virus/firewall protection

R

Roger Fink

glee wrote:
> "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
> news:eh2EkWJzHHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Roger Fink wrote:
>>>>> You are welcome. Let us know what your final decision is. I
>>>>> hesitate
>>>>> to offer...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html Avast (free)
>>>>>
>>>>> ..., because it does have a problem (though avoidable) with some
>>>>> of
>>>>> Windows's icons. Also, although avast! behaves well otherwise &
>>>>> has
>>>>> many wonderful functions & settings-- it DOESN'T get into every
>>>>> archive file during its On-Demand scans! On the plus side, there
>>>>> are
>>>>> some archives it DOES get into that even WinZip will not try.
>>>>> However, archives are harmless until opened. At that point, it is
>>>>> avast!'s On-Access scanner that matters-- & there's no reason to
>>>>> think it won't work!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emphatically agree, but would add that with 98, 98SE, you need to
>>>> deal with this:
>>>> http://www.avast.com/eng/webshield_issues.html#idt_6869
>>>>
>>>> which you can do by viewing these:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ieproxy.htm
>>>> http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ffproxy.htm
>>>>
>>>> Of course, now that I've high tech'd it to W2K, it all just
>>>> magically
>>>> works without tutorials or even human input. To borrow from the old
>>>> Alka Seltzer ad, I've traded my headache for an upset stomach, but,
>>>> on balance, I'll take it.
>>>
>>> I DIDN'T have to do any of that, either, in Win98 SE-- not manually,
>>> anyhow.
>>>
>>> At "Internet Options, Connections tab, LAN Settings button"...
>>>
>>> "Automatically detect settings".......... is checked.
>>> "Use automatic configuration script"... is unchecked.
>>> "Use a proxy server for your LAN"....... is unchecked.
>>>
>>> At "Internet Options, Connections tab, NetZero, Settings button"...
>>> NONE of those three is checked!
>>>
>>> I'm abashedly unsure whether it was all like that before, but I
>>> believe what was necessary was done automatically, when I selected
>>> to
>>> install the avast! WEB Shield Provider. Could be things have been
>>> reversed-- it was the NetZero setting that was checked before,
>>> possibly. So far as I always thought, I do not have or use a LAN.
>>> And
>>> it looks like I'm using one now!
>>>
>>> It's possible... yea, I think I did have to state my smpt & pop3
>>> servers somewhere along the line, though. I appear to have said they
>>> were... smtp.netzero.net & pop.netzero.net... respectively. Even IF
>>> I've actually left out a "3"-- looks like all is working with that.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, soon I will start a thread on what I should allow Kerio to
>>> allow IN & OUT for avast!-- above & beyond what I already have
>>> done! I
>>> think I've almost got it right now!

>>
>> PCR - When I first installed Avast I thought Webshield was
>> operative. The
>> reason was because when I opened up the display, it said so!, as it
>> did for Internet Mail and Standard Shield. But I soon noticed that
>> this wasn't being reflected in the statistics in the box, because
>> for Webshield (only) the
>> scan count was always zero.
>>
>> You may indeed have a fully working installation of Webshield, but I
>> would confirm it by checking the statistics, i.e. the "scanned
>> count", to make
>> sure Webshield is really doing anything, irrespective of the
>> feel-good news ("The provider is currently running") at the top of
>> the box.

>
> Good links, Roger. You're correct about Avast WebShield not actually
> doing anything in Win9x unless you manually set the proxy settings in
> each browser used, to localhost and port 12080
>
> However, in my admittedly limited testing of WebShield used this way
> in Win98SE, I found that installing the module, enabling it, and
> setting my browsers as described slowed down my broadband connection
> on that computer, by sometimes as much as 50% and generally about
> 30%....using Roadrunner cable from Time-Warner.
>
> I have found it not worth installing the WebShield module at all,
> since I am fairly strict about what I allow to run in my browser, re:
> Javascript, ActiveX and so forth. YMMV.
>
> What type of Internet connection do you have, and do you see a speed
> difference when enabling WebShield? I am using
> www.speakeasy.net/speedtest to compare.



Hi Glen, great link - I didn't know that service was available.

I use the basic Poor Man's Broadband, Verizon low end, which according to
the Westell modem site maxes out at 864/160, although the service is so
variable that often when I check it there it reads half of that, and I've
even seen it at 32kb. Moreover, there are usually 1-2 hours during the day
when it's down altogether. If you are not at an ideal infrastructure
location, broadband over unmaintained copper is Hell. A year ago I lived 25
miles away from here - same service, no problems at all.

But I apologize for digressing - tonight the service is consistent and was
read by Westell at 864kb download/160kb upload, so I went to speakeasy.net
and tried it both ways, running W2K:

With WebShield: 737kb/135kb
Without " : 706kb/135kb

Obviously you don't pick up speed with WebShield I'm sure that the increase
was due to the fact that a small amount of time elapsed between the two
readings. But it appears that in my particular set of circumstances enabling
WebShield doesn't slow things down either. I try not to do anything too
stupid on the Internet but I admit that I'm spooked enough so that I'm not
comfortable without on-access protection.

A couple of things I should have added previously: the Avast scanned file
count reverts to zero once you close the browsers and email/newsreader
programs, so anyone who monitors the scanned file count from the Avast GUI
after opening up is going to see zero files scanned. You can leave the GUI
open, say on WebShield, and it will change in real time as it is put to use.
If the count doesn't change, then it's not set up right.

Avast deserves credit for going the extra mile on those two flash
presentations on setting WebShield up manually, but unfortunately, in the IE
one,
they state the port number correctly (12080) and the animation types it in
correctly, but the number that remains is 2080. The Firefox tutorial doesn't
have that problem.
 
P

PCR

Roger Fink wrote:
|> .......Right after this post
|> I'm going to post a screenshot of the Avast pane with the scan count
|> on it, hopefully the moderator will allow it. It's just a simple left
|> click of the Avast tray icon.
|
| Sorry, image was 76kb but the news server wouldn't accept it. Tried
| twice.

OK, I did the L-Clk on the avast! icon, & I see it myself, anyhow.

Hmmm, I can't perfectly recall what was happening before on that
screen-- after a while, I was doing R-Clk's only. I DO recall seeing a
"Last scanned" name in there before-- but I don't know which shield I
had highlighted in the L-Pane.

I GUESS, I'd have to go back to the old setting to see whether anything
shows for the WEB Shield. BUT, as I said, there is a marked improvement
of virus detection at the Eicar site this way. Thanks again for that,
Fink. So, if I do it, it would be for academic reasons only.

By the way, what happens with yours at the Eicar site...
http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

For me... now, every one of the 4 "standard protocol http" will trigger
an avast! alert when clicked, not just the .com.

The 4 "secure, SSL enabled protocol https" work as before, though-- only
the .com will trigger the alert when clicked. The .txt file must be
R-Clkd & scanned after the download to trigger it. The .zip's must be
unpacked first.

Additionally, once the "secure" Eicar.com.txt is read in this way, the
"standard" .txt will revert to behaving like that too-- until
Eicar.com.txt is deleted.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
 
P

PCR

glee wrote:
| "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
| news:eh2EkWJzHHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|>
|>
|> PCR wrote:
|>> Roger Fink wrote:
|>>>> You are welcome. Let us know what your final decision is. I
|>>>> hesitate to offer...
|>>>>
|>>>> http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html Avast (free)
|>>>>
|>>>> ..., because it does have a problem (though avoidable) with some
|>>>> of Windows's icons. Also, although avast! behaves well otherwise
|>>>> & has many wonderful functions & settings-- it DOESN'T get into
|>>>> every archive file during its On-Demand scans! On the plus side,
|>>>> there are some archives it DOES get into that even WinZip will
|>>>> not try. However, archives are harmless until opened. At that
|>>>> point, it is avast!'s On-Access scanner that matters-- & there's
|>>>> no reason to think it won't work!
|>>>>
|>>>
|>>> Emphatically agree, but would add that with 98, 98SE, you need to
|>>> deal with this:
|>>> http://www.avast.com/eng/webshield_issues.html#idt_6869
|>>>
|>>> which you can do by viewing these:
|>>>
|>>> http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ieproxy.htm
|>>> http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ffproxy.htm
|>>>
|>>> Of course, now that I've high tech'd it to W2K, it all just
|>>> magically works without tutorials or even human input. To borrow
|>>> from the old Alka Seltzer ad, I've traded my headache for an upset
|>>> stomach, but, on balance, I'll take it.
|>>
|>> I DIDN'T have to do any of that, either, in Win98 SE-- not manually,
|>> anyhow.
|>>
|>> At "Internet Options, Connections tab, LAN Settings button"...
|>>
|>> "Automatically detect settings".......... is checked.
|>> "Use automatic configuration script"... is unchecked.
|>> "Use a proxy server for your LAN"....... is unchecked.
|>>
|>> At "Internet Options, Connections tab, NetZero, Settings button"...
|>> NONE of those three is checked!
|>>
|>> I'm abashedly unsure whether it was all like that before, but I
|>> believe what was necessary was done automatically, when I selected
|>> to install the avast! WEB Shield Provider. Could be things have been
|>> reversed-- it was the NetZero setting that was checked before,
|>> possibly. So far as I always thought, I do not have or use a LAN.
|>> And it looks like I'm using one now!
|>>
|>> It's possible... yea, I think I did have to state my smpt & pop3
|>> servers somewhere along the line, though. I appear to have said they
|>> were... smtp.netzero.net & pop.netzero.net... respectively. Even IF
|>> I've actually left out a "3"-- looks like all is working with that.
|>>
|>> HOWEVER, soon I will start a thread on what I should allow Kerio to
|>> allow IN & OUT for avast!-- above & beyond what I already have
|>> done! I think I've almost got it right now!
|>
|> PCR - When I first installed Avast I thought Webshield was
|> operative. The reason was because when I opened up the display, it
|> said so!, as it did for Internet Mail and Standard Shield. But I
|> soon noticed that this wasn't being reflected in the statistics in
|> the box, because for Webshield (only) the scan count was always zero.
|>
|> You may indeed have a fully working installation of Webshield, but I
|> would confirm it by checking the statistics, i.e. the "scanned
|> count", to make sure Webshield is really doing anything,
|> irrespective of the feel-good news ("The provider is currently
|> running") at the top of the box.
|
| Good links, Roger. You're correct about Avast WebShield not actually
| doing anything in Win9x unless you manually set the proxy settings in
| each browser used, to localhost and port 12080
|
| However, in my admittedly limited testing of WebShield used this way
| in Win98SE, I found that installing the module, enabling it, and
| setting my browsers as described slowed down my broadband connection
| on that computer, by sometimes as much as 50% and generally about
| 30%....using Roadrunner cable from Time-Warner.
|
| I have found it not worth installing the WebShield module at all,
| since I am fairly strict about what I allow to run in my browser, re:
| Javascript, ActiveX and so forth. YMMV.
|
| What type of Internet connection do you have, and do you see a speed
| difference when enabling WebShield? I am using
| www.speakeasy.net/speedtest to compare. --

I am Dial-Up & currently connected at 46,666 bps, says NetZero.

With WEB Shield running, speedtest says...

Download Speed: 49 kbps (6.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 70 kbps (8.8 KB/sec transfer rate)

With it paused...

Download Speed: 47 kbps (5.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 72 kbps (9 KB/sec transfer rate)

That doesn't look terribly bad. Avast!'s Add/Remove has a "Change"
button that seems to allow un/re-installing on a component basis. But
I'm not sure it's warranted to see how well that works!


| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| http://dts-l.org/
| http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
 
G

glee

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uFbm24WzHHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> glee wrote:
> | "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
> | news:eh2EkWJzHHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> |>
> |>
> |> PCR wrote:
> |>> Roger Fink wrote:
> |>>>> You are welcome. Let us know what your final decision is. I
> |>>>> hesitate to offer...
> |>>>>
> |>>>> http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html Avast (free)
> |>>>>
> |>>>> ..., because it does have a problem (though avoidable) with some
> |>>>> of Windows's icons. Also, although avast! behaves well otherwise
> |>>>> & has many wonderful functions & settings-- it DOESN'T get into
> |>>>> every archive file during its On-Demand scans! On the plus side,
> |>>>> there are some archives it DOES get into that even WinZip will
> |>>>> not try. However, archives are harmless until opened. At that
> |>>>> point, it is avast!'s On-Access scanner that matters-- & there's
> |>>>> no reason to think it won't work!
> |>>>>
> |>>>
> |>>> Emphatically agree, but would add that with 98, 98SE, you need to
> |>>> deal with this:
> |>>> http://www.avast.com/eng/webshield_issues.html#idt_6869
> |>>>
> |>>> which you can do by viewing these:
> |>>>
> |>>> http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ieproxy.htm
> |>>> http://www.avast.com/files/tutorials/ws_ffproxy.htm
> |>>>
> |>>> Of course, now that I've high tech'd it to W2K, it all just
> |>>> magically works without tutorials or even human input. To borrow
> |>>> from the old Alka Seltzer ad, I've traded my headache for an upset
> |>>> stomach, but, on balance, I'll take it.
> |>>
> |>> I DIDN'T have to do any of that, either, in Win98 SE-- not manually,
> |>> anyhow.
> |>>
> |>> At "Internet Options, Connections tab, LAN Settings button"...
> |>>
> |>> "Automatically detect settings".......... is checked.
> |>> "Use automatic configuration script"... is unchecked.
> |>> "Use a proxy server for your LAN"....... is unchecked.
> |>>
> |>> At "Internet Options, Connections tab, NetZero, Settings button"...
> |>> NONE of those three is checked!
> |>>
> |>> I'm abashedly unsure whether it was all like that before, but I
> |>> believe what was necessary was done automatically, when I selected
> |>> to install the avast! WEB Shield Provider. Could be things have been
> |>> reversed-- it was the NetZero setting that was checked before,
> |>> possibly. So far as I always thought, I do not have or use a LAN.
> |>> And it looks like I'm using one now!
> |>>
> |>> It's possible... yea, I think I did have to state my smpt & pop3
> |>> servers somewhere along the line, though. I appear to have said they
> |>> were... smtp.netzero.net & pop.netzero.net... respectively. Even IF
> |>> I've actually left out a "3"-- looks like all is working with that.
> |>>
> |>> HOWEVER, soon I will start a thread on what I should allow Kerio to
> |>> allow IN & OUT for avast!-- above & beyond what I already have
> |>> done! I think I've almost got it right now!
> |>
> |> PCR - When I first installed Avast I thought Webshield was
> |> operative. The reason was because when I opened up the display, it
> |> said so!, as it did for Internet Mail and Standard Shield. But I
> |> soon noticed that this wasn't being reflected in the statistics in
> |> the box, because for Webshield (only) the scan count was always zero.
> |>
> |> You may indeed have a fully working installation of Webshield, but I
> |> would confirm it by checking the statistics, i.e. the "scanned
> |> count", to make sure Webshield is really doing anything,
> |> irrespective of the feel-good news ("The provider is currently
> |> running") at the top of the box.
> |
> | Good links, Roger. You're correct about Avast WebShield not actually
> | doing anything in Win9x unless you manually set the proxy settings in
> | each browser used, to localhost and port 12080
> |
> | However, in my admittedly limited testing of WebShield used this way
> | in Win98SE, I found that installing the module, enabling it, and
> | setting my browsers as described slowed down my broadband connection
> | on that computer, by sometimes as much as 50% and generally about
> | 30%....using Roadrunner cable from Time-Warner.
> |
> | I have found it not worth installing the WebShield module at all,
> | since I am fairly strict about what I allow to run in my browser, re:
> | Javascript, ActiveX and so forth. YMMV.
> |
> | What type of Internet connection do you have, and do you see a speed
> | difference when enabling WebShield? I am using
> | www.speakeasy.net/speedtest to compare. --
>
> I am Dial-Up & currently connected at 46,666 bps, says NetZero.
>
> With WEB Shield running, speedtest says...
>
> Download Speed: 49 kbps (6.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
> Upload Speed: 70 kbps (8.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
>
> With it paused...
>
> Download Speed: 47 kbps (5.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
> Upload Speed: 72 kbps (9 KB/sec transfer rate)
>
> That doesn't look terribly bad. Avast!'s Add/Remove has a "Change"
> button that seems to allow un/re-installing on a component basis. But
> I'm not sure it's warranted to see how well that works!
>

OK guys, thanks....Roger and PCR. It looks like then the problem must be with the
network settings on that computer, as my other systems are getting better speeds
than the 98SE system, through the same router, regardless of whether WebShield is
running. I'll have to go play with the Receive Window size, etc. Thanks for the
reports!
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
 
P

PCR

glee wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:uFbm24WzHHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> glee wrote:

....snip
|> | Good links, Roger. You're correct about Avast WebShield not
|> | actually doing anything in Win9x unless you manually set the proxy
|> | settings in each browser used, to localhost and port 12080
|> |
|> | However, in my admittedly limited testing of WebShield used this
|> | way in Win98SE, I found that installing the module, enabling it,
|> | and setting my browsers as described slowed down my broadband
|> | connection on that computer, by sometimes as much as 50% and
|> | generally about 30%....using Roadrunner cable from Time-Warner.
|> |
|> | I have found it not worth installing the WebShield module at all,
|> | since I am fairly strict about what I allow to run in my browser,
|> | re: Javascript, ActiveX and so forth. YMMV.
|> |
|> | What type of Internet connection do you have, and do you see a
|> | speed difference when enabling WebShield? I am using
|> | www.speakeasy.net/speedtest to compare. --
|>
|> I am Dial-Up & currently connected at 46,666 bps, says NetZero.
|>
|> With WEB Shield running, speedtest says...
|>
|> Download Speed: 49 kbps (6.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
|> Upload Speed: 70 kbps (8.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
|>
|> With it paused...
|>
|> Download Speed: 47 kbps (5.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
|> Upload Speed: 72 kbps (9 KB/sec transfer rate)
|>
|> That doesn't look terribly bad. Avast!'s Add/Remove has a "Change"
|> button that seems to allow un/re-installing on a component basis. But
|> I'm not sure it's warranted to see how well that works!
|>
| OK guys, thanks....Roger and PCR. It looks like then the problem
| must be with the network settings on that computer, as my other
| systems are getting better speeds than the 98SE system, through the
| same router, regardless of whether WebShield is running. I'll have
| to go play with the Receive Window size, etc. Thanks for the reports!

You are welcome. Good luck with that. Here are today's figures...

NetZero reports... 50,666 bps.

With WEB Shield...

Download Speed: 49 kbps (6.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 90 kbps (11.3 KB/sec transfer rate)

Without it...

Download Speed: 47 kbps (5.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 88 kbps (11 KB/sec transfer rate)

In all cases, yesterday & today, I report the best of two runs each.

| --
| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| http://dts-l.org/
| http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
 
D

dph

PA bear,
why don't like AVG?

"PA Bear" wrote:

> <IMHO>
>
> 1. Uninstall NIS via Add/Remove Programs.
>
> 2. Run the Norton Removal Tool (Win98/WinME version):
> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039
>
> 3. Install ANY reliable anti-virus application OTHER THAN Norton AntiVirus
> or McAfee VirusScan. I do not recommend AVG Anti-Virus (Free or Pro).
>
> 4. Install a firewall that's _supported in Win98_ (e.g.,
> http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/download.php).
>
> </IMHO>
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
> AumHa VSOP & Admin DTS-L.org
>
> lutra wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am STILL running Windows 98SE and have been using NORTON INTERNET
> > SECURITY. So far without too many hitches.......but it is time for a new
> > subscription and curious whether anyone out there has any other positive
> > suggestions???

>
>
 
G

glee

Have a look here:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...se_thread/thread/e3ebca0a07280daa?hl=en&tvc=2
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+


"dph" <dph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4298DA90-20B8-4505-B483-F610B626074D@microsoft.com...
> PA bear,
> why don't like AVG?
>
> "PA Bear" wrote:
>
>> <IMHO>
>>
>> 1. Uninstall NIS via Add/Remove Programs.
>>
>> 2. Run the Norton Removal Tool (Win98/WinME version):
>> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039
>>
>> 3. Install ANY reliable anti-virus application OTHER THAN Norton AntiVirus
>> or McAfee VirusScan. I do not recommend AVG Anti-Virus (Free or Pro).
>>
>> 4. Install a firewall that's _supported in Win98_ (e.g.,
>> http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/download.php).
>>
>> </IMHO>
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>> AumHa VSOP & Admin DTS-L.org
>>
>> lutra wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > I am STILL running Windows 98SE and have been using NORTON INTERNET
>> > SECURITY. So far without too many hitches.......but it is time for a new
>> > subscription and curious whether anyone out there has any other positive
>> > suggestions???

>>
>>
 
M

MEB

Okay, so what was the point of directing to that... if one checks one can
find failures for every Anti-v at some point. It is an imperfect world,
which changes with each outside effect. For instance, when the servers of
the world were taken down a few years ago by virus, which anti-v progs did
not fail,,, and why didn't they... when Love was rampant, which ones worked
perfectly from the start, any??? ,,, seems every program needs a hotfix if
the virus is new or has been significantly modified...

I saw no discussion related to the circumstances involved [which appears to
relate to the supposed failure of AVG to protect two Sororities or
something], the actual usage [i.e., were the systems used in EXACTLY the
same fashion and at the same sites, etc.].
Seems more like an improperly configured network, or perhaps a failure to
properly configure the program, or lack of update.. for instance, was AVG
configured to just use definitions or were heuristics being used... was on
access properly configured or were just supposed infectable files being
scanned ... was the email scanner turned on or off, and were the ports
properly configured ...

To base a choice upon those limited aspects within that discussion, leaves
one with nothing much more than personal choice of users, direction to the
standard issues of what works best in certain circumstances, hardly a
definitive work on the subject, moreover, here's the question: could there
be an actual work of that nature, who would be so bold to make such a claim
which could stand review.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________


"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:e458lBkKIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| Have a look here:
|
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...se_thread/thread/e3ebca0a07280daa?hl=en&tvc=2
| --
| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|
|
| "dph" <dph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:4298DA90-20B8-4505-B483-F610B626074D@microsoft.com...
| > PA bear,
| > why don't like AVG?
| >
| > "PA Bear" wrote:
| >
| >> <IMHO>
| >>
| >> 1. Uninstall NIS via Add/Remove Programs.
| >>
| >> 2. Run the Norton Removal Tool (Win98/WinME version):
| >>
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039
| >>
| >> 3. Install ANY reliable anti-virus application OTHER THAN Norton
AntiVirus
| >> or McAfee VirusScan. I do not recommend AVG Anti-Virus (Free or Pro).
| >>
| >> 4. Install a firewall that's _supported in Win98_ (e.g.,
| >> http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/download.php).
| >>
| >> </IMHO>
| >> --
| >> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
| >> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
| >> AumHa VSOP & Admin DTS-L.org
| >>
| >> lutra wrote:
| >> > Hello,
| >> > I am STILL running Windows 98SE and have been using NORTON INTERNET
| >> > SECURITY. So far without too many hitches.......but it is time for a
new
| >> > subscription and curious whether anyone out there has any other
positive
| >> > suggestions???
| >>
| >>
|
 
M

MEB

Alright, so what was Pa referring to? These:

C:\PROGRAM FILES\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGCC.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGAMSVR.EXE

O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [AVG7_CC] C:\PROGRA~1\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGCC.EXE /STARTUP
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [AVG7_AMSVR] C:\PROGRA~1\GRISOFT\AVG7\AVGAMSVR.EXE


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________
 
G

glee

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ov9EqfmKIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzWdEqmKIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

The Original Poster (OP) posted asking Robear why he didn't like AVG anti-virus. I
posted a link to a thread where Robear (and some of his colleagues in the security
newsgroup) mentioned their reasons for not recommending it.

That's pretty simple to follow, I thought. It refers the OP to a discussion about
exactly what he requested....why doesn't Robear like AVG.

While their discussion is largely anecdotal, it is based on rather extensive
experiences beyond the simple sorority girls story mentioned.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
 
M

MEB

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:O$iJgwmKIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:Ov9EqfmKIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:uzWdEqmKIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|
| The Original Poster (OP) posted asking Robear why he didn't like AVG
anti-virus. I
| posted a link to a thread where Robear (and some of his colleagues in the
security
| newsgroup) mentioned their reasons for not recommending it.
|
| That's pretty simple to follow, I thought. It refers the OP to a
discussion about
| exactly what he requested....why doesn't Robear like AVG.
|
| While their discussion is largely anecdotal, it is based on rather
extensive
| experiences beyond the simple sorority girls story mentioned.
| --
| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|
|

Okay, I'll start with: this ISN'T a personal attack against PA Bear...

Let's begin:

Robear posted * that opinion * in the discussion here, was politely
questioned related to this opinion, and never bothered to post a response or
direction, such as you have, so some basis could have been reviewed ... in
apparent fact, someone had to poke the bear in the butt with a sharp stick
to even get links to his site and forums posted in here pursuant my request
[is it that 98 is below discussion level of an expert]....

Moreover, he also continues to suggest that email scanning be turned off
as if this is still just the old VBS scanning of old ... if perhaps it was
that way in those situations which seem to be mentioned in that Google
reference can it be reasonably stated that sufficient protections had been
established by that or those supposed networking/security *specialist(s)*
that configured those systems, I think not.
Were those networking "experts" which controlled those systems, competently
examined related to the entire network they had established, or was this
just the easiest route to point the accusatory finger at, i.e., "its not me,
its the AVG program".
For instance, a Suite was apparently used upon those other non-compromised
systems which contained such scanner,,, AVG did not have such at that time
period,, so was something else used to fill the gap or was this
incompetently left exposed? Was an anti-Spyware application used to cover
the then (now available in NT based suite) AVG failure to include such
deterrence/protection? Or were these conveniently overlooked? The point: was
the comparison based upon the actual circumstances *in toto* or were the
findings leveraged against an untoward comparison?

It is extremely easy to point to software as the supposed culprit when a
"network specialist" is *caught with their pants down* and the system they
were to protect was compromised. In fact, its just as easy to point to
supposed hardware failures [such as in VISTA] in attempt to cover-up
programming failures... such as WHY did all those Beta testers and Microsoft
fail to recognize, point out and work to correct the networking issues PRIOR
to the retail release, as if the world should comply with VISTA rather than
VISTA working in conjunction with the rest of the world [as example I'll
leave the rest of the VISTA issues alone as they are off topic]...

So again, there is no attack placed against any individual or even some
"profession" or "specialty" here, but reality prevails only when these
parties can proof they are completely without culpable error, should some
measure of excuse be granted.
One can not necessarily rely upon others in the profession/specialty to
openly expose others in that area whom have failed [or even general failures
in their area of supposed expertise] look no further than the legal
profession filled with incompetents or worse, which are rarely exposed and
removed.. there is apparently a marked reluctance to interfere with life or
enrichment,, to the detriment of those victims upon whom this has been
levied.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________
 
Back
Top Bottom