Leythos [Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:58:52 -0400] wrote:

>In article <0o5tc3l286timr1cbp3f5bm6e60fc53q1p@4ax.com>,

>marco_desloovere@yahoo.com says...

>> Therefore, the best, and by far most efficient protection from malware

>> is to *avoid* installing it on the PC.

>

>Except that the masses of ignorant users are unable to learn enough to

>keep that from happening - and then there are the exploits in

>applications that get taken advantage of by new malware before the

>exploit is public....

 

Unfortunately exactly these people put too much trust into their AV

software, giving them a false sense of security, i.e. by knowing that AV

software is installed on their PC, they think that they can do any risky

operation, believing that their AV software is there to protect them.

>AV, while not perfect, is a must for any computer not in a secured,

>locked down, environment.

 

By installing AV software, a PC becomes less secure, because it presents

a larger front for attackers to strike by the very fact of installing

yet another piece of useless, but attackable software *and* because AV

software can only detect *known* malware.

 

What use can there possibly be for AV software, if it cannot protect a

PC from the latest and polymorphic malware?

Do you really believe that attackers would be kind enough to only use

*known* malware for their attacks?

 

Marco

Re: Typical BS Answer

 

Alias wrote:

>

> Oh, so you're saying DX10 will never be used?

 

Lie!

 

Are you saying that games

> won't require Vista?

 

More lies!

 

Maybe I wasted my money then because I don't see

> any advantage to Vista over XP or Ubuntu for anything else.

 

And yet more lies. You don't have Vista you lying sack of crap!

Frank

Re: Typical BS Answer

 

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>>

>> Oh, so you're saying DX10 will never be used?

>

> Lie!

 

Um, that was a question, not a statement. Do you know the difference?

>

> Are you saying that games

>> won't require Vista?

>

> More lies!

 

Um, that was a question, not a statement. Do you know the difference?

>

> Maybe I wasted my money then because I don't see

>> any advantage to Vista over XP or Ubuntu for anything else.

>

> And yet more lies. You don't have Vista you lying sack of crap!

> Frank

>

 

Yes, I do, your bluster and frustration at that fact notwithstanding.

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"Hapkido" <hapkidomeister@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:udFPAQe5HHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Robert,

>

> Perhaps you are not familiar with the entire Kaspersky line? They also

> have small business and corporate versions as well that can be deployed

> over a server. The version I referred to is admittedly their "Home"

> version. But all of the Kaspersky line is top notch.

 

I'm very familiar with their products, which is why I use something else in

the enterprise.

 

I'd be perfectly happy to see their products on a home or small business

machine however. Quite a lot of businesses just don't understand

"enterprise".

Doofy wrote:

> THANX ALL BUT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN UBUNTU!! I ASKED FOR VISTA. I BOUGHT

> VISTA. I AM HAPPY WITH VISTA. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT ANT-VIRUS TO USE

> ON VISTA.

>

Use any that fixes your stuck Caps Lock problem.

 

Cheers.

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fak5hk$mp1$1@aioe.org...

>> Doofy wrote:

>>> What is the best Anti-Virus For Vista?

>>

>> Nuking Vista and installing a real OS like Ubuntu. Check it out at

>> http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>> To email me, remove shoes

 

--

Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

Bill Yanaire wrote:

> You want something like Symantec on your system? Symantec is a resource

> hog, causing more problems than it's worth. Good luck.

>

Can't be any more a "resource hog" than Vista. The two seem made for one

another.

 

Cheers.

 

 

--

Remove Vista Activation Completely ...

http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

> Unfortunately exactly these people put too much trust into their AV

> software, giving them a false sense of security, i.e. by knowing that AV

> software is installed on their PC, they think that they can do any risky

> operation, believing that their AV software is there to protect them.

>

>>AV, while not perfect, is a must for any computer not in a secured,

>>locked down, environment.

>

> By installing AV software, a PC becomes less secure, because it presents

> a larger front for attackers to strike by the very fact of installing

> yet another piece of useless, but attackable software *and* because AV

> software can only detect *known* malware.

>

> What use can there possibly be for AV software, if it cannot protect a

> PC from the latest and polymorphic malware?

> Do you really believe that attackers would be kind enough to only use

> *known* malware for their attacks?

>

> Marco

 

That is utterly ridiculous. Even AVG Free Edition is very good at

keeping virus definitions up to date. In some cases updating definitions

more than once a day and even on weekends. No virus protection is going to

be perfect, but not using ANY virus protection is foolish. There are a LOT

of older exploits out there in the wild and many more of those than zero day

exploits. AVG Free Edition has been upgraded to work just fine on Vista and

whatever you may think about anti-virus software it is much better than

nothing at all. There have not been a ton of Vista-specific exploits yet,

but believe me they will come. By saying that using AV software makes a PC

'LESS' secure is giving false information to folks that are not as saavy

about AV software as some of the more experienced users here. I place

spyware/malware in a different category than viri and use completely

different software to run for those types of exploits. Spybot Search and

Destroy and Add Aware are two free solutions that will take care of those

types of exploits, and if you use them both, they will find and delete most

tracking and other spyware/malware attacks. Keeping your PC free from all

exploits takes just a little bit of time and it is well spent.

 

Ed

"NotMe" <cargodZeroOne@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:eHi5pQf5HHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> it depends on what YOU like.

> I use AVG free from http://free.grisoft.com

> Others swear by Avast free at http://www.avast.com

 

My vote goes here, put the poster is right the others are probably equally

good it's more of a matter of personal preference.

> Others say Clamwin from http://www.clamwin.org

> Then there are the ones that say Kapersky or NOD32 are better.

> As long as you avoid Symantec or McAfee, you 'may' be OK.

 

I had a virus once that brought my Vista system to almost a screeching halt,

It was called McAfee -) Again I agree with the poster. Symantec and

McAfee have become too bloated to be useful anymore. Software companies

seem to think we want utility software that does everything instead of small

compact utilities that we can tailor to our needs.

 

--

Mark R. Cusumano

eMail: mark.cusumano@hotmail.com

Skype Name: mark.cusumano

Ed M. [sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:01:35 -0500] wrote:

>> Unfortunately exactly these people put too much trust into their AV

>> software, giving them a false sense of security, i.e. by knowing that AV

>> software is installed on their PC, they think that they can do any risky

>> operation, believing that their AV software is there to protect them.

>>

>>>AV, while not perfect, is a must for any computer not in a secured,

>>>locked down, environment.

>>

>> By installing AV software, a PC becomes less secure, because it presents

>> a larger front for attackers to strike by the very fact of installing

>> yet another piece of useless, but attackable software *and* because AV

>> software can only detect *known* malware.

>>

>> What use can there possibly be for AV software, if it cannot protect a

>> PC from the latest and polymorphic malware?

>> Do you really believe that attackers would be kind enough to only use

>> *known* malware for their attacks?

>>

>> Marco

>

> That is utterly ridiculous.

 

Did you bother to think about the subject in depth?

>Even AVG Free Edition is very good at

>keeping virus definitions up to date. In some cases updating definitions

>more than once a day and even on weekends.

 

And that is exactly the problem. Definitions are *always* behind the

threats. Sometimes it takes days or even months before a virus is

discovered.

>No virus protection is going to

>be perfect,

 

Yes, there is: Just avoid installing any malware at all. It's as simple

as that.

>but not using ANY virus protection is foolish.

 

Really? Would you care to expand on that?

>There are a LOT

>of older exploits out there in the wild and many more of those than zero day

>exploits.

 

Again: Just avoid installing any malware at all. It's as simple as that.

>AVG Free Edition has been upgraded to work just fine on Vista and

>whatever you may think about anti-virus software it is much better than

>nothing at all.

 

Nonsense, AV software gives the PC user a *false* sense of protection

and security.

>There have not been a ton of Vista-specific exploits yet,

>but believe me they will come.

 

Are you by any chance using Internet Explorer?

>By saying that using AV software makes a PC

>'LESS' secure is giving false information to folks that are not as saavy

>about AV software as some of the more experienced users here.

 

Did you bother to ask someone who is *really* (no self-proclaimed

expert) savvy about AV software?

 

By installing AV software on your computer, you are giving malicious

attackers another front, i.e. another weakness in your computer to

attack. Worst of all, AV software gives you a *false* sense of

protection and security.

Protection and security, which is nowhere near 100% efficient.

It only takes *one* single virus to compromise your PC.

 

On top of that, AV software eats up enormous amounts of computer

resources, all too often slowing the PC down and/or crashing it, and if

that wasn't enough annoyance already, many AV software packages cost a

lot of money.

>I place

>spyware/malware in a different category than viri and use completely

>different software to run for those types of exploits. Spybot Search and

>Destroy and Add Aware are two free solutions that will take care of those

>types of exploits, and if you use them both, they will find and delete most

>tracking and other spyware/malware attacks.

 

Remember, each additional installed software package presents one more

front to be attacked, one more weakness in your PC, one more element

that requires protection.

Ergo, AV software makes a PC less secure.

>Keeping your PC free from all

>exploits takes just a little bit of time and it is well spent.

 

Once again: Just avoid installing any malware. It's as simple as that.

 

Marco

Re: Typical BS Answer

 

can't we all get along !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message

news:uhuIM%23Z5HHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Frank wrote:

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:fak8e7$u9q$3@aioe.org...

>>>>

>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:fak5hk$mp1$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Doofy wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> What is the best Anti-Virus For Vista?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Nuking Vista and installing a real OS like Ubuntu. Check it out at

>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Typical BS answer from the Ubuntu Marketing Department. Trash Vista,

>>>>>> Install Ubuntu.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>> He *did* ask what the best anti virus is for Vista and I gave the only

>>>>> credible answer. Live with it.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Alias

>>>>> To email me, remove shoes

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> You must have a reading comprehension problem. You were probably

>>>> absent during the 4th, 5th, and 6th grade. He was asking about Vista

>>>> you smart ass.

>>>

>>>

>>> I know and I even mentioned Vista in my reply, speaking of your reading

>>> comprehension problem.

>>>

>>>> If he wanted to know about Ubuntu he would have slithered over to the

>>>> dark side and entered the Ubuntu forum.

>>>>

>>>> Ubuntu is nothing but a TOY for geeks (desktop)

>>>

>>>

>>> Not any more. It's more user friendly than Vista will ever be.

>>>

>>>> and not ready for prime time. If it was ready for prime time,

>>>> everybody would be jumping to it. Yes, it's free and people just don't

>>>> want it. Live with it.

>>>

>>>

>>> They have to know about it before they can try it. Hence, my mission on

>>> this ng.

>>>

>> You're nothing but a sick, lying piece of sh*t linux troll who is so

>> financially broke you can't afford Vista.

>

> I bought Vista the other day. You must have missed the reply to YOU where

> I stated that. Cost me 158.86 euros for a copy of a generic OEM Ultimate.

> I also bought an AMD2 Dual Core 4600+, two gigs of Corsair 800 RAM and a

> PCIExpress nVidia GeForce 7300 at 512 MB to go with it.

>

>> Go screw yourself you moron linux loser.

>> Frank

>

> Charming.

>

> --

> Alias

> To email me, remove shoes