 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / Security / July 2008FIREWALL CHECK
I need some help please. I have Windows Vista Home Premium and Norton Internet Security 2008. When I try to log onto the Internet, I get a firewall check. I reply: (1) disable the (Windows) firewall, (2) don't perform this check again. But this check reappears every time I try to log onto the Internet. How do I stop this message reappearing? > I need some help please. I have Windows Vista Home Premium and Norton > Internet Security 2008. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But this check reappears every time I try to log onto the Internet. > How do I stop this message reappearing? At some point in the future you will be forced to completely remove Norton, it is the single worst piece of junk ever sold for the PC. McAfee is no better really. By default the Windows firewall causes little trouble, but to isolate the problem you need to go into the Norton Settings and disable it all, work back from there. Actually it would be better to uninstall Norton completely but you MUST follow their instructions and use their removal tool because otherwise trying to uninstall it will likely trash your system. This is quite deliberate on their part to stop you from getting rid of it. >> I need some help please. I have Windows Vista Home Premium and Norton >> Internet Security 2008. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > system. This is quite deliberate on their part to stop you from getting > rid of it. They make a removal tool to stop you from getting rid of it? Are you insane? :o) Get rid of Norton. The Windows Firewall is far better than any 3rd party Firewall  SignaturePeter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. >I need some help please. I have Windows Vista Home Premium and Norton > Internet Security 2008. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But this check reappears every time I try to log onto the Internet. > How do I stop this message reappearing? > Get rid of Norton. The Windows Firewall is far better than any 3rd party Firewall ????????? I can accept that there is an argument as to whether it is adequate or not (I'm clearly on the "It's not!" camp), but I've *NEVER* heard it rated as better than any other firewall!!! What do you base this statement on?? SignatureRegards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services >> Get rid of Norton. The Windows Firewall is far better than any 3rd party Firewall > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What do you base this statement on?? This is the same guy who last week told someone that a failing CMOS battery was the probably cause of a system clock losing time during the day while it was powered-up with Windows running. >> Get rid of Norton. The Windows Firewall is far better than any 3rd party Firewall > > ????????? I can accept that there is an argument as to whether it is > adequate or not (I'm clearly on the "It's not!" camp), but I've *NEVER* > heard it rated as better than any other firewall!!! Peter said: "any *3rd party* Firewall"* and most probably referred specifically to 3rd party software personal firewalls (PFW). > What do you base this statement on?? I can't speak for Peter but there are credible reports in circulation confirming his assertion. The reports are not commercially sponsored. BTW, test reports conducted by some firewall testing organizations used to test the Windows Firewall for *outbound traffic control* (a function which never ever was incorporated) and compared it with 3rd party f/w apps. >Peter said: "any *3rd party* Firewall"* and most probably referred >specifically to 3rd party software personal firewalls (PFW). >> What do you base this statement on?? > >I can't speak for Peter but there are credible reports in circulation >confirming his assertion. The reports are not commercially sponsored. I think you need to be a little more definitive on what reports to make the claim you did. Lots of reports (in many industries) make claims but when you examine their testing criteria and methods you come to other conclusions. >BTW, test reports conducted by some firewall testing organizations used to >test the Windows Firewall for *outbound traffic control* (a function which >never ever was incorporated) and compared it with 3rd party f/w apps. Which is why you want a real personal FireWall like Zone Alarm. If you have a router in place with NAT and WPA with a good password, inbound is of relatively limited concern. Outbound, OTOH, not only prevents MS programs and others from calling home for no apparent reason, but helps identify when an evil program has infected your system and is attempting net access. These issues are much more of a concern than inbound access. >>Peter said: "any *3rd party* Firewall"* and most probably referred >>specifically to 3rd party software personal firewalls (PFW). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > attempting net access. These issues are much more of a concern than > inbound access. And they can cut through the snake-oil crap in ZA or any other solution like ZA like a hot knife through butter. The job of a personal FW (it's not a FW)/packet filter is stop unsolicited inbound packets, by default, from reaching services and the O/S running on the machine and to prevent outbound packets from leaving the machine, by setting packet filtering by port TCP/UDP, protocol -- HTTP, FTP, ICMP, etc, etc, IP, subnet mask or domain for inbound and outbound traffic. The job of the personal FW/packet filter has been blown up out of proportion, and it's not a malware solution, trying to protect you from you that it cannot do. That's snake-oil and candy technology in them as a home user security blanket giving a false sense of security. http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840 There are other ways, that one can cut through the crap snake-oil like Application Control in PFW(S). Another way is to beat the PFW(S) to the network connection during the boot process before the PFW service is even up and running. It has done its thing and is done before the PFW could even know that it has happened. >>Peter said: "any *3rd party* Firewall"* and most probably referred >>specifically to 3rd party software personal firewalls (PFW). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > attempting net access. These issues are much more of a concern than > inbound access. Once you have an "evil program" executing on your machine, the game is over. That is unless it is a very lame "evil program". The firewall application would now be running on a system that can't be trusted - and so itself can't be trusted even if it tells you it can be trusted. IOW a false sense of security exists whether or not the machine is compromised. >Once you have an "evil program" executing on your machine, the >game is over. That is unless it is a very lame "evil program". The >firewall application would now be running on a system that can't >be trusted - and so itself can't be trusted even if it tells you it can >be trusted. I agree that some programs can work towards beating your outbound firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is better than none. >IOW a false sense of security exists whether or not the machine >is compromised. 99.99% of users have a false sense of security. THat's why so many of their machines get infected. An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems. <snipped> > 99.99% of users have a false sense of security. THat's why so many of > their machines get infected. An outbound firewall is one more layer > that can help identify problems. Application control in PFW(s) is not outbound control. It's application control, which should be under the control of the O/S. The buck stops with the O/S not the PFW/packet filter. If the O/S can be fooled, then anything that runs with the O/S can be easily fooled too. Any of today's PFW(s)/personal packet filter even Vista's FW/packet filter has the ability to stop outbound packets from leaving the machine by setting outbound packet filtering rules. The stuff you're talking about has no business trying to do application control. Their job is to act as packet filter. 99.99% of users don't have a false sense of security. 99.99% of users don't know what security is about period. 99.99% of them if a message comes up into their face to allow or disallow something, they flat out don't know the circumstances as to why it's even happening. So, they stop something like Svchost.exe from accessing the network. Svchost.exe is not the one that wants access. Svchost.exe only host something, a program, that wants the access. So, they stop Svchost.exe this time never knowing what they really needed to stop. Then they turn around and allow Svchost.exe to access the network, and then the exploit now has its shot to get out un-detected, piggy backing of that instance of Svchost.exe that was granted access. >>Once you have an "evil program" executing on your machine, the >>game is over. That is unless it is a very lame "evil program". The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is > better than none. What is there to 'catch'. Since malware already has/is manipulating your OS the game is lost[PERIOD]! >>IOW a false sense of security exists whether or not the machine >>is compromised. > > 99.99% of users have a false sense of security. And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... > THat's why so many of their machines get infected. No, unsafe browsing and relying on Phony-Baloney Ware such as 3rd party software (so-called) firewalls aka Illusion Ware gets you in hot water. > An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems. Relying on this layer is precisely what gives you this false sense of security. Educate yourself, Google can assist. BTW, ever wondered why nobody responded to your WLM query? >> I agree that some programs can work towards beating your outbound >> firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is >> better than none. > >What is there to 'catch'. Since malware already has/is manipulating your OS >the game is lost[PERIOD]! Nonsense. Not all malware is sharp enough to avoid firewall detection. Not all malware infections are lost cases. Repair is possible quite often. The earlier the problem is detected, the higher the probability for repair. There are enough malware schemes that don't avoid the firewall that it is worth using one. PERIOD. Museums have sophisticated security systems. Nonetheless, criminals get through them and steal valuable items fairly consistently. Do the museums throw up their arms and say "we won't bother with an alarm system since there are _some_ people who can beat it". No, they install a security system that keeps out the large majority of potential thieves, recognizing that no system is perfect. >> THat's why so many of their machines get infected. > >No, unsafe browsing and relying on Phony-Baloney Ware such as 3rd party >software (so-called) firewalls aka Illusion Ware gets you in hot water. The fact that some people have an illusion of safety does not negate the increased security offered by an outbound firewall. >> An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems. > >Relying on this layer is precisely what gives you this false sense of >security. There's a difference between relying and utilizing. >Educate yourself, Google can assist. >BTW, ever wondered why nobody responded to your WLM query? No, I've been spending my "wondering time" puzzling over how someone becomes such a condescending, know-it-all, dick head like you. >Nonsense. Not all malware is sharp enough to avoid firewall detection. >Not all malware infections are lost cases. No. But no matter what, that has to be always the default assumption. Unless you have a baseline and can identify exactly what has been changed you are basing your security on hope. >Repair is possible quite often. Repair is possible if you're very skilled. It's certainly not a job for Mr. Average. If you rely on running a few anti-tools in order to declare a system clean as soon as the symptom seems to be gone, you're on a very slippery slope. >The earlier the problem is detected, the higher the probability >for repair. There are enough malware schemes that don't avoid the >firewall that it is worth using one. PERIOD. If you allow even poorly coded malware to have a ball on your computer, your defenses are non-existing anyway. >Museums have sophisticated security systems. Nonetheless, criminals >get through them and steal valuable items fairly consistently. Do the >museums throw up their arms and say "we won't bother with an alarm >system since there are _some_ people who can beat it". No, they >install a security system that keeps out the large majority of >potential thieves, recognizing that no system is perfect. The real and the virtual worlds don't easily compare. This has lead to a variety of bad analogies. Yours is just yet another one. >>> THat's why so many of their machines get infected. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The fact that some people have an illusion of safety does not negate >the increased security offered by an outbound firewall. The possible increase in security from an outbound firewall must as a minimum outweigh the drawbacks. For me that's a very easy assessment to make. >>> An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems. >> >>Relying on this layer is precisely what gives you this false sense of >>security. > >There's a difference between relying and utilizing. One shouldn't utilize a security measure one can't rely on to a very high degree. Especially not one which has a serious impact on the system it's trying to protect. >>> I agree that some programs can work towards beating your outbound >>> firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for repair. There are enough malware schemes that don't avoid the > firewall that it is worth using one. PERIOD. We are talking about 3rd party software (so-called) firewall) and their effectiveness in relation to monotoring outbound traffic as a security meassure! > Museums have sophisticated security systems. Nonetheless, criminals > get through them and steal valuable items fairly consistently. Do the > museums throw up their arms and say "we won't bother with an alarm > system since there are _some_ people who can beat it". No, they > install a security system that keeps out the large majority of > potential thieves, recognizing that no system is perfect. Read above in-line response! >>> THat's why so many of their machines get infected. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The fact that some people have an illusion of safety does not negate > the increased security offered by an outbound firewall. Google *is* your friend! >>> An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems. >> >>Relying on this layer is precisely what gives you this false sense of >>security. > > There's a difference between relying and utilizing. Yes, employing cd and re-installing the OS. >>Educate yourself, Google can assist. >>BTW, ever wondered why nobody responded to your WLM query? > > No, I've been spending my "wondering time" puzzling over how someone Spend your "wondering time" on educating yourself; Make it a habit checking credentials of authors writing articles/messages in advertisement sponsored publications and take commercial messages with a ton of salt. (Amazing how a bit of online research makes me sound like an expert... :-) > becomes such a condescending, know-it-all, dick head like you. You don't know me, if you group me in some arbitrary fashion, it is your own inability to see clearly; Not my issue! Unlike you, I can claim to walk away from this pointless quibble knowing what I am doing. This is me, granting you whatever last words you feel might make you whole again. Have a wondeful day :-) > And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... Including yours??? ;-) SignatureRegards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services > > And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... > > Including yours??? ;-) All generalizations are false (including this one). SignatureKen Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup >>> And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... >>> >> Including yours??? ;-) > > All generalizations are false (including this one). As Captain Kirk said to the robot: "Everything I tell you is a lie!"............ :-) SignatureRegards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services >> And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... > > Including yours??? ;-) Well, in this thread I haven't made up any stats, I think :) >>Once you have an "evil program" executing on your machine, the >>game is over. That is unless it is a very lame "evil program". The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is > better than none. As an aside, would you feel safe with an antivirus that recognizes "quite a few" viruses? True, some is better than none, but the idea that only the lame ones will be caught would not give me the warm fuzzy feeling that personal firewall applications seem to promise the user. >>IOW a false sense of security exists whether or not the machine >>is compromised. > > 99.99% of users have a false sense of security. ...and 90% of those achieve it without additional software running on their machine telling them how safe they are. > THat's why so many of > their machines get infected. An outbound firewall is one more layer > that can help identify problems. I agree that they are not *completely* useless. >> I agree that some programs can work towards beating your outbound >> firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >warm fuzzy feeling that personal firewall applications seem to promise >the user. But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none at all (windows firewall). No A/V solution will catch everything. Add a few layers - an extra non-unobtrusive, non-performance impacting layer that can help is worth it, IMHO. >...and 90% of those achieve it without additional software running >on their machine telling them how safe they are. When has an outbound firewall ever done anything to make the 99% feel safe? Most of them don't even know it's there until it reports something. They feel safe thorough ignorance of the dangers, not knowledge of the solutions. > But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none > at all (windows firewall). Once again, will someone tell this person what outbound packet filtering means, which Vista has outbound packet filtering. What he is talking about is application control, which are two differnt things and is snake-oil. >> But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >> at all (windows firewall). > >Once again, will someone tell this person what outbound packet filtering >means, which Vista has outbound packet filtering. What he is talking about >is application control, which are two differnt things and is snake-oil. Vista's outbound filtering needs manual configuration and is well beyond the scope of anyone who doesn't have serious training. Application filtering is not snake-oil and does have value. It's also possible for average users to actually turn it on an have it work. >Vista's outbound filtering needs manual configuration and is well >beyond the scope of anyone who doesn't have serious training. That's true for any kind of "outbound control". One who doesn't understand networking shouldn't be expected to be able to properly configure a firewall. For application control the situation is even worse, since it requires a deep understanding of the inner workings of the OS. "Do you want svchost.exe to connect to the internet?" - Erhmmm, NO - BEEEEEEEEP - WRONG ANSWER. Okay.. then erhm... YES - BEEEEEEEEEEP - WRONG ANSWER. And how about when the "firewall" asks you to make decisions based on utter nonsense? How about this one that I have come across in several "personal firewalls": "Program X is trying to contact the internet on IP address 127.0.0.1"? Not only is it nonsense, it's of absolutely NO help to a user and worst of all gives the impression of the program having been developed by coders who have no clue about networking themselves. >Application filtering is not snake-oil and does have value. That's true. It does have value. A good feeling of being in control certainly has value. Just not in terms of security. >It's also possible for average users to actually turn it on an have it work. It's possible for average users to turn it on and shoot themselves seriously in the foot. >>> But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >>> at all (windows firewall). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Vista's outbound filtering needs manual configuration and is well > beyond the scope of anyone who doesn't have serious training. Any personal FW/packet filter that has outbound packet filtering, the user faces the same problem using the solution effectively and need serious training. They don't know how to do it. So what's the difference in some 3rd party solution and Vista's packet filter/ FW, none. > Application filtering is not snake-oil and does have value. It's also > possible for average users to actually turn it on an have it work. 99% of clueless average users have no idea as to what is happening with it, it takes a lot of hand holding because I have been there holding their hands and it's worthless. >> But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >> at all (windows firewall). > >Once again, will someone tell this person what outbound packet filtering >means, which Vista has outbound packet filtering. What he is talking about >is application control, which are two differnt things and is snake-oil. Okay. There is a big difference between outbound packet filtering and application control. Neither are reliable counter measures against malware allowed to run. >>> But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >>> at all (windows firewall). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > application control. Neither are reliable counter measures against > malware allowed to run. The job of a real FW, which I don't consider some 3rd party personal FW/packet filter or even Vista's FW/packet filter to be a FW is not to stop malware. A FW's job is not to stop malware running on a computer. A packet filtering FW router, FW appliance or host based software FW running on a secured gateway computer jobs are not to be stopping a malware program running on some computer. <copied> What is a firewall? A firewall protects networked computers from intentional hostile intrusion that could compromise confidentiality or result in data corruption or denial of service. It may be a hardware device or a software program running on a secure host computer. In either case, it must have at least two network interfaces, one for the network it is intended to protect, and one for the network it is exposed to. *And for those that don't know what two network interfaces means for a computer running a host based FW, it means the the computer must have two network interface cards (NICS) in them with one NIC protecting from the network it is protecting from, and the other NIC protecting the network it is protecting.* A firewall sits at the junction point or gateway between the two networks, usually a private network and a public network such as the Internet. The earliest firewalls were simply routers. The term firewall comes from the fact that by segmenting a network into different physical subnetworks, they limited the damage that could spread from one subnet to another just like firedoors or firewalls. A firewall examines all traffic routed between the two networks to see if it meets certain criteria. If it does, it is routed between the networks, otherwise it is stopped. A firewall filters both inbound and outbound traffic. It can also manage public access to private networked resources such as host applications. It can be used to log all attempts to enter the private network and trigger alarms when hostile or unauthorized entry is attempted. Firewalls can filter packets based on their source and destination addresses and port numbers. This is known as address filtering. Firewalls can also filter specific types of network traffic. This is also known as protocol filtering because the decision to forward or reject traffic is dependant upon the protocol used, for example HTTP, ftp or telnet. Firewalls can also filter traffic by packet attribute or state. *That is FW technology, and the Vista FW/packet filter or some 3rd party personal FW/packet filter are NOT FW(s).* >But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >at all (windows firewall). If it was only that simple. >No A/V solution will catch everything. That's true. In fact they are getting less effective every day. >Add a few layers - an extra non-unobtrusive, non-performance impacting >layer that can help is worth it, IMHO. But a "firewall" implementing "outbound application control" unfortunately does not fall into that category. Hello Hank From personal testing (usage). I have tried a few 3rd party ones and aside from bloating and the obvious cost they are no better than the Firewall supplied by Windows. SignaturePeter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. >> Get rid of Norton. The Windows Firewall is far better than any 3rd party Firewall > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you base this statement on?? > I need some help please. I have Windows Vista Home Premium and Norton > Internet Security 2008. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But this check reappears every time I try to log onto the Internet. > How do I stop this message reappearing? A number of experts agree that the retail AV version of McAfee, Norton and Trend Micro has become cumbersome and bloated for the average user. The major Norton criticisms are related to stability and footprint, the most common problem being slow-downs because of the massive system resources Norton hogs. There are products on the market with equal or better test results than Symantec's products, consuming less resources at a lower price (even free ones). The retail version of Norton can play havoc with your pc. Uninstall it using Norton's own uninstall tool: Download and run the Norton Removal Tool and try to get a refund: http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039 The Norton Removal Tool uninstalls all Norton 2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003 products and Norton 360 from your computer. You are not going to find anything better than the Vista FW and Vista in itself due to the advanced features the FW and Vista are using. Jesper's Blogs- At Least This Snake Oil Is Free. http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/07/19/at-least-this-snake-oi l-is-free.aspx Windows Firewall: the best new security feature in Vista? http://blogs.technet.com/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/05/01/426921.aspx Exploring The Windows Firewall. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/VistaFirewall/default.aspx "If you try to block outbound connections from a computer that’s already compromised, how can you be sure that the computer is really doing what you ask? The answer: you can’t. Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a gimmick that only gives the impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually does improve your security. This is why outbound protection didn’t exist in the Windows XP firewall and why it doesn’t exist in the Windows Vista™ firewall." Managing the Windows Vista Firewall http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510323.aspx Tap into the Vista firewall's advanced configuration features http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6098592.html "...once you discover the secret of accessing its advanced configuration settings via the MMC snap-in, you'll find it to be far more configurable and functional. At last, Windows comes with a sophisticated personal firewall that can be used to set up outbound rules as well as inbound, with the ability to customize rules to fit your precise needs." Or Configure Vista Firewall to support outbound packet filtering http://searchwindowssecurity.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid45_gci1247138,00.html Or Vista Firewall Control (Free versions available). Protects your applications from undesirable network incoming and outgoing activity, controls applications internet access. http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/ The free version may be all you need, check the comparisons under the "Download and Buy" link. Real-time AV applications - for viral malware. Do not utilize more than one (1) real-time anti-virus scanning engine! Disable the e-mail scanning function during installation (Custom Installation on some AV apps.) as it provides no additional protection. Why You Don't Need Your Anti-Virus Program to Scan Your E-Mail http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm Viral Irony: The Most Common Cause of Corruption. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/community/columns/filecorruption.mspx Avira AntiVir® Personal - FREE Antivirus http://www.free-av.com/ You may wish to consider removing the 'AntiVir Nagscreen' http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm or Free antivirus - avast! 4 Home Edition It includes ANTI-SPYWARE protection, certified by the West Coast Labs Checkmark process, and ANTI-ROOTKIT DETECTION based on the best-in class GMER technology. http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html (Choose Custom Installation and under Resident Protection, uncheck: Internet Mail and Outlook/Exchange.) or AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition http://free.grisoft.com/ (Choose custom install and untick the email scanner plugin.) or ESET NOD32 Antivirus - Not Free http://www.eset.com/ or Kaspersky® Anti-Virus 7.0 - Not Free http://www.kaspersky.com/homeuser and (optional but highly recommendable) On-demand AV applications. (add them to your arsenal and use them as a "second opinion" av scanner). David H. Lipman's MULTI_AV Tool http://www.pctipp.ch/ds/28400/28470/Multi_AV.exe http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp English: http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2008/01/09/scan-your-computer-with-multiple- anti-virus-for-free/ Additional Instructions: http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm and/or Kaspersky's AVPTool http://downloads5.kaspersky-labs.com/devbuilds/AVPTool/ There's no updating involved since the scanning engine is updated several times a day and you simply download the updated scanner whenever you want to do a scan. Dr.Web CureIt!® Utility - FREE http://www.freedrweb.com/cureit/ Malwarebytes© Corporation - Anti-Malware http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe Note: It is Free for private use. Just download (do NOT buy) and install. A-S applications - for non-viral malware. The effectiveness of an individual A-S scanners can be wide-ranging and oftentimes a collection of scanners is best. There isn't one software that cleans and immunizes you against everything. That's why you need multiple products to do the job i.e. overlap their coverage - one may catch what another may miss, (grab'em all). SuperAntispyware - Free http://www.superantispyware.com/superantispywarefreevspro.html and Ad-Aware 2007 - Free http://www.lavasoftusa.com/products/ad_aware_free.php http://www.download.com/3000-2144-10045910.html and Spybot Search & Destroy - Free http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/index.html and Windows Defender - Free (build-in in Vista) http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx WD monitors the start-registry and hooks registers/files to prevent spyware and worms to install to the OS. Interesting reading: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136195/article.html "...Windows Defender did excel in behavior-based protection, which detects changes to key areas of the system without having to know anything about the actual threat." After the software is updated, it is suggested scanning the system in Safe Mode. A clarification on the terminology: the word "malware" is short for "malicious software." Most Anti-Virus applications detect many types of malware such as viruses, worms, trojans, etc. What AV applications usually don't detect is "non-viral" malware, and the term "non-viral malware" is normally used to refer to things like spyware and adware. Good luck :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.