Re: How much "protection" needs to be running all the time?
- From: Art <null@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:41:26 GMT
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:24:29 GMT, louise <louise@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>I'm now running:
>>>
>>>Nod32
>>>Sygate Firewall Pro
>>>Linksys router (have cable connection)
>>>
>>>I run Adaware, Spybot and Spyware Doctor , alternating
>>>programs, at least once a week.
>>>
>I do use Firefox about 90% of the time - some things just
>wont run on it - thus the other 10%
>
>One other person uses this machine who has very little
>computer awareness and not much interest in learning. It's
>bad enough that I had the IE icon so that this person can't
>just casually open up IE because that's what he's used to
>doing on his own machine :-) Nevertheless, I can't control
>everything.
>
>I have to use Outlook for email. I have a good spam filter
>and nothing gets opened without being recognized by me, or
>at least thought about for a while..
Why do you _have_ to use Outlook???
>I don't tend to go to questionable sites, but sometimes you
>run into one while following search engine links etc. - it
>does happen very occasionally.
>
>I use very little freeware
>
>Nevertheless, my system was completely crashed this summer
>and I think it was a trojan - I don't know from where.
> I've become much more "paranoid" since and I now use NOD32
>and I do run the various spyware programs mentioned on a
>much more frequent basis.
Well, Louise, you know what happens when a irresponsible driver
is behind the wheel. I hope that person at least doesn't have
administrator rights. Limited rights can reduce damage.
I'm obviously not a fan of the various means used by some to
help improve a bad situation. People use block lists (which require
endless updating), and additional realtime protections of various
kinds. You can select from a variety of apps which will attempt
to block software installs. However, once malicious code gets
past your realtime av/Trojan scanner(s) all bets are off since
it can potentially do whatever it wants, including the disabling
of your second lines of defense (as well as your first lines).
Similarly, there are apps and modules which attempt to do a
variety of proactive defenses such as blocking buffer overruns
used by hackers, etc. (I'm thinking of Prevx here, for example).
If I had to administer a PC used by a irresponsible user, I'd
be inclined to purchase Kaspersky version 6 when it's available.
I have no facts I can present concerning the effectiveness
of its proactive modules. I know of no tests of any kind, good
or bad, which indictate its ability to block unknown malware
and spyware. I'm simply a KAV fan who has developed a high
regard for the reliability and effectiveness of their scanners
over the years, and I'd place bets that they aren't just
whistlin' Dixie with their new proactive modules. The only
facts I have are that their Beta v6 KAV is extremely
unobtrusive ... and that after the first scan of a main drive
it doesn't slow down my 1.6 ghz 256 RAM PC at all that I
noticed. I had no false alerts whatsover during my checks of
various v6 Betas. So it should meet your unobtrusiveness
requirement at least, while it still remains to be seen just
how effective it is for helping protect users from their
ignorance and stupidity ... which is really "mission impossible".
Just back up and backup and make sure you have a cloned
hard drive so you can recover from the inevitable easily :)
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: How much "protection" needs to be running all the time?
- Next by Date: Re: How much "protection" needs to be running all the time?
- Previous by thread: Re: How much "protection" needs to be running all the time?
- Next by thread: Re: How much "protection" needs to be running all the time?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
