Guest rubyjack Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 I have the following choices to install as anti-virus ware/suite (my NortonWorks is expiring). The price ranges from $0 to $40 to install (all legit, I have some on hand). Norton SystemWorks Norton 360 MacAfee 2007 Panda 2007 Kaspersky 6.0 Your help would be appreciated, Dan Hacker -- ----------- Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. -- Danbury Mint ----------- Quote
Guest RJK Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 Synmantecs' Norton has for sometime has been called bloatware, and if you don't mind the significant system-slowdown that comes with it - it's quite good. Another Norton minus, in my view, (in previous versions of Norton at least), is that one ends up with TWO trusted sites lists to maintain, one in IE, and one in Norton firewall !! For many years in the past Mcafee VERY often caused nightmares i.e. it was often very intolerant of most of the myriad OS/software mixes it found itself installed into. (...dunno if that's true nowadays - Mcafee was so awful - years ago - I've never revisited it), ...having said that I've always been grateful for their free a/v CLS. Panda, ...same as Norton, quite good but, really slows down, (even fast), systems. Kaspersky, lots of people rave about it - I found it nothing but trouble - a year or so ago I tried their internet security suite in several systems that were clean, tidy and well maintained. Kaspersky refused to perform on all of them i.e. caused, lock-ups, crashes ...never got on well Kaspersky at all. ...again, ...quite good free CLS from Kaspersky though :-) AVG free (anti-virus only), is really good, minimal impact on system speed and overhead, not quite as good a detection rate as NOD32 and others but, one has to pay for NOD32 :-( AVG anti-spyware is really good, (I pay for that), ....though Windows Defender has to date, intercepted everything nasty heading my way before it got anywhere near AVG anti-spyware !! ...and so many out there keep criticizing Windows Defender !! ....Zonealarm free firewall is VERY good but, occasionally one has to fight with it. PrevX, mentioned (negatively) in here http://tibbar.blog.co.uk/ (made in the UK) is quite good, it's advanced heuristics detection is quite good but, as with ALL a/v/ a/malware software it often misses things !! ....Spybot Search and Destroy (and the Teatimer realtime scanner help - ), ....in a highly unusual fit of generousness, (is there such a word), a couple of weeks ago, I donated £15 to Spybot S&D !!! ....I could go on and on and on but, won't ! ....everybody has their own preferences :-) ....and however good your "multi-layered" approcah to internet defences, and despite ones best efforts in "hardening up" a PC for internet use, (which is of course attempting the impossible by trying to strike a balance between safety, (crippling almost everything), and {usablility which often equates into the the owner allowing in something nasty} ! regards, Richard "rubyjack" <rubyjack@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:e0bMGX%23FIHA.6068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> >I have the following choices to install as anti-virus ware/suite (my > NortonWorks is expiring). The price ranges from $0 to $40 to install (all > legit, I have some on hand). > > Norton SystemWorks > Norton 360 > MacAfee 2007 > Panda 2007 > Kaspersky 6.0 > > Your help would be appreciated, > Dan Hacker > > -- > > ----------- > Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never > forgotten this. -- Danbury Mint > ----------- > > </span> Quote
Guest Max M.Wachtel III Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 "rubyjack" <rubyjack@frontiernet.net> after much thought,came up with this jewel in news:e0bMGX#FIHA.6068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: <span style="color:blue"> > I have the following choices to install as anti-virus ware/suite > (my NortonWorks is expiring). The price ranges from $0 to $40 to > install (all legit, I have some on hand). > > Norton SystemWorks > Norton 360 > MacAfee 2007 > Panda 2007 > Kaspersky 6.0 > > Your help would be appreciated, > Dan Hacker > </span> If you are going to dump Norton,Add+Remove doesn't always work very well. You may need to download their cleanup tool. I have heard good things about Kaspersky. The others,I have tried and thought that they seemed to take over ownership of my system. I like to keep things simple. The free version of AntiVir works well for me. It has a very good detection rate and seems light on resources.If you are going to use a paid-version AntiVirus,NOD32 would be my choice hands down. You should try using a more secure email client and browser(Thunderbird and Firefox come to mind). Prevention is the key here. I have written some pages that might be helpful(see below) -- Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html Tools http://max.shplink.com/tools.html Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email. Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 rubyjack wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > I have the following choices </span> <span style="color:blue"> > Norton SystemWorks > Norton 360 > MacAfee 2007 > Panda 2007 > Kaspersky 6.0</span> Which one is the least likely to be neutralized (de-activated) by the Storm virus? It's not good enough these days that an AV program detect malware. It must be hardy enough to withstand deactivation attempts by malware. And which of those AV programs can gain enough control to actually delete or quarantine viral files? Quote
Guest 3Cat Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 Avast is free and pretty good. http://www.avast.com/eng/home-registration.php AVG is also free and good comment in market. http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1 I used Norton before but expensive and not well protected, I changed to NOD32 now (my Notebook) and Avast Home (free) for my Home Desktop. "rubyjack" <rubyjack@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:e0bMGX%23FIHA.6068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> >I have the following choices to install as anti-virus ware/suite (my > NortonWorks is expiring). The price ranges from $0 to $40 to install (all > legit, I have some on hand). > > Norton SystemWorks > Norton 360 > MacAfee 2007 > Panda 2007 > Kaspersky 6.0 > > Your help would be appreciated, > Dan Hacker > > -- > > ----------- > Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never > forgotten this. -- Danbury Mint > ----------- > > </span> Quote
Guest Carey Frisch [MVP] Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 Windows OneCare: http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/default.htm -- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User --------------------------------------------------------------- "rubyjack" <rubyjack@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:e0bMGX%23FIHA.6068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... I have the following choices to install as anti-virus ware/suite (my NortonWorks is expiring). The price ranges from $0 to $40 to install (all legit, I have some on hand). Norton SystemWorks Norton 360 MacAfee 2007 Panda 2007 Kaspersky 6.0 Your help would be appreciated, Dan Hacker -- ----------- Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. -- Danbury Mint ----------- Quote
Guest Leythos Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 In article <57827D86-1F53-45BF-8DBC-0821E4B0A406@microsoft.com>, cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com says...<span style="color:blue"> > Windows OneCar</span> One Care is not even close to a viable protection product for anyone that has a clue about security. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) Quote
Guest RJK Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 mmm! I though I'd have another go at this one :- Symantecs' Norton has for sometime has been called bloatware, and if you don't mind the significant system-slowdown that comes with it - it's quite good. Another Norton minus, in my view, (in previous versions of Norton at least), is that one ends up with TWO trusted sites lists to maintain, one in IE, and one in Norton firewall !! For many years in the past Mcafee VERY often caused nightmares i.e. it was often very intolerant of most of the myriad OS/software mixes it found itself installed into. (...dunno if that's true nowadays - Mcafee was so awful - years ago - I've never revisited it), ...having said that I've always been grateful for their free a/v CLS. Panda, ...same as Norton, quite good but, really slows down, (even fast), systems. Kaspersky, lots of people rave about it - I found it nothing but trouble - a year or so ago I tried their internet security suite in several systems that were clean, tidy and well maintained. Kaspersky refused to perform on all of them i.e. caused, lock-ups, crashes ...never got on well Kaspersky at all. ...again, ...quite a good free CLS from Kaspersky though :-) AVG free (anti-virus only), is really good, minimal impact on system speed and overhead, not quite as good a detection rate as NOD32 and others but, one has to pay for NOD32 :-( AVG anti-spyware is really good, (I pay for that), ....though Windows Defender has to date, intercepted everything nasty heading my way before it got anywhere near AVG anti-spyware !! ...and so many out there keep criticizing Windows Defender !! ....Zonealarm free firewall is VERY good but, occasionally one has to fight with it. PrevX, mentioned (negatively) here http://tibbar.blog.co.uk/ (made in the UK) is quite good, it's advanced heuristics detection is quite good but, as with ALL a/v/ a/malware software it often misses things !! ....Spybot Search and Destroy (and the Teatimer realtime scanner help - ), ....in a highly unusual fit of generousness, (is there such a word), a couple of weeks ago, I donated £15 to Spybot S&D !!! Lavasoft Adaware (not to be confused with "adware"), ....I could go on and on and on but, won't ! ....everybody has their own preferences :-) However good your "multi-layered" approach to internet security, and despite ones best efforts in "hardening up" a PC for internet use, (which is of course attempting the impossible by trying to strike a balance between safety, (crippling almost everything), and "usablility," that "multi-layered" approach is often thwarted and ruined by the owner of that PC !! regards, Richard Quote
Guest Carey Frisch [MVP] Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 I've been running Windows OneCare on three different computers for over two years now. No viruses, no spyware, and no malware has entered any on my PCs using OneCare. -- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User --------------------------------------------------------------- "Leythos" wrote: One Care is not even close to a viable protection product for anyone that has a clue about security. -- Leythos Quote
Guest RJK Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 ....that's because you've probably been practising safe-hex :-) regards, Richard "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:F8C60CB0-2565-41BD-9BA8-B8EF3AC77EA6@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > I've been running Windows OneCare on three different > computers for over two years now. No viruses, no spyware, > and no malware has entered any on my PCs using OneCare. > > -- > Carey Frisch > Microsoft MVP > Windows Shell/User > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Leythos" wrote: > > One Care is not even close to a viable protection product for anyone > that has a clue about security. > > -- > > Leythos > </span> Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 RJK wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Symantecs' Norton has for sometime has been called bloatware,</span> Norton Anti-virus started to become bloatware with version 2003. Prior versions were pretty good. I continue to use NAV 2002. Something that most people don't realize is that the older versions of NAV (like 2001 and 2002) will update themselves the first time you run them after installing them. Updates to NAV include virus definitions as well as updates to the scan engine, allowing the old versions to be identical to the new versions at being able to detect malware. But generally I don't see AV software as the front-line defense that it was say 3 years ago. Because of polymorphic viruses, as well as the new versions of Storm that can de-activate your AV software without it being obvious to you, AV software is becoming irrelavent as a first line of protection. The best use of AV software today is to use it as a system scanner that you boot from a CD to periodically scan a hard drive. Forget continuous, real-time interception / protection. Today's AV software is not capable, or robust enough, for that job. Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 "Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > I've been running Windows OneCare on three different > computers for over two years now. No viruses, no spyware, > and no malware has entered any on my PCs using OneCare.</span> How do you know? How do you know if an AV product is working? Just because it keeps telling you that there is no malware on your system doesn't mean you don't actually have malware on your system. The polymorphic threats out there (like storm) have been deactivating AV programs for 2 or 3 years now. And if you really don't have any malware on your system, don't credit your AV software. The reason you don't is because you patch your system as soon as the patches become available. Quote
Guest RJK Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 ....above this post a little, you said that you are yourself using an older version of NAV, ....here on this part of this thread - you pointed out that viruses like "storm" have been deactivating AV programs, ....so you are aware of this danger, and yet you are using an ancient a/v program ! ....this is a almost a contradiction !! ...(and I mean that in a warm, kind, loving way !!!) ....malware that's programmed to deactivate AV software is just one of the reasons that many major AV application software vendors, (like AVG), are continually modifying their core files ! ....and this is one aspect of the "preventing malware / multi-layered internet security approach," that's being utilized by people who are interested in the subject, and are often the same people who try to help others with anti-malware procedures / ...i.e. that "multi-layered approach." That includes lengthy experimentation to determine which anti-malware software applications will happily coexist in the same machine. e.g. we all know that it can be very problematic to have more that one "real-time" a/v scanner and/or other malware scanner all running at the same time. Though, (after LOTS of trial and error), I have, at the moment, a LARGE number of anti-malware programs running, all use a real-time scanner module, almost all are using signature databases and heuristic detection algorithms, ....none are interfering with each other - or any other software in my machine, (one has to keep any eye out for scheduled scan "time of day" coincidence / clashes), And they are not placing a discernable load on my system. It does get a bit boring switching them all off, or suspending them, prior to making any system changes, such as installing or uninstalling software, ....including drivers ! regards, Richard ps I will not divulge how large "LARGE" is ! ...howzat for grammar ?! "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4724A240.5F2C0683@Guy.com...<span style="color:blue"> > "Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> I've been running Windows OneCare on three different >> computers for over two years now. No viruses, no spyware, >> and no malware has entered any on my PCs using OneCare.</span> > > How do you know? > > How do you know if an AV product is working? > > Just because it keeps telling you that there is no malware on your > system doesn't mean you don't actually have malware on your system. > > The polymorphic threats out there (like storm) have been deactivating > AV programs for 2 or 3 years now. > > And if you really don't have any malware on your system, don't credit > your AV software. The reason you don't is because you patch your > system as soon as the patches become available. </span> Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 RJK wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > ...above this post a little, you said that you are yourself > using an older version of NAV,</span> I manage about a dozen PC's. On most of them, I either have NAV 2002, or Symantec corporate (version 8 I think). I've only ever paid for 1 copy of NAV 2002, and that was at a swap meet in 2003. The Symantec Corporate installations are pirated. On my own 2 PC's, I've allowed my NAV 2002 to expire (I've uninstalled them to stop them from nagging me about their expired status). All it takes to re-activate them is to copy the file "catalog.livesubscribe" from any of the other systems that haven't expired yet. I also run a real time registry monitor made by "The Cleaner" (also a bootlegged copy). <span style="color:blue"> > ...here on this part of this thread - you pointed out that viruses > like "storm" have been deactivating AV programs,</span> Yes. <span style="color:blue"> > ...so you are aware of this danger, and yet you are using an > ancient a/v program !</span> The age of the program is not relavent - and might even be an advantage. The Storm "thing" has a built-in list of process names that it looks for. Using an old (ancient) piece of AV software might be an advantage - assuming that the same process name isin't being used in more modern versions. And even though NAV 2002 is old, it updates itself via Symantec's "LiveUpdate" with the most current virus definitions and scan engine. <span style="color:blue"> > ...malware that's programmed to deactivate AV software is just > one of the reasons that many major AV application software > vendors, (like AVG), are continually modifying their core > files !</span> What they need to do is give their program modules different names (random process names) so that things like Storm can't identify them at run time. <span style="color:blue"> > ...and this is one aspect of the "preventing malware / > multi-layered internet security approach," </span> I run win-98 on my systems. That's the most effective "layer" going (besides running Linux or Mac OS I guess). It's a lot harder to run a root-kit on Windows 9x, and it's a way easier to identify, and delete malware on a win-98 box (fat-32 makes things easier compared to NTFS). In the 8 years we've been running win-98 on most of our systems, I think there have only been 2 infections, and those were prior to 2004. In fact, our win-98 systems were directly facing the internet (no firewall, no NAT router) up until the end of 2005 and none were ever hit with a network worm, port-scan, etc. We've had about 1/2 dozen occurrances of malware on our handful of NT and 2K machines over the same time frame. Quote
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 "The Symantec Corporate installations are pirated." Am I missing something? Or are you admitting to theft? -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47251C38.EFE7D73B@Guy.com...<span style="color:blue"> > RJK wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> ...above this post a little, you said that you are yourself >> using an older version of NAV,</span> > > I manage about a dozen PC's. On most of them, I either have NAV > 2002, > or Symantec corporate (version 8 I think). I've only ever paid for > 1 > copy of NAV 2002, and that was at a swap meet in 2003. The Symantec > Corporate installations are pirated. > > On my own 2 PC's, I've allowed my NAV 2002 to expire (I've > uninstalled > them to stop them from nagging me about their expired status). All > it > takes to re-activate them is to copy the file > "catalog.livesubscribe" > from any of the other systems that haven't expired yet. > > I also run a real time registry monitor made by "The Cleaner" (also > a > bootlegged copy). ><span style="color:green"> >> ...here on this part of this thread - you pointed out that viruses >> like "storm" have been deactivating AV programs,</span> > > Yes. ><span style="color:green"> >> ...so you are aware of this danger, and yet you are using an >> ancient a/v program !</span> > > The age of the program is not relavent - and might even be an > advantage. The Storm "thing" has a built-in list of process names > that it looks for. Using an old (ancient) piece of AV software > might > be an advantage - assuming that the same process name isin't being > used in more modern versions. And even though NAV 2002 is old, it > updates itself via Symantec's "LiveUpdate" with the most current > virus > definitions and scan engine. ><span style="color:green"> >> ...malware that's programmed to deactivate AV software is just >> one of the reasons that many major AV application software >> vendors, (like AVG), are continually modifying their core >> files !</span> > > What they need to do is give their program modules different names > (random process names) so that things like Storm can't identify them > at run time. ><span style="color:green"> >> ...and this is one aspect of the "preventing malware / >> multi-layered internet security approach,"</span> > > I run win-98 on my systems. That's the most effective "layer" going > (besides running Linux or Mac OS I guess). > > It's a lot harder to run a root-kit on Windows 9x, and it's a way > easier to identify, and delete malware on a win-98 box (fat-32 makes > things easier compared to NTFS). In the 8 years we've been running > win-98 on most of our systems, I think there have only been 2 > infections, and those were prior to 2004. In fact, our win-98 > systems > were directly facing the internet (no firewall, no NAT router) up > until the end of 2005 and none were ever hit with a network worm, > port-scan, etc. We've had about 1/2 dozen occurrances of malware on > our handful of NT and 2K machines over the same time frame. </span> Quote
Guest RJK Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I'd rather argue with him about, (paraphrased a little:-), "the age of the A/V programs isn't relevant but, I don't think it would do any good." e.g. AVG seem change their .DLL contents and filenames almost as often as they supply signature pattern updates, ...e.g. my firewall often rediscovers AVG itself "trying to get out" after several 'signature only' updates :-) ....I feel that my argument is already partly won because his, (IMHumbleO), flawed methodology, and views, has already got his systems a virus or two ! :-) regards, Richard "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message news:ujzni8bGIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"> > "The Symantec Corporate installations are pirated." > Am I missing something? > Or are you admitting to theft? > > -- > Jupiter Jones [MVP] > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar > http://www.dts-l.org > > > "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message > news:47251C38.EFE7D73B@Guy.com...<span style="color:green"> >> RJK wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> ...above this post a little, you said that you are yourself >>> using an older version of NAV,</span> >> >> I manage about a dozen PC's. On most of them, I either have NAV 2002, >> or Symantec corporate (version 8 I think). I've only ever paid for 1 >> copy of NAV 2002, and that was at a swap meet in 2003. The Symantec >> Corporate installations are pirated. >> >> On my own 2 PC's, I've allowed my NAV 2002 to expire (I've uninstalled >> them to stop them from nagging me about their expired status). All it >> takes to re-activate them is to copy the file "catalog.livesubscribe" >> from any of the other systems that haven't expired yet. >> >> I also run a real time registry monitor made by "The Cleaner" (also a >> bootlegged copy). >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> ...here on this part of this thread - you pointed out that viruses >>> like "storm" have been deactivating AV programs,</span> >> >> Yes. >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> ...so you are aware of this danger, and yet you are using an >>> ancient a/v program !</span> >> >> The age of the program is not relavent - and might even be an >> advantage. The Storm "thing" has a built-in list of process names >> that it looks for. Using an old (ancient) piece of AV software might >> be an advantage - assuming that the same process name isin't being >> used in more modern versions. And even though NAV 2002 is old, it >> updates itself via Symantec's "LiveUpdate" with the most current virus >> definitions and scan engine. >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> ...malware that's programmed to deactivate AV software is just >>> one of the reasons that many major AV application software >>> vendors, (like AVG), are continually modifying their core >>> files !</span> >> >> What they need to do is give their program modules different names >> (random process names) so that things like Storm can't identify them >> at run time. >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> ...and this is one aspect of the "preventing malware / >>> multi-layered internet security approach,"</span> >> >> I run win-98 on my systems. That's the most effective "layer" going >> (besides running Linux or Mac OS I guess). >> >> It's a lot harder to run a root-kit on Windows 9x, and it's a way >> easier to identify, and delete malware on a win-98 box (fat-32 makes >> things easier compared to NTFS). In the 8 years we've been running >> win-98 on most of our systems, I think there have only been 2 >> infections, and those were prior to 2004. In fact, our win-98 systems >> were directly facing the internet (no firewall, no NAT router) up >> until the end of 2005 and none were ever hit with a network worm, >> port-scan, etc. We've had about 1/2 dozen occurrances of malware on >> our handful of NT and 2K machines over the same time frame.</span> > </span> Quote
Guest Leythos Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 In article <47251C38.EFE7D73B@Guy.com>, Virus@Guy.com says...<span style="color:blue"> > I manage about a dozen PC's. On most of them, I either have NAV 2002, > or Symantec corporate (version 8 I think). I've only ever paid for 1 > copy of NAV 2002, and that was at a swap meet in 2003. The Symantec > Corporate installations are pirated.</span> Why - Symantec Corp AV for Workstations and Servers 10.2 can be purchased in as little as 5 CAL. Being an unethical hack and then telling people about it is a way to have no one listen to you again. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Leythos wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Why - Symantec Corp AV for Workstations and Servers 10.2 can be > purchased in as little as 5 CAL.</span> What's a CAL? <span style="color:blue"> > Being an unethical hack and then telling people about it is a > way to have no one listen to you again.</span> That's up to you. You can do a lot worse than using the odd piece of software without paying for it. And being "unethical" is not the same as being unknowledgeable. Quote
Guest Leythos Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 In article <4725308C.D0F38E43@Guy.com>, Virus@Guy.com says...<span style="color:blue"> > Leythos wrote: > <span style="color:green"> > > Why - Symantec Corp AV for Workstations and Servers 10.2 can be > > purchased in as little as 5 CAL.</span> > > What's a CAL?</span> Forget how to use google? Client Access License. <span style="color:blue"> > <span style="color:green"> > > Being an unethical hack and then telling people about it is a > > way to have no one listen to you again.</span> > > That's up to you. You can do a lot worse than using the odd piece of > software without paying for it. And being "unethical" is not the same > as being unknowledgeable.</span> Yea, it is, it shows that your willing to do the wrong thing because of your lack of ethics - it makes everything you say/suggest questionable and suspect. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 RJK wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > I'd rather argue with him about, (paraphrased a little:-), > "the age of the A/V programs isn't relevant but, I don't think > it would do any good." > e.g. AVG seem change their .DLL contents and filenames almost > as often as they supply signature pattern updates, </span> Ok, if AVG is a moving target, good for it. I'm not saying that's not (I've never owned or used AVG). Based on the writeups for Storm, there seem to be lots of anti-malware products that don't change their process names. (tangent - some writeups say that Storm also turns off some P2P apps - anyone know why it would do that?) <span style="color:blue"> > ...I feel that my argument is already partly won because his, > (IMHumbleO), flawed methodology, and views, has already got his > systems a virus or two !</span> <span style="color:blue"> > :-)</span> When you manage systems being used by a few monkeys, you can't always be watching over their shoulder... Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Full-Quoter and Top-poster "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > "The Symantec Corporate installations are pirated." > Am I missing something? > Or are you admitting to theft?</span> Yup. Whatcha gonna do about it? Quote
Guest Virus Guy Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Leythos wrote: <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> > > And being "unethical" is not the same as being unknowledgeable.</span> > > it makes everything you say/suggest questionable and suspect.</span> When there are countless posts asking "what's the best AV" or "how does this av compare to that av", I never see anyone responding with: - malware can turn off your AV, so look for AV that can resist - detection isin't removal. Look for AV that can remove what it detects - these days, detection means something got onto your system a week ago. Do other things like update your Java JRE, use a hosts file, use adaware/spybot/spyware blaster (innoculate your browser), put more faith in a registry monitoring program than in an AV program Go ahead and question that ^^^^^^ Quote
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 We now know you are an admitted thief and anything you say should be treated as anything else said by any common thief, ignored as it cannot be trusted. What else do you steal and what other ways are you dishonest? It is extremely unlikely stealing software is the extent of your dishonest activity. Employers and others you associate probably miss what you have stolen from them. Since it is the nature of a thief... -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message news:472531D7.FD7EC4E2@Guy.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Yup. > > Whatcha gonna do about it? </span> Quote
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 There is really nothing to question. You are an admitted thief. EVERYTHING you say should be treated as a lie since that is the nature of thieves. Lying is often necessary to conceal the true intentions. With most, their word has value, your has NONE. You steal without regard. You have stolen from every honest person who pays for the products you steal since you have decided others subsidize your own unethical behavior. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message news:472533E7.6486431C@Guy.com...<span style="color:blue"> > When there are countless posts asking "what's the best AV" or "how > does this av compare to that av", I never see anyone responding > with: > > - malware can turn off your AV, so look for AV that can resist > > - detection isin't removal. Look for AV that can remove what it > detects > > - these days, detection means something got onto your system > a week ago. Do other things like update your Java JRE, use > a hosts file, use adaware/spybot/spyware blaster (innoculate > your browser), put more faith in a registry monitoring program > than in an AV program > > > Go ahead and question that ^^^^^^ </span> Quote
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 "And being "unethical" is not the same as being unknowledgeable" You have shown lack knowledge as well: "What's a CAL?" So now by your own admission, you are unethical and unknowledgeable. You have NOTHING. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar http://www.dts-l.org "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4725308C.D0F38E43@Guy.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Leythos wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> Why - Symantec Corp AV for Workstations and Servers 10.2 can be >> purchased in as little as 5 CAL.</span> > > What's a CAL? ><span style="color:green"> >> Being an unethical hack and then telling people about it is a >> way to have no one listen to you again.</span> > > That's up to you. You can do a lot worse than using the odd piece > of > software without paying for it. And being "unethical" is not the > same > as being unknowledgeable. </span> 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.