I cannot tolerate a fire wall--get a zillion pop ups asking do I want to allow this--some of which I am afraid to say NO. Tried McAfee, Zone Alarm, and others.
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 5 2005 : 5:11PM
They are all relatively easy to use, you just need to understand what it's asking. You should familiarize yourself with what programs you use need to and don't need to access the net.
I was once a persona who had no freaking idea what my FW was asking me so I taught myself. I can only suggest you do the same. Rolling on the net without will fuck up your computer FAST. Think I read somewhere a long while ago, a computer without a FW is compromised within 20 minutes of being on the net on a high speed connection.
In short. If you don't know what to answer the firewall with (a yes or no), chose NO. Every firewall can be reconfigured. So if you say NO and need to allow "IEXPLORER .exe" to access the net, then just take it out of the firewall rules and say YES when it pops back up, or just properly edit the rule itself.
I have had exp. with Norton's, McAfees (the worst by far in my book, both in FW and AV), Zone Alarm, Seagate and some others... I would suggest Norton as that's what I learned on and continue to use to this day. However some report they have problems with it... I never have.
Questions feel free to ask me. If you have Yahoo Messenger or ICQ, you can email me and we can swap contacts and if I'm online and you have questions you can ask away
About two years ago a person couldn't finish a Windows 2000 install on a computer that was hooked up to an open (non-Firewalled) internet connection. Yes, the computer would be infected before you could even log into it for the first time.
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2005 : 12:25PM
Dial-up is a little less at risk, but still at risk. Main thing about dial-up is it's slow, not what hackers are looking for.
Even on dial-up, I suggest a FW.
As for the built in FW... I'm a computer tech (changing jobs soon) and I see people day after day after day who rely on the M$ trash they THINK is a FW... Those people get infected with viruses VERY quickly and get hacked easily. The FW in XP is probably OK (at best) for a dial-up user. Even at that I wouldn't rely on it.
Most programs that scan for exploits do so based on IP addresses and TCP port numbers. These programs don't know whether the target is on dial-up or not. They're equal oppurtunity attackers.
Kind of related and I worry about it...I use AVG virus protection (cos its free!). Is this a bit similar, in that I should pay for anti-virus software, cos the free ones are no good? I know its only £15 a year, but I just hate paying for anti-virus protection, when I think I am getting it free.
Long and Cursive road to the Ivory Pagoda in the province of Loraine 4076 Posts 12/03
Posted - Nov 6 2005 : 4:38PM
Norton internet Security includes their Firewall, Anti Virus, Anti Spam, and Parental controls.
If you have the others you can buy the Firewall by itself.
I used Zone Alarm for three years and have been happy so far.
@Robbie
The Anti-Virus you pay for includes more freatures than the free one. Norton, for instance, has an Auto-Protect feature that scans web pages as you load them to look for viruses before they make it to your computer at all. It has caught some trojans for me while surfing.
Its much easier to prevent infection than to clean it up afterwards.
I've always disliked Norton anti-anything software. McAffee is OK.
The Norton software makes so many changes to the sytem-level software configuration and drivers that many, many programs simply cannot function with Norton installed. My opinion, Norton sucks.
I think that when looking for 'the best', it is like trying to hit a moving target - it is always changing. AVG seems to hang right in there as being pretty good though.
I was gonna get (pay) for anti-virus software, but this is one of the reasons why! AVG might be shit, but a least I'm not paying for it - the big brands always seem to get criticised!
PL and Drew - Thanks for replies re: dial-up.I hobbied a fair amount some time ago. Before Win95 came out. Admittedly, I am not up to date anymore. That said, you can laugh if you want to, at this next question. :)
Back then, it was generally accepted that your computer could not be infected by a virus unless you executed the virus code on your machine. So, you had to be suckered into running the infected program. The .exe was usually named as if it was a game or some such. Therefore you were always safe if you didn't run unknown programs. Standard procedure was to scan them before executing.
The exception to the above was inserting an infected floppy in the drive and accessing it. Can't remember if you needed to execute code on the dirty floppy to get infected, or not. I just remember that there were other places on a floppy, not just files, that could harbor the infection.
Apparently the need to actually run an infected program is no longer true. From what you are saying, just being connected to the net makes one vulnerable.
Can you, without going too deep or wasting a lot of your time, give me the principle of how an infection can happen today? Thanks.
Can you recommend any specific sites to read more about this on the net? Thanks
You either had to run an infected program off the floppy, or boot your machine with the floppy in the drive. If the floppy had a boot-sector virus, your hard-drive would then be similarly blessed.Windows programs and parts of Windows itself use something called COM to communicate with, and run code snippets inside each other. COM also works over the network (then it's called DCOM), and some viruses get in that way. Also if you installed the IIS web server along with Windows 2000, that has some vulnerabilities.Steve Gibson at grc.com seems to have an axe to grind with Microsoft, but his site is well worth checking out.
That rings a bell. Makes sense too - booting from the floppy would would be the necessary thing to do it. Else it would be impossible to insert a floppy and scan it.That sounds like a modern version of my old principle. The virus code still needs to be run on the victims machine, but now the Windows software downloads it and runs it all by itself, with no user needed to actually be dumb enough to execute it manually.
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 6 2005 : 8:09PM
You can also get viruses and trojans just visiting websites - thank MS for that one too.... However running a better browser helps prevent that. I suggest Mozilla Fire Fox - found here.
AVG is good, I have just stuck with Norton (Internet Security) as I get it from work for free
And I too have never had a problem with Norton. However, if your concerned about Norton, I would suggest Zone Alarm for your firewall and NOD32 for your AV. By far NOD32 is the best made. From their site:
And as different people have different opinions, I'm a HUGE anti-McAffee guy. I have seen it come through the place I work and have watched it fail against some very elementary viruses, as well as some nastier viruses like the W32.Netsky.Who doesn't?
I've had good luck with the McAfee corporate products, but I don't like their consumer stuff so much since it tends to want to do the same type of stuff Norton does... th not nearly as bad.
As far as firewalls go, I'd point you to Steve Gibson's site for a good primer -- http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm -- listen to or read Episode 3.
Websites can contain scripts that cause virus code to run on your computer - all you have to do is look at the web page.
Email can contain HTML code that installs a virus when you read the mail message.
Instant messengers such as MSN messenger can deliiver viruses when you receive a message. Often this virus will then send itself on to everyone on your friend list.
Applications such as Microsoft Word or Excel can host macro viruses which activate themselves when you look at the document they are hidden in.
Some email programs have a lot of hooks into other functions of your computer that leave it very vulnerable to virus attacks. I have heard that Microsoft Outlook is particularly famous for this.
I have not had any bad experiences with Norton. I use NAV, Zone Alarm and Spybot in conjunction with a NAT router. That has kept my computer virus-free for over 2 years. Before that, Norton antivirus alone kept it virus-free for another three years.
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Nov 7 2005 : 10:00AM
You get pop-ups in IE or when your not even in a browser? if in IE, I suggest Mozilla Firefox (again)
As for Sys Works, that won't help in the fight of ad/spyware.
Check out a program called " Ad-Aware" - it's free and should be used with Spybot.
Now from the sounds of things, I would format the HD and reinstall Windows with all the new goodies (some AV, a firewall, firefox, spybot and ad-aware).... I know a format and reinstall is a pain but it will clean you up so you can start without trying to fix an already messed up OS.
IMHO, all Symantec s/w especially their firewall, are resource hogs. I've used Sygate's free personal firewall for over three years, and it has alerted me (i.e., unauthorized, outgoing TCP or UDP connection being established) when my system was infected with a Trojan.
FWIW, I've known several people who were hacked through unsecure UDP ports, which are the same ports utlizied for a lot of the online gaming
"There's some discomforting news for Sygate and Kerio Firewall users this week. Apparently, Kerio has announced it will be discontinuing its free firewall on December 31st. This after Sygate (now owned by Symantec ) said they would be discontinuing their firewalls (both free and pro) on November 30th...this past Wednesday.
Now that the plug has been pulled on two major free firewalls, what's left? Well, if you're a fan of either Kerio or Sygate, I'd advise grabbing their free downloads ASAP. You should still be able to use them...they just will no longer be officially supported and developed by their respective companies. If you are familiar with older free Zone Alarm 4.5 a couple years ago, this is more or less the same situation--the software is still usable, but won't be updated or supported.
As for free available firewalls, there's still the newer free Zone Alarm, Jetco, and 8Signs. The only one I can really vouch for is Zone Alarm. You are, however, welcome to try the others to see how well they work."
people---if you're using broadband--please rtfm with your router and set it up right security-wise--the reason to be using a software firewall is simply to see what's connecting from your computer, hardware's a better line of defense INTO your computer. it's a gross oversimplification, but you could almost use a port monitoring program to make sure you don't have stuff leaking from your trojan ports.
Seriously, hardware vs. software really depends on your skill level and what you want to do on the Internet. If you plan on doing stuff that's likely to require allowing access to your computer, eg Internet gaming, then go with hardware. If you're computer savvy and avoid doing stuff that might allow bad stuff in through legit ports then ZoneAlarm is fine.
is a GREAT firewall. I've tried everything and LOVE this one. Little bit of a learning curve but once you figure it out you NEVER have to touch it. Has features where you can set where NO popups happen at all. Is called BLOCK MOST MODE. Anything you've given permission too is allowed access. Everything else is not. no pop ups. I can let you know what you need to allow so everything works good.
I too was firewall hating until I figured out outpost and started using it. now I never think about it anymore.
Is NAT going to defend against a surreptitious program(s) residing on your machine establishing an outgoing TCP or UDP connection? BTW, best have Java disabled, nuff said other than I don't lose sleep over WEP/WPA vulnerabilities
I haven't had many problems with Norton since I've had it. If I were to change to another AV in the future, is it as difficult to uninstall as they say?
My recommendation is to NOT install a software firewall. Like someone else posted, its a major pain having to acknowledge or deny every piece of internet traffic coming or going. Plus all the extra bloat that comes with some of these software packages -- no thanks.
The easiest solution is to just buy a hardware router. Even if you don't use wireless, its provides a shield that protects you from the nastiness. There are non-wireless routers out there, but they are sometimes more expensive than the wireless ones. Hackers will see the router, not the machines hooked up to it (at least not very easily). That is exactly what you want! Plus, you can buy them for under $40 nowadays.
Five steps to keeping your computer nice and clean: 1) Buy a router! 2) Use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer (will reduce spyware by a LOT) 3) Use a simple virus checker (I use basic McAfee since it comes free with my cable Internet Service. If you go with Norton, DONT get the "Internet Security" package. Again, tons of extra stuff you don't need. And its just not good software overall, you will run into problems, believe me. Just get Antivirus and save yourself money and some headaches). 4) Run a spyware checker periodically - I use Ad-Aware (www.lavasoftusa.com) 5) Do your Windows updates!!!
Won't make a difference really, that will just restrict software that can be installed by the user, or setting changes that can be made. Windows wasn't set up very well for that. Best to keep everyone as administrator. Well, thats my opinion anyway.
I used Zone Alarm and was very satisfied, it carried me through the sasser times and prevented many software products to establish internet connections I didn't want.
The problem with windows in restricted mode is that many software development companies don't care for the programming standards so you have to regedit.
As for antivir software nothing beats Kaspersky...
If we're gong to get into the issue of wireless security then you're going to have to go a lot further than changing the SSID to protect your packets from being read off the street.
