Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

[Danger_Duck]

Here's my perspective:

I use the internet almost exclusively to:
1. Check e-mail
2. Check facebook
3. Read/post in newsgroups
4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
5. Watch youtube videos.
6. Occasionally download files.

I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).

As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
attachments/downloads on demand?

The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
slowing down my computer, they also cost money.

Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Alias]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

Danger_Duck wrote:
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend
Micro. Save your money and get Avast at www.avast.com. Enable the
Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the
hard firewall enabled.

You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program
if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you
should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself.

Alias

 

[AlmostBob]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

No
If there is a problem the problem will most likely block you accessing the
tools to remove it
Macafee is crapware, remove and replace with something that works
Email scanning is unneccessary and should be disabled
A way large proportion of viruses are spread in "files somebody I know sent
me"

--
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://www.safer-networking.org
AVG free antivirus http://www.grisoft.com
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.pandasoftware.com/ActiveScan/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before use

Grateful thanks to the authors and webmasters
_

"Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com...
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake"
> sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url
> make
> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent
> me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for
> viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?


"Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com...
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake"
> sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url
> make
> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent
> me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for
> viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

You did not tell us how you connect to the Internet. If it's via
a modem then you will get hacked in no time at all without a
firewall. If it's via an ADSL router or similar then you have some
reasonably good basic firewall protection.

Not having virus protection makes your show risky. One wrong
click and you're history.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?


"AlmostBob" <anonymous1@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%234Op1otAJHA.2056@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> No
> If there is a problem the problem will most likely block you accessing the
> tools to remove it

Is this a self-blocking problem? Or a self-blocking virus, i.e. one
that prevents itself from spreading?

 

[R. McCarty]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

All security measures only mitigate the risk. Everything has some kind
of consequence. AV software will always impact performance. Other
things like Firewalls require decisions on what to allow and disallow. A
strict list of uses of a computer/internet guarantees nothing. The threats
change daily. These days it's not so much the OS that is attacked as it
is 3rd-party applications ( Java....) used on it. McAfee isn't one of the
better choices for protection ( Compared to other products ). Behavior
does increase risk ( Poker Games, Emoticons ) but you can never be
assured that what you do use & access is safe. Even with protections
you are exposed ( Zero Day Threats ).

Whatever steps you take - you're still exposed to threats no matter what
sites and services you make use of. It will always be a trade off, reaching
a higher level of security verses a loss of performance.

"Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com...
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake"
> sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url
> make
> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent
> me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for
> viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Danger_Duck]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not
"do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)?
I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask
for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or
unknowingly)
I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken
over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor.

"Alias" wrote:

> Danger_Duck wrote:
> > Here's my perspective:
> >
> > I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> > 1. Check e-mail
> > 2. Check facebook
> > 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> > 5. Watch youtube videos.
> > 6. Occasionally download files.
> >
> > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
> > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
> > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
> >
> > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
> > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> > attachments/downloads on demand?
> >
> > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
> > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> > slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
> >
> > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your input.
>
> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend
> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at www.avast.com. Enable the
> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the
> hard firewall enabled.
>
> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program
> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you
> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself.
>
> Alias
>

 

[HeyBub]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

Danger_Duck wrote:
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about
> "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any
> facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only
> click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of
> virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most
> of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I
> know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that
> will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only
> takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip
> files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much
> longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost
> money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal
> tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

Your "friend" may have a virus that surreptitiously sends a copy of itself
to everybody on your "friend's" mailing list. It's like sex; when you accept
an email, you're simultaneously exposing yourself to everybody the sender
has had email contact with.

You can get infected without doing anything by the simple expedient of
malicious port scans. Some goblin scans for every open port on your IP
address and, finding one, BINGO! There are various time intervals reported
for infection of an unprotected machine. I think the most common reported
time is less than a minute.

 

[Alias]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

Danger_Duck wrote:
> How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not
> "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)?
> I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask
> for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or
> unknowingly)
> I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken
> over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor.

No firewall, open computer. That simple. A hacker can get into it and
put viruses and other malware to their heart's content. You may think
you're visiting a safe site but that doesn't mean you are. If you
haven't been using even the Windows firewall, your computer is probably
compromised and I would download Avast and do a boot scan ASAP and also
run the Spybot and Superantispyware programs but, hey, it's your
computer, do what you want.

Alias
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
>> Danger_Duck wrote:
>>> Here's my perspective:
>>>
>>> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
>>> 1. Check e-mail
>>> 2. Check facebook
>>> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
>>> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
>>> 5. Watch youtube videos.
>>> 6. Occasionally download files.
>>>
>>> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
>>> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
>>> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
>>> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>>>
>>> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
>>> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
>>> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
>>> attachments/downloads on demand?
>>>
>>> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
>>> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
>>> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
>>> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>>>
>>> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
>>> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your input.
>> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend
>> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at www.avast.com. Enable the
>> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the
>> hard firewall enabled.
>>
>> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program
>> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you
>> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself.
>>
>> Alias
>>

 

[Gerry]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?


Sooner or later you will have to rename yourself Dead_Duck!

You can get reasonable anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes for free
so why play russian roulette?


--
~~~~


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


Danger_Duck wrote:
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about
> "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any
> facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only
> click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of
> virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most
> of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I
> know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that
> will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only
> takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip
> files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much
> longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost
> money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal
> tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[smlunatick]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

On Aug 20, 5:07 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Danger_Duck wrote:
> > Here's my perspective:
>
> > I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> > 1. Check e-mail
> > 2. Check facebook
> > 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> > 5. Watch youtube videos.
> > 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about
> > "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any
> > facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only
> > click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of
> > virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most
> > of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I
> > know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that
> > will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only
> > takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip
> > files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much
> > longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost
> > money.
>
> > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal
> > tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> > Thanks in advance for your input.
>
> Your "friend" may have a virus that surreptitiously sends a copy of itself
> to everybody on your "friend's" mailing list. It's like sex; when you accept
> an email, you're simultaneously exposing yourself to everybody the sender
> has had email contact with.
>
> You can get infected without doing anything by the simple expedient of
> malicious port scans. Some goblin scans for every open port on your IP
> address and, finding one, BINGO! There are various time intervals reported
> for infection of an unprotected machine. I think the most common reported
> time is less than a minute.

I have also seen a virus (MS Blaster) arrive on a PC that was not
protected. No browser or email was opened. The PC was just connected
to the Internet.

 

[Ken Blake]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

"Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com...

> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail


Do you read HTML E-mail? If so, you are susceptible to attacks within that
HTML.


> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups


Again, in HTML?


> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.

> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake"
> sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url
> make
> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent
> me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for
> viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.


Some cost money; others (including some of the best ones) are free Some slow
down your computer; others have an unnoticeable effect on performance.

You've chosen to use one of the poorest anti-virusprograms available. Only
Norton is worse than McAfee.


> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?


Maybe, maybe not. Do not assume that a virus infection is simply a nuisance,
that can be removed. Most of these things are designed to do irrevocable
damage to your files. Any many are extremely difficult to remove. Prevention
is far better than eradication.

There are those who run without any kind of security software at all, and
recommend the same to others. My view is that they are foolhardy, and if
they recommend doing this, they are irresponsible. Yes, if you are savvy
enough to know all the things you shouldn't do, and exercise great care in
everything you do do, it may be possible to remain secure without running
security software. But none of us is perfect, and there is always risk of
letting your guard down when you are tired, drunk, had a hard day at work,
had a fight with your spouse, etc.

I think running without security software is foolhardy. Everyone should
always use a firewall, an anti-virus program, and two or more anti-spyware
programs.

 

[db.·.. >]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

it's rare that people get
infected because they
ask for a virus.

instead, the strategy of
the infection is to gain
access in a covert manner.

one would have to be a
genius to know how to
avoid being infected because
the creators of the infections
are themselves evil genius's
that want to destroy the data
or greedy genius's wanting
access to your computer.

there are all kinds of infections
so there are different places
on the computer that require
protection.

so there is never a 100%
assurance that all infections
can be prevented or eliminated
because the evil genius's
become more creative.

the best thing to do is to
protect yourself from the
most common varieties of
infections that are found
almost everywhere on the
internet and in software.

it is also necessary to be
prepared in the event of
becoming infected.

for example, do you keep
copies of your personal
pictures, documents, emails
in a safe place like a cd
or dvd?

do you have a backup of
your hard drive or the system?

if not, then you should change
your handle to Sitting_Duck,
because you are the perfect
person that the underground
wants to compromise and they
are probably reading your
posting at this time.

here is more info:

http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/default.mspx

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>


"Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:447BB61B-BCA9-4F3C-8A86-1CF8D11BAA13@microsoft.com...
> How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not
> "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)?
> I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask
> for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or
> unknowingly)
> I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken
> over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor.
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
>> Danger_Duck wrote:
>> > Here's my perspective:
>> >
>> > I use the internet almost exclusively to:
>> > 1. Check e-mail
>> > 2. Check facebook
>> > 3. Read/post in newsgroups
>> > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
>> > 5. Watch youtube videos.
>> > 6. Occasionally download files.
>> >
>> > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
>> > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
>> > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
>> > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>> >
>> > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
>> > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
>> > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
>> > attachments/downloads on demand?
>> >
>> > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
>> > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
>> > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
>> > slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>> >
>> > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
>> > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for your input.
>>
>> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend
>> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at www.avast.com. Enable the
>> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the
>> hard firewall enabled.
>>
>> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program
>> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you
>> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself.
>>
>> Alias
>>

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

Firewall: *absolutely*!

AV: Better to have it and not need it then the other way around.

Anti-spyware (e.g., Defender): Ditto.

Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/computer/default.mspx

Learn how to protect your PC by taking three simple steps
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=3AD23728-4973-4DA5-9836-602954130D38

> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail

Attachments and links in emails are a major source of infections!

> 2. Check facebook

A major source of infections!

> 3. Read/post in newsgroups

If you read all messages in Plain Text and do not open any attachments, you
should be OK.

> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)

Even those sites can contain malvertizements that could infect your machine!
> 5. Watch youtube videos.

Flash is a major source of infections!

> 6. Occasionally download files.

Depends on the source; ideally, such files should be scanned prior to being
opened/used.

Benefits & Risks of P2P File Sharing
http://www.microsoft.com/protect/yourself/downloads/filesharing.mspx
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/


Danger_Duck wrote:
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake"
> sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url
> make sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent
> me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for
> viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[John]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?


"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uFu1mGuAJHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> Sooner or later you will have to rename yourself Dead_Duck!
>
> You can get reasonable anti-virus and anti-spyware programmes for free so
> why play russian roulette?

because his name is "Danger"
*doh*


>
> --
> ~~~~
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Danger_Duck wrote:
>> Here's my perspective:
>>
>> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
>> 1. Check e-mail
>> 2. Check facebook
>> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
>> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
>> 5. Watch youtube videos.
>> 6. Occasionally download files.
>>
>> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about
>> "fake" sites and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any
>> facebook attacks (2), newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only
>> click on links whose url make sense(4), and never heard of
>> virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>>
>> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most
>> of my downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I
>> know sent me. And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that
>> will virus-scan attachments/downloads on demand?
>>
>> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only
>> takes time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip
>> files for viruses every time (so when I download a zip it takes much
>> longer). In addition to slowing down my computer, they also cost
>> money.
>>
>> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal
>> tools at that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your input.
>
>

 

[Danger_Duck]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

Ok-like I said, I have McAfee (I hate it), so it's not like I have no
protection right now.

On that note, can anyone recommend a good, free virus-scanner/firewall that
does not slow down running time significantly (by which I mean I can CHOOSE
whether to scan downloaded files rather than it automatically doing so, and I
KNOW if virus scan is running in the background so I can pause it or shut it
off).

Thanks again for all the tips. I'm still not quite sure how a computer
that's simply connected to the internet can get infected without the user
doing something (how did bad guy X find my comp in the first place?), but
I'll take your word for it.

"Ken Blake" wrote:

> "Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:977BEF5F-E6D6-4DD7-A91F-B25F45CA07C3@microsoft.com...
>
> > Here's my perspective:
> >
> > I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> > 1. Check e-mail
>
>
> Do you read HTML E-mail? If so, you are susceptible to attacks within that
> HTML.
>
>
> > 2. Check facebook
> > 3. Read/post in newsgroups
>
>
> Again, in HTML?
>
>
> > 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> > 5. Watch youtube videos.
> > 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> > I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake"
> > sites
> > and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> > newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url
> > make
> > sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
> >
> > As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> > downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent
> > me.
> > And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> > attachments/downloads on demand?
> >
> > The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> > time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for
> > viruses
> > every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> > slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
>
> Some cost money; others (including some of the best ones) are free Some slow
> down your computer; others have an unnoticeable effect on performance.
>
> You've chosen to use one of the poorest anti-virusprograms available. Only
> Norton is worse than McAfee.
>
>
> > Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> > that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Do not assume that a virus infection is simply a nuisance,
> that can be removed. Most of these things are designed to do irrevocable
> damage to your files. Any many are extremely difficult to remove. Prevention
> is far better than eradication.
>
> There are those who run without any kind of security software at all, and
> recommend the same to others. My view is that they are foolhardy, and if
> they recommend doing this, they are irresponsible. Yes, if you are savvy
> enough to know all the things you shouldn't do, and exercise great care in
> everything you do do, it may be possible to remain secure without running
> security software. But none of us is perfect, and there is always risk of
> letting your guard down when you are tired, drunk, had a hard day at work,
> had a fight with your spouse, etc.
>
> I think running without security software is foolhardy. Everyone should
> always use a firewall, an anti-virus program, and two or more anti-spyware
> programs.
>
>
>

 

[John]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?


"Danger_Duck" <DangerDuck@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19D0FEA2-884B-4F2F-A82B-6D5EB23084D1@microsoft.com...
> On that note, can anyone recommend a good, free virus-scanner/firewall
> that
> does not slow down running time significantly (by which I mean I can
> CHOOSE
> whether to scan downloaded files rather than it automatically doing so,
> and I
> KNOW if virus scan is running in the background so I can pause it or shut
> it
> off).

Free AV choices are:
Avira Antivir
Avast
AVG

> I'm still not quite sure how a computer
> that's simply connected to the internet can get infected without the user
> doing something (how did bad guy X find my comp in the first place?)

Port scanning on a range of IP addresses and see which ones respond. This is
followed by an attack on an unpatched vulnerability on the PC.

An unpatched Windows exposed on the internet with no firewall may be
infected in a matter of minutes/hours. You don't have to do anything other
than turning the PC on and have it connect to the internet with no firewall
and no security patches. Try it yourself with a spare PC.

 

[Frank Church]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

Danger_Duck wrote:
> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>
> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>
> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.

A good backup scheme is critical to antivirus and spyware protection.
Keep your data files in a separate partition.

There are some UI settings and also some registry settings that allow
you to store most of your critical data on a separate partition, My
Documents and the files in the Document and Settings folder, such as D:
or E: drive.

If you get a serious infection you can restore from a previous backup
and still have most of your data intact, or reinstall Windows and your
programs. But run an AV check on the data partition as well.

Something like Acronis True Image will stand you in good stead.

/frank

 

[N. Miller]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:14:59 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Danger_Duck wrote:

>> "Alias" wrote:

>>> Danger_Duck wrote:

>>>> Here's my perspective:
>>>>
>>>> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
>>>> 1. Check e-mail
>>>> 2. Check facebook
>>>> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
>>>> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
>>>> 5. Watch youtube videos.
>>>> 6. Occasionally download files.
>>>>
>>>> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
>>>> and spam/phishing e-mails (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks (2),
>>>> newsgroups are simply http requests (3), I only click on links whose url make
>>>> sense(4), and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube(5).
>>>>
>>>> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
>>>> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
>>>> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
>>>> attachments/downloads on demand?
>>>>
>>>> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
>>>> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
>>>> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
>>>> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
>>>> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?

>>> You need both. McAfee, however, sucks big time as does Norton and Trend
>>> Micro. Save your money and get Avast at www.avast.com. Enable the
>>> Windows firewall. It would be better if you also had a router with the
>>> hard firewall enabled.
>>>
>>> You can get a virus without even opening Firefox or your email program
>>> if you don't have a firewall. If you've been running XP without one, you
>>> should run Avast's boot scan first thing after it updates itself.

>> How exactly can I get a virus if I'm connected to the internet but do not
>> "do" anything (access it myself via browser clicking on things)?
>> I always wondered how since I thought my computer receives only what I ask
>> for (knowingly or unknowingly) and spits out only things I send (knowingly or
>> unknowingly)
>> I never know whether the "while you were sleeping, your computer got taken
>> over by the russian mafia" rumor is a reality or just a rumor.

> No firewall, open computer. That simple.

Not quite that simple.

> A hacker can get into it and put viruses and other malware to their heart's
> content.

A hacker needs a point of access to place viruses and other malware on a
computer. No open ports, no points of access, firewall, or not. Ports are
opened by services, including "File and Printer sharing for Microsoft
Windows". Disable the services, and there are no open ports, no points of
access; even without a firewall.

> You may think you're visiting a safe site but that doesn't mean you are.
> If you haven't been using even the Windows firewall...

Not even the Windows firewall can do much when you visit a web site. The
moment you connect your browser to a web site, you give whatever access
permissions are set in your browser to that web site, even with a firewall
in place. Secure browsing depends upon a secure browser. No firewall can
stop what the browser allows, unless it actually stops the browser from
accessing the site.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

 

[N. Miller]

Re: Is a virus scanner/firewall really necessary?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:25:01 -0700, Danger_Duck wrote:

> Here's my perspective:
>
> I use the internet almost exclusively to:
> 1. Check e-mail
> 2. Check facebook
> 3. Read/post in newsgroups
> 4. Browse info in trusted sites (wsj.com, wikipedia)
> 5. Watch youtube videos.
> 6. Occasionally download files.
>
> I figure firefox and gmail both have filters and warnings about "fake" sites
> and spam/phishing e-mails...

> (1), I've not heard of any facebook attacks...

| http://ws.copernic.com/copern/ws/re...e/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true

Just because you aren't looking doesn't mean there isn't anything to look
for...

> (2), newsgroups are simply http requests...

Wrong. Newsgroups use the NNTP protocol. Just because *you* use a browser to
access an HTTP-to-NNTP site doesn't change that.

> (3), I only click on links whose url make sense...

I can make any URL "make sense" to you; even a dangerous one.

(4), (5). ...and never heard of virus/trojan/spyware on youtube...

| http://ws.copernic.com/copern/ws/re...e/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true

Just because you aren't looking doesn't mean there isn't anything to look
for...

> As for (6), this is one place where I see a vulnerability. But most of my
> downloads are things like Eclipse plug-ins or files somebody I know sent me.
> And if I'm uncertain, isn't there free software that will virus-scan
> attachments/downloads on demand?
>
> The reason I'm not sure about virus scanners is that McAfee not only takes
> time to update, it has this annoying habit of checking zip files for viruses
> every time (so when I download a zip it takes much longer). In addition to
> slowing down my computer, they also cost money.

There are better AV applications than McAfee. Even free ones. AVG (from
Grisoft), and Avast (from Alwil).

> Finally, when there is a problem, couldn't I just get the removal tools at
> that time and restore computer settings with cds/backup data?

If you are ever compromised, then restoration from a known good disk image
is probably your best option. But isn't prevention easier than curing?

As for the firewall issue: If Windows did not start up with a number of
potentially vulnerable services running, you wouldn't need a firewall. But
Windows installs, right out of the box, with a number of vulnerable services
running. People have put a computer with a fresh install of Windows, no
patches, or firewalls, directly on the Internet, just to watch what happens.
Compromise takes less than 60 seconds. Windows 9x systems are fairly easy to
lock down without a firewall (but you need to do it *before* connecting to
the Internet); Windows XP and later are not so easy. OTOH, even when you are
locked down, the moment you start accessing the Internet with clients
(including web browsers), you are exposing your computer to potential
malicious activity. If you like all that nifty interactive stuff, like
Facebook and YouTube offer, you are probably running JavaScript and Flash.
You are allowing the sites you visit permission to do stuff on your
computer. You are asking for trouble if you don't take prophylactic measures
while doing do.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum