Guest razor_303 Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:CCF3123C-B1BE-41D3-BC03-73D23C8365C8@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > "Donald McDaniel" <orthocross@comcast.invalid> wrote in message > news:2D06E851-1F0D-4463-8D93-A9A17377FECA@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> >> "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:5B3F1101-8454-4684-ADB9-8AE348F31424@microsoft.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>>I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my recently >>>purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen the reviews >>>for the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting it. >>> >>> I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can buy >>> that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, >>> anti-spyware etc. >>> >>> I know to stay away from Computer Associates and PC-cillin as I've tried >>> those and pretty much wasted my money with both, so I've had Norton for >>> a while now. and Mcaffe ive heard it sucks so im not going there either >>> >>> Can I have the whole name and not abberviations so I can look up the >>> software? >>> >>> getting tired of norton, uses up too much memory... >>> >>> Thanks</span> >> >> >> I tried Norton Internet Security 2008 last night. >> Here's my take on it: >> >> 1) Takes too much control away from the OS. >> 2) Takes too much control away from the user. >> 3) Too ponderous. >> 4) Too complicated. >> >> Here're my suggestions for an Internet Security Suite: >> 1) Trend Micro Internet Security 2008 (for Vista -- the XP product won't >> even install under Vista). >> 2) Once it is released, the NOD32 Suite will be excellent. >> 3) ZoneLabs Internet Security 2008 >> 4) Or, a third-party Firewall plus NOD32. Probably a better solution >> than a unified Security Suite. >> 5) STAY AWAY FROM NORTON in Vista! >> >> Donald McDaniel</span> > > Sounds like Norton 08 is worse than the 07 edition, what is NOD32 > companie's website? > ive head that it is really good, id like to see their software</span> and does anyone know when that security suite (Eset or NOD32 Suite) will be released? Quote
Guest Charlie42 Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in news:02F67FF3-4731-4C78-91BD-46617B930719@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> >> Sounds like Norton 08 is worse than the 07 edition, what is NOD32 >> companie's website? >> ive head that it is really good, id like to see their software</span> > > and does anyone know when that security suite (Eset or NOD32 Suite) will > be released?</span> NOD32 is made by Eset, http://www.eset.com/. Version 2.7 works with Vista. News about the upcoming Eset Smart Security suite can be found at http://www.eset.com/beta. Smart Security is currently in public beta 2, Eset does not have a public schedule for future releases. Charlie42 Quote
Guest Chen Shen Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 Just because you have to pay for something doesn't automatically make it good. Norton demonstrates the point perfectly. Not only is it expensive, it also hogs your resources, and even exibits spyware-like behaviour in that it "impairs user control over material changes that affects their system security". It is easily the worst "security" product you could ever get. But by your reasoning it'd be "better" than the many free and indeed superior anti-virus applications such as Avast or Antivir, which are not only resource efficient, but also does not exibit spyware-like behaviour and have much better detection rates than Norton. "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:14E45BBF-F47C-40D8-9526-8A9347C96550@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:096pd3hd9brvljo8dt7iaoi7c6qh0i8qet@4ax.com...<span style="color:green"> >> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:42:24 -0500, "razor_303" >> <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my recently >>> purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen the reviews >>> for >>> the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting it. >>> >>> I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can buy >>> that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, >>> anti-spyware >>> etc.</span> >> >> >> >> I am very much against using such suites, whether security suites, or >> any other kind. I believe that it's best to look for the best >> product(s) in each category. It is not true that because company A >> makes the best anti-virus program, you should therefore also use its >> firewall, anti-spyware program, etc. >> >> >> -- >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup</span> > > > > Ok good points made, so what are some good firewalls, anti-virus programs, > and anti-spyware programs that i could buy that are the best at what they > do, and i dont trust those free versions, i those kinds of people that > believe that nothing is free, everything has a price. im willing to pay > since it is for protecting my data and my school investment. > > thanks </span> Quote
Guest razor_303 Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 i just dont see getting something for free and expect it to do be better than something i paid for, i am trying to protect my investment, i do realize norton isnt the best, which is why im asking for people's opinions on what works for them then i take that and combine with what ive read online and what other people have told me. thanks "Chen Shen" <chen@cshen.ca> wrote in message news:%23hpA1Id8HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > Just because you have to pay for something doesn't automatically make it > good. Norton demonstrates the point perfectly. Not only is it expensive, > it also hogs your resources, and even exibits spyware-like behaviour in > that it "impairs user control over material changes that affects their > system security". It is easily the worst "security" product you could ever > get. But by your reasoning it'd be "better" than the many free and indeed > superior anti-virus applications such as Avast or Antivir, which are not > only resource efficient, but also does not exibit spyware-like behaviour > and have much better detection rates than Norton. > > "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:14E45BBF-F47C-40D8-9526-8A9347C96550@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> >> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> news:096pd3hd9brvljo8dt7iaoi7c6qh0i8qet@4ax.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:42:24 -0500, "razor_303" >>> <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my >>>> recently >>>> purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen the reviews >>>> for >>>> the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting it. >>>> >>>> I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can >>>> buy >>>> that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, >>>> anti-spyware >>>> etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am very much against using such suites, whether security suites, or >>> any other kind. I believe that it's best to look for the best >>> product(s) in each category. It is not true that because company A >>> makes the best anti-virus program, you should therefore also use its >>> firewall, anti-spyware program, etc. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup</span> >> >> >> >> Ok good points made, so what are some good firewalls, anti-virus >> programs, and anti-spyware programs that i could buy that are the best at >> what they do, and i dont trust those free versions, i those kinds of >> people that believe that nothing is free, everything has a price. im >> willing to pay since it is for protecting my data and my school >> investment. >> >> thanks</span> > </span> Quote
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:32:30 -0500, "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > i just dont see getting something for free and expect it to do be better > than something i paid for, </span> Although I can understand why you feel that way, in the world of software, it is often not the case. Chen Shen gave you one example of an expensive paid-for product being inferior to free ones. They are many more examples. <span style="color:blue"> > i am trying to protect my investment, i do > realize norton isnt the best, which is why im asking for people's opinions > on what works for them then i take that and combine with what ive read > online and what other people have told me. > > thanks > > "Chen Shen" <chen@cshen.ca> wrote in message > news:%23hpA1Id8HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> > > Just because you have to pay for something doesn't automatically make it > > good. Norton demonstrates the point perfectly. Not only is it expensive, > > it also hogs your resources, and even exibits spyware-like behaviour in > > that it "impairs user control over material changes that affects their > > system security". It is easily the worst "security" product you could ever > > get. But by your reasoning it'd be "better" than the many free and indeed > > superior anti-virus applications such as Avast or Antivir, which are not > > only resource efficient, but also does not exibit spyware-like behaviour > > and have much better detection rates than Norton. > > > > "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:14E45BBF-F47C-40D8-9526-8A9347C96550@microsoft.com...<span style="color:darkred"> > >> > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message > >> news:096pd3hd9brvljo8dt7iaoi7c6qh0i8qet@4ax.com... > >>> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:42:24 -0500, "razor_303" > >>> <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my > >>>> recently > >>>> purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen the reviews > >>>> for > >>>> the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting it. > >>>> > >>>> I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can > >>>> buy > >>>> that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, > >>>> anti-spyware > >>>> etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I am very much against using such suites, whether security suites, or > >>> any other kind. I believe that it's best to look for the best > >>> product(s) in each category. It is not true that because company A > >>> makes the best anti-virus program, you should therefore also use its > >>> firewall, anti-spyware program, etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User > >>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup > >> > >> > >> > >> Ok good points made, so what are some good firewalls, anti-virus > >> programs, and anti-spyware programs that i could buy that are the best at > >> what they do, and i dont trust those free versions, i those kinds of > >> people that believe that nothing is free, everything has a price. im > >> willing to pay since it is for protecting my data and my school > >> investment. > >> > >> thanks</span> > > </span></span> -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup Quote
Guest razor_303 Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 "Donald McDaniel" <orthocross@comcast.invalid> wrote in message news:2D06E851-1F0D-4463-8D93-A9A17377FECA@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:5B3F1101-8454-4684-ADB9-8AE348F31424@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> >>I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my recently >>purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen the reviews >>for the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting it. >> >> I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can buy >> that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, >> anti-spyware etc. >> >> I know to stay away from Computer Associates and PC-cillin as I've tried >> those and pretty much wasted my money with both, so I've had Norton for a >> while now. and Mcaffe ive heard it sucks so im not going there either >> >> Can I have the whole name and not abberviations so I can look up the >> software? >> >> getting tired of norton, uses up too much memory... >> >> Thanks</span> > > > I tried Norton Internet Security 2008 last night. > Here's my take on it: > > 1) Takes too much control away from the OS. > 2) Takes too much control away from the user. > 3) Too ponderous. > 4) Too complicated. > > Here're my suggestions for an Internet Security Suite: > 1) Trend Micro Internet Security 2008 (for Vista -- the XP product won't > even install under Vista). > 2) Once it is released, the NOD32 Suite will be excellent. > 3) ZoneLabs Internet Security 2008 > 4) Or, a third-party Firewall plus NOD32. Probably a better solution than > a unified Security Suite. > 5) STAY AWAY FROM NORTON in Vista! > > Donald McDaniel</span> Is the current zone alarm suite the 2008 edition or it hasnt come out yet? right now its at 7.1 but 7.0 was released in June of this year. Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:42:24 -0500, "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my recently >purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen the reviews for >the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting it. > >I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can buy >that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware >etc.</span> Why? By configuring your windows, using not inherently broken software and using your brain you don't need any such crap. <span style="color:blue"> >I know to stay away from Computer Associates and PC-cillin as I've tried >those and pretty much wasted my money with both, so I've had Norton for a >while now. and Mcaffe ive heard it sucks so im not going there either > >Can I have the whole name and not abberviations so I can look up the >software?</span> You don't need additional software. Additional code doesn't make a system more secure. <span style="color:blue"> >getting tired of norton, uses up too much memory... > >Thanks </span> Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:46:24 +0200, "Charlie42" <Charlie42@spam.me.not> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >"razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in >news:5B3F1101-8454-4684-ADB9-8AE348F31424@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> >> >> getting tired of norton, uses up too much memory... >></span> > >If memory and CPU usage is a concern, you should take a look at Eset's NOD32 >anti-virus/anti-malware. It's well known for going easy on a computer's >resources.</span> As a HIPS type of application NOD32 makes good sense. <span style="color:blue"> >You should also use a proper firewall, both Comodo Pro and Agnitum Outpost >are known to work well with NOD32.</span> If those firewalls are the answer, what exactly is the question? <span style="color:blue"> >Until Eset release their full security suite in v3 (currently in beta), I'd >go for one of the combinations above. > >Links: >www.eset.com >www.personalfirewall.comodo.com >www.agnitum.com > >Charlie42 </span> Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:10:06 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > >"Paul Adare" <pkadare@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:14vzvis3dpan0.cp4bxjd9v5gc$.dlg@40tude.net...<span style="color:green"> >> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:13:15 -0700, PTravel wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> I lilke AVG, which also has a better firewall than Windows Defender.</span> >> >> Windows Defender is not a firewall.</span> > >You're correct. I meant Windows Firewall. </span> So you're saying that AVG firewall is better than the windows firewall? If so, you're wrong again. <span style="color:blue"> >AVG will also replace all the functions provided by Defender.</span> I doubt that. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> >> -- >> Paul Adare >> MVP - Virtual Machines >> http://www.identit.ca >> Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked. </span></span> Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:08:30 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:13:29 +0100, "VistaGeek" ><vista.geek@btinternet.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> I use the Zonealarm suite 7.1 and it has worked without a hitch for a few >> months now! </span> > > >Your choice, of course. My view is that no matter how well something >works, it's always possible that something else could work better. >Just because you haven't had any problems with it doesn't mean it's >the best possible choice.</span> It also doesn't mean he would have had problems without it. Actually "I use the Zonealarm suite 7.1 and it has worked without a hitch for a few months now!" means nothing in terms of security. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> No impact on system. </span> > > >But that's flat out impossible. Anything you run has an impact on >system performance. Some things have more of an impact than others, >and some have a small enough impact on performance that you don't >notice it. But nothing has a zero impact. </span> Exactly right. And why anyone would use system resources on mostly nonsense functions like the ones ZA implements puzzles me. <span style="color:blue"> >In this case, I would suspect that the impact is greater than you >realize. > ><span style="color:green"> >> Good value for two licences</span> > > >Perhaps. A much better value is freeware. And there's lots of good >freeware around to compete with it.</span> How about no ware? Security software is mostly security theater. You make a system secure by removing attack vectors. Not by adding further code to it. Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:40:58 -0700, "Donald McDaniel" <orthocross@comcast.invalid> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Here're my suggestions for an Internet Security Suite: >1) Trend Micro Internet Security 2008 (for Vista -- the XP product won't >even install under Vista). >2) Once it is released, the NOD32 Suite will be excellent. >3) ZoneLabs Internet Security 2008 >4) Or, a third-party Firewall plus NOD32. Probably a better solution than a >unified Security Suite. >5) STAY AWAY FROM NORTON in Vista!</span> Here is my suggestion for a security suite: 1) Configure windows properly 2) Install and use not inherently broken software (which rules out IE, OE and Outlook) 3) Implement Brain 1.0 Quote
Guest Pseudo Silk Kimono Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 >>><span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> Ok good points made, so what are some good firewalls, anti-virus >>> programs, and anti-spyware programs that i could buy that are the best at >>> what they do, and i dont trust those free versions, i those kinds of >>> people that believe that nothing is free, everything has a price. im >>> willing to pay since it is for protecting my data and my school >>> investment. >>> >>> thanks</span> >> </span> ></span> Ad-Aware AVG ZoneAlarm + good old fashioned common sense. Oh..and having a HW FW is a good idea too. -- What were you? A jock or a brain?" http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html "I was a ghost." PSK - RLU 452647 Warrick Brown and Gil Grissom (Bully for You) Quote
Guest ptravel@travelersvideo.com Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 On Sep 8, 1:18 pm, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:10:06 -0700, "PTravel" > > <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> > >"Paul Adare" <pkad...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:14vzvis3dpan0.cp4bxjd9v5gc$.dlg@40tude.net...<span style="color:darkred"> > >> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:13:15 -0700,PTravelwrote:</span></span> ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> > >>> I lilke AVG, which also has a better firewall than Windows Defender.</span></span> ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> > >> Windows Defender is not a firewall.</span></span> ><span style="color:green"> > >You're correct. I meant Windows Firewall.</span> > > So you're saying that AVG firewall is better than the windows > firewall? If so, you're wrong again.</span> Unlike Windows Firewall, AVG gives transparent control over both in- coming and out-going network communications. <span style="color:blue"> ><span style="color:green"> > >AVG will also replace all the functions provided by Defender.</span> > > I doubt that.</span> I'm not particularly interested in what you doubt or don't. The Grisoft website provides information for anyone who is interested. Are you one of those net posters who sense of self-worth comes from jumping in to threads and screaming, "You're wrong!, "I doubt that!"? I provided my opinion and explained why I hold it. You, on the other hand, seem to have very little to say. <span style="color:blue"> > > ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> > >> -- > >> Paul Adare > >> MVP - Virtual Machines > >>http://www.identit.ca > >> Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.</span></span></span> Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:44:50 -0700, ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Unlike Windows Firewall, AVG gives transparent control over both in- >coming and out-going network communications.</span> The outbound control myth is so tenacious. Quote
Guest Charlie42 Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 "Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in news:mi06e31o7tvcj610cpi4dsuifvl0eso4s8@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >>You should also use a proper firewall, both Comodo Pro and Agnitum Outpost >>are known to work well with NOD32.</span> > > If those firewalls are the answer, what exactly is the question?</span> NOD32 v2.7 doesn't come with a firewall, and razor_303 asked for advice on security suites. Therefore I felt obliged to mention some firewalls I know to work with NOD32. Imo. buying an entire security suite is the wrong thing to do when your memory and CPU resources are stretched, rather I'd recommend a stand alone anti-malware program and a firewall. As Victek pointed out, Comodo for Vista is still in beta stage of development (so is Outpost). For the time being, running NOD32 alongside with Windows Firewall is an option. If you feel a third party firewall is required, both PCTools and Jetico have released firewalls for Vista. PCTools is a bit of a hog though, I haven't tried Jetico myself. Charlie42 Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:04:25 +0200, "Charlie42" <Charlie42@spam.me.not> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > >"Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in >news:mi06e31o7tvcj610cpi4dsuifvl0eso4s8@4ax.com...<span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>>You should also use a proper firewall, both Comodo Pro and Agnitum Outpost >>>are known to work well with NOD32.</span> >> >> If those firewalls are the answer, what exactly is the question?</span> > >NOD32 v2.7 doesn't come with a firewall, and razor_303 asked for advice on >security suites. Therefore I felt obliged to mention some firewalls I know >to work with NOD32. Imo. buying an entire security suite is the wrong thing >to do when your memory and CPU resources are stretched, rather I'd recommend >a stand alone anti-malware program and a firewall.</span> Okay. The reason for my question was more because I was interested in what problem these personal firewalls were meant to solve. <span style="color:blue"> >As Victek pointed out, Comodo for Vista is still in beta stage of >development (so is Outpost). For the time being, running NOD32 alongside >with Windows Firewall is an option. If you feel a third party firewall is >required, both PCTools and Jetico have released firewalls for Vista. PCTools >is a bit of a hog though, I haven't tried Jetico myself.</span> I don't feel that a third party firewall is needed. Therefore I was curious as to why you think so. Quote
Guest occam Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 razor_303 wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > what about kaspersky's latest internet security software, i think its 7 > im not sure, is it any good? > > "razor_303" <razor_303@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:5B3F1101-8454-4684-ADB9-8AE348F31424@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> >> I am currently using Norton Internet Security 2007, for both my >> recently purchased laptop and my older desktop computer. I have seen >> the reviews for the 2008 version and I'm not very confident in getting >> it. >> >> I wanted to get some recommendations on security software that I can >> buy that includes the whole package, like a firewall, anti-virus, >> anti-spyware etc. >> >> I know to stay away from Computer Associates and PC-cillin as I've >> tried those and pretty much wasted my money with both, so I've had >> Norton for a while now. and Mcaffe ive heard it sucks so im not going >> there either >> >> Can I have the whole name and not abberviations so I can look up the >> software? >> >> getting tired of norton, uses up too much memory... >> >> Thanks </span> > </span> I use Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0 (not the KIS security suite) and I find it excellent for both WinXP and Vista. Really first class service and support. (But it is not free like Avast and some others.) One thing is certain - stay away from Norton if you have the choice! Quote
Guest Charlie42 Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 "Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3gfae3t9eqhl6nmnabfbpf4iq045obp3ce@4ax.com... <span style="color:blue"> > Okay. The reason for my question was more because I was interested in > what problem these personal firewalls were meant to solve.</span> In-/outbound traffic control, monitoring applications using internet, port stealthing, and so on. <span style="color:blue"> > I don't feel that a third party firewall is needed. Therefore I was > curious as to why you think so.</span> I don't, not since Vista was released anyway. At home I just use Vista firewall alongside with my router firewall. They let me set the policies I need to, and Defender/UAC keep sufficient control of my applications. I think Vista FW could be more user friendly though, the 'advanced settings' seem tucked away and complicated to the average home user. But again: razor_303 asked about third party suites, so I felt I had tip about some proper, less resource consuming, firewalls that can be used in addition to NOD32. The discussion over Vista vs. third party FW is an interesting one I think, I haven't quite made my mind up yet, and I'd like to hear your points of view. Charlie42 Quote
Guest PTravel Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 "Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1pl9e3de8dphvtpdqhhji8flvjaa60u2jl@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:44:50 -0700, ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >>Unlike Windows Firewall, AVG gives transparent control over both in- >>coming and out-going network communications.</span> > > The outbound control myth is so tenacious.</span> It's not a myth. Again, do you have anything substantive to add, or do you just like to snipe? Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:55:10 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > >"Straight Talk" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1pl9e3de8dphvtpdqhhji8flvjaa60u2jl@4ax.com...<span style="color:green"> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:44:50 -0700, ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>>Unlike Windows Firewall, AVG gives transparent control over both in- >>>coming and out-going network communications.</span> >> >> The outbound control myth is so tenacious.</span> > >It's not a myth.</span> Yes, it is. It's impossible in a windows environment for code A to reliably prevent code B from calling out. Malware determined to call out unattended won't let a PFW get in the way. If the malware has system level access it can do what it wants, like modifying the TCP/IP stack - or create it's own stack for that matter. Or it may just piggy bag on an application you have already granted access. Malware is too dangerous to be something you allow to run thinking that you can control it. It's something you don't run at all. <span style="color:blue"> >Again, do you have anything substantive to add, or do you >just like to snipe? </span> Calm down. I'm not the one needing to learn here. Client Firewalls and Security Theater http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetma...ll/default.aspx "Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html Instead of reducing the number of network-aware services, a personal firewall is an additional service that consumes system resources and can also be the target of an attack, as exemplified by the Witty [1] worm. If the system has been compromised by Malware, Spyware or similar software, these programs can also manipulate the firewall, because both are running on the same system. It may be possible to bypass or even completely shut down software firewalls in such a manner. The high number of alerts generated by such applications can possibly desensitize users to alerts by warning the user of actions that may not be malicious (e.g. ICMP requests). Software firewalls that interface with the operating system at the kernel mode level may potentially cause instability and/or introduce security flaws and other software bugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_firewall#Criticisms About "Comodo" - considered by many to be one of the top PFW's: "The implementation of the security design is very superficial. Today's malware creators would not have problems to bypass the protection of Comodo. " http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-p....6.81/#security Quote
Guest ptravel@travelersvideo.com Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 On Sep 11, 1:13 pm, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:55:10 -0700, "PTravel" > > <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> > >"Straight Talk" <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1pl9e3de8dphvtpdqhhji8flvjaa60u2jl@4ax.com...<span style="color:darkred"> > >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:44:50 -0700, ptra...@travelersvideo.com wrote:</span></span> ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> > >>>Unlike Windows Firewall, AVG gives transparent control over both in- > >>>coming and out-going network communications.</span></span> ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> > >> The outbound control myth is so tenacious.</span></span> ><span style="color:green"> > >It's not a myth.</span> > > Yes, it is. It's impossible in a windows environment for code A to > reliably prevent code B from calling out. Malware determined to call > out unattended won't let a PFW get in the way. > > If the malware has system level access it can do what it wants, like > modifying the TCP/IP stack - or create it's own stack for that matter. > > Or it may just piggy bag on an application you have already granted > access.</span> And that's possible with any firewall. My post said AVG is a better firewall than Windows because of the easier control over out-going traffic. You seem to be advocating not using an outgoing firewall at all. If you don't want one on your system because of it won't catch every conceivable instance of unauthorized out-going traffic, fine. No software offers 100% security. I'll go with one that offers some fraction of that, and prefer the one that is easiest to configure and the most transparent in its actions. <span style="color:blue"> > > Malware is too dangerous to be something you allow to run thinking > that you can control it. It's something you don't run at all.</span> You seem to assume that anyone who uses a firewall doesn't know this. I know this. However, advocating not using a firewall is like advocating not using seat belts because they won't help you if your car blows up. <span style="color:blue"> ><span style="color:green"> > >Again, do you have anything substantive to add, or do you > >just like to snipe?</span> > > Calm down. I'm not the one needing to learn here.</span> I'm going to guess what you do for a living. You're in IT, right? I run into this attitude a lot. <span style="color:blue"> > > Client Firewalls and Security Theaterhttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/VistaFirew... > > "Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oilhttp://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html > > Instead of reducing the number of network-aware services, a personal > firewall is an additional service that consumes system resources and > can also be the target of an attack, as exemplified by the Witty [1] > worm. > If the system has been compromised by Malware, Spyware or similar > software, these programs can also manipulate the firewall, because > both are running on the same system. It may be possible to bypass or > even completely shut down software firewalls in such a manner. > The high number of alerts generated by such applications can > possibly desensitize users to alerts by warning the user of actions > that may not be malicious (e.g. ICMP requests). > Software firewalls that interface with the operating system at the > kernel mode level may potentially cause instability and/or introduce > security flaws and other software bugs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_firewall#Criticisms</span> You're citing Wikipedia? Whatever. I don't have any system instability because of running AVG, at least no more than is introduced by Vista itself. <span style="color:blue"> > > About "Comodo" - considered by many to be one of the top PFW's: > "The implementation of the security design is very superficial. > Today's malware creators would not have problems to bypass the > protection of Comodo. "http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/C...</span> More Wikipedia cites? 1. We're not talking about Comodo. 2. The issue isn't whether malware can bypass firewalls, but whether running a firewall will stop more malware than not running a firewall. Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:24:53 -0700, ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote: <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> Or it may just piggy bag on an application you have already granted >> access.</span> > >And that's possible with any firewall. My post said AVG is a better >firewall than Windows because of the easier control over out-going >traffic. You seem to be advocating not using an outgoing firewall at >all. If you don't want one on your system because of it won't catch >every conceivable instance of unauthorized out-going traffic, fine. >No software offers 100% security. I'll go with one that offers some >fraction of that, and prefer the one that is easiest to configure and >the most transparent in its actions.</span> And thereby adding instability, and worst of all, introducing more vulnerabilities to your system. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> Malware is too dangerous to be something you allow to run thinking >> that you can control it. It's something you don't run at all.</span> > >You seem to assume that anyone who uses a firewall doesn't know this. >I know this. However, advocating not using a firewall is like >advocating not using seat belts because they won't help you if your >car blows up.</span> Very bad analogy. Unlike outbound control, a seat belt does what it's meant to do highly reliably and it does not make your care more vulnerable. <snip> <span style="color:blue"> >1. We're not talking about Comodo. </span> I mentioned Comodo since it's often considered one of the best. I hope you realize that the AVG thingie that you seem to rely on just leaks like a sieve. <span style="color:blue"> >2. The issue isn't whether malware can bypass firewalls, but whether running >a firewall will stop more malware than not running a firewall.</span> This is where your argument fails, because you don't consider the costs involved with adding PFW code. And BTW, don't expect your AVG thingie to stop any malware at all.. Quote
Guest John Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:Ox4HgQm7HHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > razor_303 wrote:</span> <span style="color:blue"> > But it's been several years since I've been tempted to try McAfee > products. Their quality seemed to take a steep nose-dive after they were > acquired by Network Associates.</span> I felt that way after Norton was acquired by Symantec. The original Norton folks outshone everybody, including Symantec. Then Symantec bought them. They haven't been as good ever since. Sure, they do throw a lot of money into their product, but the quality that comes from enthusiasm is gone. On the subject of the thread, however, I bit on CA's ad and spent all kinds of time installing it, but when I ran it, it blew up. When I called for support, the guy said, "Oh, we're not ready to support 64bit Vista yet." As a programmer, I wondered why their software didn't know it was trying to support the wrong operating system and refuse to install it! I don't recall for sure, but I don't think the question was raised when I ordered the software. I don't know if Vista64 has been in Beta since early 2006, but I suspect it was since all kinds of developers have had 64bit products ready at Vista introduction time. Needless to say, I'm not waiting for their 64bit system. Bottom line: Someone asked in a post why folks were paying for antivirus software when there were essentially as-good (if not better) free-for-homeuse packages available. I bit and installed Avast 64bit. It works fine, except that it needs a little better step-by-step: it has two things come up and it's hard to figure out exactly what to do to insure it is working, possibly because it is a Czeck group and I only do English. But they seem to try hard and the basic product is very good, so I am very pleased with Avast. John Quote
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 Straight Talk wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > <span style="color:green"> >> And that's possible with any firewall. My post said AVG is a better >> firewall than Windows because of the easier control over out-going >> traffic. You seem to be advocating not using an outgoing firewall at >> all. If you don't want one on your system because of it won't catch >> every conceivable instance of unauthorized out-going traffic, fine. >> No software offers 100% security. I'll go with one that offers some >> fraction of that, and prefer the one that is easiest to configure and >> the most transparent in its actions.</span> > > And thereby adding instability, and worst of all, introducing more > vulnerabilities to your system. > </span> Please provide some sort of documentation or White Papers to substantiate what appears, on the face of it, and based on my experience, to be a patently absurd claim. As you've been told, no one thinks outbound protection is a magic bullet, but it does add an addition layer of protection, and it certainly does not create additional vulnerabilities. (Poorly designed, coded, or configured individual applications might cause problems, but that doesn't render the concept of outbound protection invalid.) -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell Quote
Guest Straight Talk Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:57:30 -0600, Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Straight Talk wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> And thereby adding instability, and worst of all, introducing more >> vulnerabilities to your system. >> </span> > > > Please provide some sort of documentation or White Papers to >substantiate what appears, on the face of it, and based on my >experience, to be a patently absurd claim. </span> What are you talking about? You are asking me to document the obvious here! I'm talking about adding 100+ hooks containing complex and buggy code to already critical functions, which is what outbound "control" on a windows host is about. I'm talking about the impossible task of creating an entire security layer on top of an OS providing numerous IPC methods for malware to manipulate and interface with other app's. In other words I'm talking about the foolishness of endangering your system by adding numerous kernel hacks for no real benefit, since malware determined to circumvent it will just do so anyway. And why would malware not want to do so? <span style="color:blue"> >As you've been told, no one thinks outbound protection is a magic bullet, >but it does add an addition layer of protection, and it certainly does not create >additional vulnerabilities.</span> Oh, please... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.