Firefox, AVG, and Infections
in [Windows Viruses]
|
From: "FromTheRafters" erratic on 5 Sep 2009 22:34 "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:h7uig1$bcc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > FromTheRafters wrote: >> "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> wrote in message >> news:h7qrsc$i3r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >>> A question remains. What is wrong with AT&T/Yahoo's protection? I >>> can assure you that I do not run around looking for oddball exe >>> files to download and open. >>> >>> If no one knows, I think I'll ask them. >> >> No matter what somebody else does on their computer(s) to combat the >> spread of malware to you, you still need *antivirus* software to run >> locally. Some folks substitute strict safe practices with antimalware >> applications, mostly to clean up after themselves post infestation, >> but also resident protection mechanisms to 'save their bacon' whilst >> they ignore safe practices. >> >> So, nothing may be *wrong* with their filtering. It will ultimately >> be your responsibility to protect yourself either way. > I think my post suggests that. Nevertheless, the absence of any such > statement by AT&T almost suggests they are giving one full protection. Indeed, and whatever AV vendors' software they use is probably advertized as a "solution". Just saying it is a solution (or full protection) doesn't make it so, and those that understand the problem know better than to believe such bold claims. The bottom line is that such programs are tools to aid you, rather than software to replace you, in your quest to remain malware free. By trying to relieve the user of the onus of maintaining security, they encourage bad behavior and worsen the overall problem. > They seem to be making a good attempt at it. I haven't yet added their > Security Monitor, Suite, Monitor ... whatever they call it. It is almost always helpful to have some filtering going on. Reducing your exposure to malware gives you less chances to infest yourself. Still, some will get through - giving you that opportunity. Then, it is up to you - again. > Interestingly, I had started to install it, and realized I didn't have > time to do it, so began to cancel. I received a msg that I would have > download it again if I did. I guess that's smart so as not to somehow > avoid some infection. Nothing disturbing, just never had that happen > during a download, for example, Google Earth. Funny, they are astute enough to know that cancelling a download will cancel the download. "gasp - - you will not be "fully protected" by our "solution" if you cancel this download!" :oP
From: W. eWatson on 6 Sep 2009 07:17 .... Well, thanks for the replies. The interleaving has gotten a bit deep. Let me gather your recent responses here in one place. After this post, and maybe my response to your next post, I'm dropping the thread in favor of a new one on having someone look at my vault. I have a personal rule about threads, which is that if the problem isn't solved after about five of my responses, start again. I've gone a bit over it here, so it's about time to follow my rule. WW is my response. ===========Collected from Above============ (total protection) That's certainly a gross understatement I'm afraid. WW: Yes, but one would hope that AT&T/Yahoo might might be expected to comment on it's not 100%, and suggest some vigilance they cannot provide. Undoubtedly marketing stepped in, or I missed it. (Thunderbird)When I last looked, you were at 2.0.0.23 - that part is OK. WW: Yep. (My avoidance of msgs from unknowns) It's highly probable that your ISP /is/ doing a malware check. How thorough is debatable though. However it could be adequate. As may have been pointed out by others, what you download from those you know can be just as dangerous. WW: It worked for a very, very long time though when I was on my own. (AT&T firewall) Unless you own or lease your /hardware/ firewall from your ISP the your protection is probably mostly imagined. Probably only a minuscule few ports are blocked. Sorry! (AT&T and potential weakness of them to prevent infections through web sites) Although the assessment of being on your own is quite accurate, your following move was ill advised. At least you'll be able to uninstall the McAfee software once you've learned your lesson. And now, won't you have two different antivirus engines going? This too is not advised. Yes - they probably "give" away the McAfee software for free. I should have asked earlier - who is your ISP? WW: AT&T/Yahoo. It makes sense to me to have two engines running on the mail, since I use Tbird, and as AT&T pointed out, they don't protect that route. (On AVG Help for vault) Although many here do run AVG, it seems nobody has experienced what you see or they aren't coming forward. Hence, I'd suggest you lurk or join the AVG forum: <http://forums.avg.com/> WW: Perhaps so, but I'll pick up on this with a new thread soon. (SP3) What might be keeping you from updating to service pack 3 and all its subsequent fixes? Your amount of ram is good. WW: If I allow MS to continually provide updates isn't that the same as using SP3? (McAffee Monitor or whatever AT&T calls it) Let us know when you've had enough of McAfee and we'll try to help you out. WW: See remark above about protecting Tbird info flow. I pointed out in another part of this thread yesterday, I waved off the download. I hope when I restart it, the download will tell me what's in it, and that I can be selective about what I need. ===============End========================= Cheers...
From: W. eWatson on 6 Sep 2009 07:19 W. eWatson wrote: > >> >> I like McAfee Enterprise software. >> McAfee's retail software (and OEM) SUCK ! >> >> Have you installed and scanned with MBAM yet ? >> >> >> > I have no idea what that is? I've pretty much solved the problem with > FF. Using Tools->Clear Recent History seems to have done it. No > herky-jerky any longer. > > I'm still looking forward to post a link to a web site that will allow > me to post temporarily a jpg image of AVG vault. <www.pastebin.com>, > for example, but that's for collaborative debugging of (text) programs. Well, Google answered the MBAM question. I'll put it on my to-do list (further reading) while I still try to get an answer about the vault.
From: 1PW on 6 Sep 2009 08:15 W. eWatson wrote: > ... > Well, thanks for the replies. The interleaving has gotten a bit deep. > Let me gather your recent responses here in one place. After this post, > and maybe my response to your next post, I'm dropping the thread in > favor of a new one on having someone look at my vault. I have a personal > rule about threads, which is that if the problem isn't solved after > about five of my responses, start again. I've gone a bit over it here, > so it's about time to follow my rule. WW is my response. > ===========Collected from Above============ > (total protection) That's certainly a gross understatement I'm afraid. > WW: Yes, but one would hope that AT&T/Yahoo might might be expected to > comment on it's not 100%, and suggest some vigilance they cannot > provide. Undoubtedly marketing stepped in, or I missed it. > > (Thunderbird)When I last looked, you were at 2.0.0.23 - that part is OK. > WW: Yep. > > (My avoidance of msgs from unknowns) It's highly probable that your ISP > /is/ doing a malware check. How thorough is debatable though. However > it could be adequate. As may have been pointed out by others, what you > download from those you know can be just as dangerous. > WW: It worked for a very, very long time though when I was on my own. > > (AT&T firewall) Unless you own or lease your /hardware/ firewall from > your ISP the your protection is probably mostly imagined. Probably only > a minuscule few ports are blocked. Sorry! > > (AT&T and potential weakness of them to prevent infections through web > sites) Although the assessment of being on your own is quite accurate, > your following move was ill advised. At least you'll be able to > uninstall the McAfee software once you've learned your lesson. And now, > won't you have two different antivirus engines going? This too is not > advised. Yes - they probably "give" away the McAfee software for free. > > I should have asked earlier - who is your ISP? > WW: AT&T/Yahoo. It makes sense to me to have two engines running on the > mail, since I use Tbird, and as AT&T pointed out, they don't protect > that route. > > (On AVG Help for vault) Although many here do run AVG, it seems nobody > has experienced what you see or they aren't coming forward. Hence, I'd > suggest you lurk or join the AVG forum: > > <http://forums.avg.com/> > WW: Perhaps so, but I'll pick up on this with a new thread soon. > > (SP3) What might be keeping you from updating to service pack 3 and all > its subsequent fixes? Your amount of ram is good. > WW: If I allow MS to continually provide updates isn't that the same as > using SP3? Sadly no. As an added bonus, your Windows Updates will halt on 12-APR-2010 as SP2 will no longer be supported if you don't install SP3. > (McAfee Monitor or whatever AT&T calls it) Let us know when you've had > enough of McAfee and we'll try to help you out. > WW: See remark above about protecting Tbird info flow. I pointed out in > another part of this thread yesterday, I waved off the download. I hope > when I restart it, the download will tell me what's in it, and that I > can be selective about what I need. You really don't won't any part of it I suspect. > ===============End========================= > > Cheers... If you don't have a good NAT router between your DSL modem and computer, you should consider doing this soon. As was pointed out before, Avira's AntiVir Personal is superior to AVG. If at some point you haven't resolved your situation with AVG, you should consider Avira. -- 1PW
From: W. eWatson on 7 Sep 2009 21:23
>> Cheers... > > If you don't have a good NAT router between your DSL modem and > computer, you should consider doing this soon. > > As was pointed out before, Avira's AntiVir Personal is superior to > AVG. If at some point you haven't resolved your situation with AVG, > you should consider Avira. > I'll have more to say on that (Avira) in a moment. Somehow most seem to think I'm stuck on AVG. I had downloaded maybe a year ago and it was handy. I'll look up NAT router on Google in a minute. This is the end of this thread, as far as I'm concerned. I'll be starting a new one related to it soon. Stay tuned. Until next time ... |