| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 51105 | 2004-11-11 18:40:00 | Norton AV flaw may put PCs at risk of virus attack | Susan B (19) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 290723 | 2004-11-12 12:45:00 | It said that the vulnerability was with VBS, ZoneAlarm should keep them out shouldn't it? From experience, the combination of NAV with ZA and Spybot S&D makes my computer water tight. Vince | Vince (406) | ||
| 290724 | 2004-11-12 19:58:00 | >t said that the vulnerability was with VBS, ZoneAlarm should keep them out shouldn't it? no, why would it? ZA may help with vbs attachments but thats only one way of being infected. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 290725 | 2004-11-12 20:36:00 | Yeah, it is a bit of an issue (in regards to uptake) that ClamWin doesn't have on-access scanning. However, it's great to hear that those features will be coming soon! That said, I could be using IMAP by February, but can probably sort out server-side scanning anyhow. |
agent (30) | ||
| 290726 | 2004-11-12 21:16:00 | > Personally though, all I use is a firewall - I've got > ClamAV and Spybot installed, but neither run in the > background . I am getting confusing messages here . Could somebody explain to me how a firewall alone can prevent virus infections from email or other downloads of ostensibly legitimate data such as documents and other attachments? My understanding was that firewalls stopped direct communication to or from your computer via various open ports . If allowed, those communications could then be used to exploit other software flaws or vulnerabilities . Without an AV program with up to date definitions running in the background to scan all incoming data, how the heck can you hope to avoid getting caught out? I use NAV with up to date definitions, plus ZA, and also use Mailwasher to screen all incoming mail . Every day there are several virus alerts from Mailwasher on spam emails, and very occasionally if a new spam/virus message hits one of my mailboxes between the time I process current mail (deleting the dross) and starting to download my wanted mail, NAV will flag it on dowload and it is quarantined . A firewall would not help with that situation and my computer would have been infected . Without NAV (or any other AV program) I wouldn't have the faintest idea that I was infected until the poop hit the fan . I am not a new computer user by any means, but I find the advice in this thread very confusing . A new user might opt for a firewall only, or worse still the XP firewall and believe that they were fully protected against net nasties . All of this runs contrary to the advice regularly offered on PF1 to new users that they should not go on line until their computer is fully protected . Anybody like to clarify the situation? Cheers Billy 8-{) ?:| |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 290727 | 2004-11-12 22:38:00 | firewalls such as zonealarm have a email attachment optoin which simply renames certain attachments. however with certain antivirus eg nortons its recommended to turn off any firewall email attachment optoins as it can cause problems. with the ammount of infected websites,p2p, worms etc as well as email anyone running without protection is very foolish and other users of the net don't apprecate those helping to spread virus's. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 290728 | 2004-11-12 23:01:00 | I know I'm sending out a bad message for newbies, but I'm perfectly happy myself to only be running a firewall. I understand that the consequences of this might be dire at the least, but it's my decision. Now, of course it's a precarious situation that I'm in. That said, I learnt a big lesson when Nimda infected my network several years ago, and for a long time I blamed myself for that occurence, though it wasn't actually my fault in the first place. These days, though, I make use of what I can get. I use Firefox for browsing the Internet, because it's much more likely that I'll get adware/spyware installed by browsing with Internet Explorer. I use Sylpheed-Claws as an email client, and while it is quite likely that SC has security flaws, it is inherently more secure than Outlook Express. One such feature I like is Sylpheed's inability to render HTML messages. I'll grant you that last month I received several viruses in my inbox, but they were marked correctly by Orcon as being viruses, and all I did was delete them. No doubt I should also scan all data I receive for viruses, but it's unlikely macro viruses will execute automatically with OpenOffice.org, and I don't actually do much downloading of applications from sources which I don't trust. I'm not trying to say that using open source software automatically makes you more secure, but I am careful about what I do, and I've gone to great lengths to ensure that I am not as vulnerable as your standard user (partly attributable to the fact that I'm behind a router which refuses to let incoming traffic in, despite having NAT enabled). I do suggest that people run firewalls, virus scanners, and malware detection programs. Don't take my lead as an example, because chances are one day I'll lose my data (though I dare say, the single biggest source of data loss I've experienced in the last 12 months was a Linux installation which didn't follow logical reasoning). And I will admit that when I was on dial-up, twice I forgot that my firewall was disabled, and I got the 60 seconds till shutdown notice, but I just opened a console with administrative privileges and cancelled those. But I must say, I had installed the patch for the flaw that Blaster exploited. And I installed it before Blaster was released, because I used to subscribe to Microsoft's Security Bulletins. I've long since turned my back on Windows Update (I do have the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyser installed though!). |
agent (30) | ||
| 290729 | 2004-11-12 23:24:00 | If everyone was as careful agent, then here would be less problems. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users are PC "challenged" and do not follow good practices. Also, as you admit you have yourself slipped up , accidents do occur. It is for this reason that I recommend to people that they utilize the free additions of anti-virus etc.. The question that puzzles me, is if you do not have some form of virus detection, how do you know you are not infected? And also not infecting others unknowingly. I suppose you could do an online scan occasionally anyway. |
Pheonix (280) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||