketing ploy
to exaggerated the dangers. Then again, I may just be naive, but the
other programs don't update anywhere near as often.

All you've told us so far is that you want lots of protection running
but don't want the rest of the running programs to appear slower. Well,
that just isn't going to happen unless you take my suggestion about a
dedicated device.

I'm running Avira's AntiVir (free version) on my XP machine and Alwil's
Avast! (free version) on my Vista machine. I use Malwarebytes'
Anti-Malware (free) on my XP machine because that's the one I take the
most chances with - but some people like to have an antimalware with
active protection too (both SuperAntiSpyware and MBAM have paid versions
that have active protection IIRC).

More and more, scanners are going 'wide spectrum' and start to interfere
with one another. Your paid versions of AV have added value such as
anti-spyware modules and privacy nannies, they may interfere with your
chosen AS or privacy enhancing software.

 

[PajaP]

I've collected a bunch of free (or almost free) programs for preventing
malware from entering a computer and detecting any already present:
AdAware, AVG, Avast, Avira, SpyBoy, Malwarebytes, SUPERAntiSpyware. I'm
sure there are lots of others that I don't know about.

Any suggestions for program combinations that will prevent most of the
bad stuff from ever getting into my computer?

All you need is Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows firewall.
The usual safe hex rules apply and keeping your computer OS and *all*
software up to date with any security updates and patches.
Microsoft can be trusted to protect their OS, despite what a few
individuals might think.

(I know this kind of question often triggers flame wars, but I hope this
doesn't happen here.)

Why would it. We call it discussion here

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

All you need is Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows firewall.
The usual safe hex rules apply and keeping your computer OS and *all*
software up to date with any security updates and patches. Microsoft can
be trusted to protect their OS, despite what a few individuals might
think.

You work for Microsoft, don't you? <lol>

 

[Paul_Jones]

You work for Microsoft, don't you? <lol>

No, just a realist

 

[Virus Guy]

All the software in the world will NOT protect you if you do bot
follow Safe Hex practices.

Safe Hex was a quaint concept 5 - 10 years ago. It's irrelevant today.

How does one practice safe hex against DNS poisoning or server-farm
hijacking?

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Virus Guy" <[email protected]>


| Safe Hex was a quaint concept 5 - 10 years ago. It's irrelevant today.

| How does one practice safe hex against DNS poisoning or server-farm
| hijacking?

Safe Hex is as important then as it is now. There may be MORE threats Today but there are
still the vast majority of common threats that haven't changed.

 

[Virus Guy]

| How does one practice safe hex against DNS poisoning or server
| farm hijacking?

Safe Hex is as important then as it is now.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Virus Guy" <[email protected]>


| You didn't answer the question.

It doesn't have to be and you snipped the qualifying statement erroneously!

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

[Virus Guy wrote:]
| [reinstated:] Safe Hex was a quaint concept 5 - 10 years ago. It's
| irrelevant today.
| How does one practice safe hex against DNS poisoning or server
| farm hijacking?

Safe Hex is as important then as it is now.

You didn't answer the question.

He was addressing and discussing your incorrect statement about Safe Hex
being irrelevant. Practicing Safe Hex with one's own PC (keeping it
infection-free) is just as, if not more so, important now as it was.

Leave the server hijacking to their administrators.

 

[Virus Guy]

He was addressing and discussing your incorrect statement about
Safe Hex being irrelevant. Practicing Safe Hex with one's own
PC (keeping it infection-free) is just as, if not more so,
important now as it was.

Those are two different concepts.

Your computer (the OS and it's ability to patch itself, various system
and program settings, active and passive malware counter measures) does
or will function autonomously to keep itself free of malware. The
extent of which depends variably on the user but for which Microsoft
(with each new version of windoze) is taking that role away from the
user.

Safe Hex is the quaint idea that the user can (or should) constantly
evaluate the useage of his computer (the websites he visits, the e-mail
attachments that he launches, the software he agrees to or wants to
download and run, etc).

My point was that Safe Hex can't apply to situations such as DNS
poisoning, server hijacking, and possibly other forms of system exposure
to malware. You can be a strict observer of safe hex and still succumb
to malware installation via those routes.

On a tangent, I might even go so far as to say that anyone that doesn't,
can't, or won't properly evaluate malware risks (ie - if they don't
practice "safe hex") probably has nothing to lose (or it is of little or
no consequence to them) if their machine becomes infected.

Safe hex was coined during the time when PC's were a little more scarce
and expensive than they are now - expecially in the home or SOHO.
Meaning that any given computer back then was being put to more
important usage compared to today.

This was before the botnet phenomena emerged - a time when there was
more malware in circulation that could cripple a system or it's files
(sometimes intentionally - sometimes not). The emergence of the botnet
meant that it was more important to NOT dammage or harm the
functionality of the infected machine, because the machine was now more
valuable if it kept functioning.

 

[PajaP]

Safe Hex was a quaint concept 5 - 10 years ago. It's irrelevant today.

How does one practice safe hex against DNS poisoning or server-farm
hijacking?

Healthy living was a quaint concept 5 - 10 years ago. Its irrelevant
today.

How does one live healthily against murder, being run over or terrorism
attacks?

Yes, My statements are as stupid as yours (though mine are intentional).
I will continue to practice safe hex and be sure to exercise and eat my
greens!

 

[FromTheRafters]

Safe Hex was a quaint concept 5 - 10 years ago. It's irrelevant
today.

How does one practice safe hex against DNS poisoning or server-farm
hijacking?

One doesn't, what one *does* do is to try to keep their system up to
date so that exploits being served from the sites they are being
directed (or redirected) to aren't effective.

Safe hex isn't just about reading the URL and determining from that
whether or not to visit the site, although that *is* a part of it.

Years ago I tried to tell folks that there are *no* safe filetypes (all
filetypes should be scanned), now I guess one should stress that there
are *no* dangerous websites (only dangerous client software).

Your statement regarding "safe hex" only indicates your misunderstanding
of the concept. It was never the case that (for instance) not opening
e-mail attachments from people that you don't know, will keep you safe -
only that it will keep you safer. You could still get malware from
infected friends, but that does not make the rule irrelevant.

 

[Bill]

X-No-Archive: Yes

Any suggestions for program combinations that will prevent most of the
bad stuff from ever getting into my computer?

Everyone's preferences are different, but whatever you do don't run two
on-access scanners at once. Bad idea.

My preferred set up is NOD32 augmented with the on-demand version of
Malwarebytes. It has been more than adequate for my needs.

 

[RayLopez99]

Your statement regarding "safe hex" only indicates your misunderstanding
of the concept. It was never the case that (for instance) not opening
e-mail attachments from people that you don't know, will keep you safe -
only that it will keep you safer. You could still get malware from
infected friends, but that does not make the rule irrelevant.

I would also argue that surfing free porn sites, like I do (amazing
what you can get without paying for it, and least visually) is also
something that is normal, and probably falls outside of "safe hex",
which if memory serves is a series of rules such as 'always visit only
sites approved by some clearinghouse', which almost certainly would
not include porn sites. So how to protect yourself when performing
these normal activities? As a newbie, I don't have the answers,
except maybe (if you believe the hype) switching to dedicated machines
running Linux when you want to surf porn.

RL

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "RayLopez99" <[email protected]>

| On Feb 24, 2:10 pm, "FromTheRafters" <[email protected]>
| wrote:


| I would also argue that surfing free porn sites, like I do (amazing
| what you can get without paying for it, and least visually) is also
| something that is normal, and probably falls outside of "safe hex",
| which if memory serves is a series of rules such as 'always visit only
| sites approved by some clearinghouse', which almost certainly would
| not include porn sites. So how to protect yourself when performing
| these normal activities? As a newbie, I don't have the answers,
| except maybe (if you believe the hype) switching to dedicated machines
| running Linux when you want to surf porn.

| RL


Surfing for p0rn can be problematic.

You have to find and use free p0rn sites that are known to be safe and NEVER fall ofor any
sh!t that you have to download a viewer or CODEC to viewe a video.