Get rid of Norton.
Get Avast! It's free and it works like a dream, with daily updates that work.
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion- is that free for a trial period or free full stop?
|
Avast is free but you have to register it.
AVG is also free and you don't.
Which you go for is just a matter of personal preference. I've tried both and much prefer AVG.
You should only have one antivirus program installed at any one time, but you can have more than one anti-spyware program. Consider AVG Antispyware, and the free version of Spyware Doctor available at www.google.com/pack .
Doubtless someone else can recommend a good free firewall.
Once you have antivirus, anti-spyware and a software firewall, you'll have the same functions as Norton and will no longer have to pay for updates. Don't be put off by the need to install more than one program. It's still likely to be less hassle than sticking with Norton!
|
Zone Alarm firewall (the free version) has done a good job for me over many years.
When you get round to dumping Norton (which I wouldn't have as a gift), there is a special routine for removing all the tentacles it has in your machine. Google 'removing norton' and it should direct you to the right place. Or perhaps someone on here can post a link?
|
I wouldn't have Norton on my system if you paid me...:-)
Avast! is a free anti-virus utility - it has protected my system for a number of years very successfully.
ZoneAlarm (free) is a firewall and is equally as efficient - again I've been using it for severa years.
Both are updated as required.
The initial period for Avast! registration is approximately three months; if you register properly this is extended to around 14 months, although updates will overtake that period in about six months. You just update to the latest version.
Avast! also provides both verbal and written indication that it has automatically updated; the verbal information depends, obviously, on your speakers being switched on.
If you do install ZA, make sure that the Windows firewall is Disabled.
I also use SpywareBlaster, Search and Destrpy, Ad-Aware 2007 and SUPERAntispyware - all are very efficient, but as always, need updating as required, usually on a daily basis for anti-spyware.
Edited by Stuartli on 21/02/2008 at 23:34
|
"I also use SpywareBlaster, Search and Destrpy, Ad-Aware 2007 and SUPERAntispyware - all are very efficient, but as always, need updating as required, usually on a daily basis for anti-spyware."
I'm interested in this. I wonder if I'm just lucky.
By implication, you are spending time and resource on maintaining four different programs, possibly on a daily basis, to deal with malware of various descriptions.
As an IT manager I've been working with (hundreds of) Windows Pcs (and others of course) for very many years. In all that time I think I've actually seen some malware hit a computer less than ten times, and never one of my own. Viruses are a different story - perhaps a hundred times - although again, I've never had one on my own pc.
At home I run a Windows box, and I casually run Adaware etc about once every three months, and to date none of them have ever found a thing to worry about.
Are you actually getting positive hits from all your antispyware software, and if you are, I wonder what you do to get malware that I don't?
Edited by Dipstick on 22/02/2008 at 08:38
|
>>and if you are, I wonder what you do to get malware that I don't?>>
Any instances of malware are extremely rare, along with viruses etc. So the coverage is clearly working...:-)
It's a well known fact that, for instance, Search and Destroy may/will discover something that Ad-Aware or similar will miss and vice-versa; SpywareBlaster aims to stop most nasties before they hit your system.
As I'm retired, the five minutes or so spent updating such utilities is no great hardship, whilst Avast! updates itself automatically and informs you that it has done so both verbally and in writing.
Note that all these prevention measures are entirely free of charge, along with the equally efficient ZoneAlarm firewall.....:-)
By the way, one of my offspring is an IT network support specialist and uses somel of the above mentioned utilities on his own home system, even though he could use paid-for alternatives.
|
Ah, don't misinterpret the thrust of my question. I wasn't questioning your choice to do the operations, I was wondering whether it was worthwhile, in the sense of "do you actually catch anything?"
As it seems you too only get something very rarely, it seems to me that my own choice of doing this irregularly with similar results (for clarity, when I do this I do use a number of products to cover all eventualities) means that for me I can safely choose not to spend daily time doing the (minimal) work.
I've also learned that you are not apparently doing something like p2p or something that I am not, which may have been a source of "bad stuff".
If you had said "I get malware every two days and by the way I download a lot of films/music and surf sites about hacking" or something then I might have drawn a different conclusion.
You can also argue that "Any instances of malware are extremely rare, along with viruses etc. So the coverage is clearly working...:-)" actually is similar to "I wear my anti tiger pyjamas and there are no tigers round here, so they are working".
Edited by Dipstick on 22/02/2008 at 09:32
|
Better safe than sorry is my motto, though I understand your points...:-)
As my system is connected to and used on the Internet for many hours a day, it seems sensible to take basic precautions.
Edited by Stuartli on 22/02/2008 at 09:59
|
Thanks for the suggestions- I will have a look at the various ones mentioned over the weekend.
Cheers All!
Nick
|
a lot of films/music and surf sites about hacking" or something then I might have drawn a different conclusion.
Dipstick, sorry to disillusion you, but these days you need to be a lot more careful. For starters, see
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/itv_scareware_per.../
Users visiting the website of UK broadcaster ITV risk exposure to a scareware package. Malware-laced banner ads that lead to download sites for the Cleanator scare package have also been served up on the Radio Times website.
Related stories
Malware writers think global, act local (22 February 2008)
Web browsers on the front line of exploitation (15 February 2008)
Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody (30 January 2008)
Beware of pickpockets and malware-laced banner ads (4 January 2008)
DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads (13 November 2007)
Thousands snared by malware warning from big-name websites (7 November 2007)
Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users (11 September 2007)
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapso.../
Expedia.com and Rhapsody.com are the latest name-brand websites to be found serving advertisements that try to install malware onto users' machines, security researchers said. The sites join a Rogue's Gallery of mainstream destinations that include MySpace, Excite, Blick, and CNN.com, which all have been caught carrying tainted ads over the past few months.
I am sure if you follow all the above stories and the multiple links from within them, you will find that Stuartli is indeed quite right to take a belt and braces approach.
|
I don't deny for one moment that such things are reported. What I am saying is that I simply don't get infected with the stuff.
Therefore either I am incredibly lucky or
My computer using habits ARE totally different to the norm or
It's not as easy as you might think to pick up malware or
The reports are exaggerated.
So I was asking if Stuartli (or indeed anyone else) DOES get infected more often than I do?
|
"My computer using habits ARE totally different to the norm or..."
tell me your habits and I'll tell you mine :))))
but seriously since changing to a router and AVG I've had no problems - other than the MS inflicted one called VISTA - now there's a big bug for you....
|
From my experience, and anecdotes of others, Adaware is not the package it once was and is hardly worth bothering with today.
|
I use my PC quite heavily and I don't get any bad downloads.
I used to subscribe to Zone Alarm Pro but stopped using it because of the problems I had getting on certain sites. One of these was a respectable forum, and Zone Alarm just would not let me log on. Since ditching ZA I have used the Windows firewall and downloaded Windows Defender. I also use AVG and Cookiewall.
I can certainly recommend the use of all of these, and I never have to look for an update for any of them.
|
I find all this highly amusing. Our PCs at home all have AVG free loaded and .... um ........ that's it.
The firewall is provided by the router and ....... um .......... that's it.
Windows firewall/defender are all turned off.
Occassionally I download something 'good' and scan the PC, nothing shows up and so I take it all off again!
Been operating like this on a 'permanent on basis' for at least 10 years, never had a major issue.
|
>>So I was asking if Stuartli (or indeed anyone else) DOES get infected more often than I do?>>
I prefer to believe that I DON'T get infected because I take basic measures to prevent any problems.
But there's only one way to genuinely find out if they work and I'm not going to even attempt it...:-)
Edited by Stuartli on 22/02/2008 at 15:21
|
I prefer to believe that I DON'T get infected because I take basic measures to prevent any problems.
You dont take basic measures. Frankly running all of
>I also use SpywareBlaster, Search and Destrpy, Ad-Aware 2007 and SUPERAntispyware
is not sensible but pure paranioa.
|
>>is not sensible but pure paranioa.>>
Not really - I explained that one might nab malware that another misses, whilst SpywareBlaster runs in the background.
In any case I merely keep them updated and run either S and D or AdAware 2007 once a week or so.
I've had to sort out too many friends and family's systems over the years that have been badly infected because suitable measures hadn't been put in place, to leave it to chance.
Perhaps you should read all my postings rather than just one...:-)
|
I've had to sort out too many friends and family's systems over the years that have been badly infected because suitable measures hadn't been put in place to leave it to chance.
And I have many many friends who are not so paranoid and who have never loaded these measures and I have never had to sort them out.
Perhaps you should read all my postings rather than just one...:-)
How do you know I didnt?
Dress it up how you like. Running all of those is pure paranioa. Or the sign of unhealthy surfing habits.
|
>>Or the sign of unhealthy surfing habits.>>
I take very, very great expectation to that offensive remark.
Not only is it completely unnecessary, it has absolutely no foundation.
I'm a semi-retired journalist - that's why I spend a lot of time on-line, as well as contributing to two or three well-known websites, plus others concerned with issues local to my area.
As for your conception of "pure paranoia", how I protect my system is entirely my personal business.
Edited by Stuartli on 22/02/2008 at 19:26
|
|
It would onlt be paranoia if it was SUPERantispyware _Pro_
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions. I have to say I didn't expect it to get as personal as it has and I don't see the need to make personal remarks that others find offensive. It really isn't worth it.... Can I suggest we leave it where it is now and let the next topic take over!
|
I've often been asked to sort out people's PC problems and I've very rarely enountered one with an actual hardware fault.
The common factors seem to be, use of Internet Explorer, out-of-date anitivirus software, lack of anti-spyware software, and no Windows updates.
Things have improved in the past couple of years as a lot of security settings are now enabled by default.
I know a lot of people who see a legitimate warning to update something and always dismiss it as an annoyance.
Another issue is that new PCs tend to be sold with a trial version of some security package or other. This is fine for the first 90 days or so but many people understandably resent paying for updates after that and fail to replace the software with something else. The less knowedgable don't realise that most of what's needed can be found free of charge.
I don't see anything wrong with installing several security programs, as long as they don't conflict with each other. The general rule is more than one antivirus or software firewall is a bad idea but more than one anti-spyware is fine.
Recent reviews of anti-spyware programs show that none finds every threat and many deal with a shockingly low proportion. It therefore seems reasonable to install more than one as they all have different strengths and weaknesses. The effort and maintenance overhead isn't that great and I don't think this is a sign of paranoia or unsavoury habits.
|
Welliesorter and hillman 1
Absolutely spot on in both instances.
Edited by Stuartli on 22/02/2008 at 23:40
|
|
|
