I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 9 2008 : 10:52AM
I uninstalled my Norton anti-virus and my Zone Alarm firewall yesterday after an automatic Norton update resulted in me not being able to get on the net with either of my browsers. I switched to AVG anti-virus and spyware(I also uninstalled my Webroot Spysweep) and now whenever I click on a link I get a box with the following message in it. TypeError: avg_DTFox.prefs is undefined Whenever I hit the Okay bar or the red X to close that window it then sends me to the link. How do I fix this?
I have heard countless horror stories about Norton software. For something that's supposed to be helpful and desirable, it sure seems to cause more than it's fair share of problems for more than a few people. I don't care for AVG either. I could never get it to cooperate with me and behave the way I wanted it to so I cursed, threw some shit and unistalled it. I now use Spybot for spyware and I have a simple standalone virus scanner that only runs when I tell it to. I just use the Windows firewall. It prompts me to either allow or disallow anything that wants to use my internet connection. Zone alarm was always driving me batty. Anyway, here is a solution that presented when I searched for that error - "It appears to be a problem with the AVG Security Toolbar. As a temporary workaround you can disable the toolbar. Select Tools > Add-ons, click on the AVG Security Toolbar in the list on installed add-ons, then click on Disable, restart Firefox to complete the process. Source : Mozilla support"
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
The original fault was caused by a Microsoft update. (I already use AVG, not Norton, but the MS Windows update broke my ZoneAlarm firewall just the same way.) If you want to return to using ZoneAlarm, they have a new release that includes a work-around of the fault here . (It's the link marked "ZoneAlarm basic firewall.) I installed this release today and my net access is back to normal.
My computer wouldn't access the internet this morning, and it was my husband's turn to make the calls. After 4 hours on the phone (mostly on hold and getting disconnected after 15 minutes on hold, or waiting 15 minutes on hold, only to have the customer service guy saying, "Hello -- are you there? I can't hear you..." -- the usual), we were no closer to a solution. We have dial-up, so every time they had some bright suggestion, he had to hang up the phone to try it. After we cleared our browser or our cookies or changed all our settings, or whatever, and all that, he tried shutting off the firewall, and he got online, so he took it offline immediately. We had no contact info for the firewall. I decided to handle it my own way. Down to the library computer, onto ADT, and search "Zone Alarm". Bingo! 5 minutes later I have all the notes to get it fixed. And now it's all working. Whew!! Thank you, licker. My husband thanks you. My dog thanks you. I need a margarita.
They also released updates for SQL Server in this recent batch that don't work. The Windows Update process fails for any named instances of SQL Server. It's a real PITA.
My 2 cents: Most people don't need a software firewall on their computers. As long as you have a broadband Internet connection and a hardware router (like a Linksys), you're protected against *most* threats. Software firewalls (for PCs) suck. Most people don't need anti-virus protection, despite all the hype. If they did, they'd be finding viruses constantly. Do you know anyone who does? As long as you follow the basic rules for security, you're at low risk for viral infections. AV software, especially the Norton "all in one, I do everything" stuff, is more trouble than it is worth. Dr. P
I disagree. Any windows box connected to the net needs antivirus, antispyware and firewall. There have been cases of unprotected XP boxes becoming infected within 20 seconds of going online. Network address translation in a router is NOT the same as a firewall. Malware of various kinds can infect your computer simply because you visit a website, or play a CD made by Sony. I know several people who have suffered major inconvenience because of computer viruses. Don't risk it.
NAT is what firewalls use to keep incoming traffic from being able to reach internal hosts. NAT keeps worms from being able to exploit network weaknesses on hosts behind NAT. What, in your mind, makes this "not the same as a firewall" ? If you're simply going to claim that a real firewall allows one to route without NAT, while still providing port blocking, you're technically correct, but it's of no use to the average person. Dr. P
I firewall does not route IP traffic, routers do. A firewall inspects the IP traffic that "flow" through it. A firewall doesn't have to use Network Address Translation to perform its functions. The firewall is what keeps internet traffic from flowing to the local network, not NAT. NAT is a router function, not a firewall function.
^ with respect Drew, true firewalls use NAT, PAT, port filtering, and lots of other stuff. I'm a hardcore tech guy, as well as a hardcore porn fan. The Linksys on my desk isn't nearly as capable as the multiple Checkpoint firewalls I have administered in my time, but that Linksys keeps me just as safe as the checkpoints kept my user community from the generic threat of unannounced, incoming traffic. "Real" firewalls do more than broadband routers. But the average home user doesn't need them. Dr. P
I used to find viruses on my PC when I had XP but I don't think I've found one yet with Vista. I have broadband but I have no clue what a router is. I tried to figure it out once and it just made my head hurt.
I currently use three different Juniper Networks Netscreen firewalls for our locations. (ISP, home office and office. In the past I've used Cisco's IOS-based firewall options in their routers as well as the early versions of the PIX500 series.) I'm quite familiar with "real" firewalls which is why I thought your description of NAT being the mechanism for blocking inbound traffic to a protected LAN was an oversimplification and inaccurate.
Yes, me. My AV software traps at least two viruses per year. Many people I know have suffered major problems from virus attacks. Windows is still a "toy" operating system, with ridiculously poor access controls.Unauthorized outgoing traffic is just as great a threat, and your NAT routing will do absolutely nothing to prevent this. A software firewall will.A broadband router/modem performs ABSOLUTELY NO firewall functions at all unless it is specifically configured to do so. (Assuming the router supports it at all. It's not guaranteed.) Such configuration has to be done manually and requires good technical knowledge and a lot of effort. I don't know of any home broadband user who has ever done it, myself included. By contrast, programs like AVG, SpybotSD and ZoneAlarm are largely self-configuring, easy to use and provide useful protection right out of the box. If you are a qualified communications analyst as you claim, then it is grossly irresponsible for you to be making these statements.
I think the point the Dr. is making is with a NAT router in place, there's no chance of a computer becoming infected on the Internet. The anecdotal "XP got infected in 20 seconds" is a new unpatched machine placed directly onto the Net. It will absolutely get compromised. However, put that same machine behind a NAT router and nothing will happen to it. Malicious packets can't get thru the "blue box" to infect it. All unsolicited inbound traffic is stopped at the gate. UNTIL You open a web browser. Then you get solicited inbound traffic, and the blue box does nothing to protect you. (Because most infections come in via traffic that is "solicited" without your knowledge or consent.) There's no stateful inspection, etc on a factory Linksys/Belkin/Netgear router. The NAT router only becomes one tool in an arsenal meant to keep you malware free. (I'm reluctant to use the word "virus" anymore, since malware seems to be so much more accurate and encompassing.)
I'm head scratching here at both this statement and licker's. NAT absolutely, positively, blocks incoming traffic from reaching hosts that are behind that NAT. Unless you mean (as Jeff pointed out) traffic that that host *asks* for. But I guess it doesn't really matter much anyway. I'm protected from what I think is a threat (worms, etc), and I haven't had a virus in a very long time. I suppose we can just agree to disagree about my opinions on home computer security. Dr. P PS: I looked at the Juniper Networks Netscreens a while back and was quite impressed.
Not only do I mean it, I actually pointed it out first. That is exactly how the majority of malware attacks happen, and NAT is utterly useless against it, as I stated in my earlier post.
That is an oversimplification. To state flatly that NAT blocks everything all inbound traffic that wasn't requested is inaccurate. NAT has many forms. For example, Static NAT doesn't block anything. DMZs are typically setup with a form of NAT as well. The point I'm trying to make is that NAT is a function of a ROUTER, not a FIREWALL. Often these features are combined into a single piece of hardware. This might help explain why the term NAT is confusing and not necessarily accurate. I will agree that Port Address Translation indeed provides protection from internet-based intrusion to a LAN. From the Wiki article:You say NAT, I say PAT. I guess we're both kinda right, well maybe.
Well, ok I'll bite: How will a "firewall" keep you from downloading malicious software? Or exploiting a browser weakness? How do you expect a firewall to help? If you mean software firewalls that detect outgoing traffic, I suppose they help tell you, "Hey you've got a virus, or a trojan, or a bot/zombie on your system." That has value, as it's better to know than not to know. But it doesn't "protect you" from any of these weaknesses being exploited. Dr. P
I think we basically agree on what's going on, and we were disagreeing over terminology. I totally agree that NAT is a blanket term that gets misused. *I* misused it here if we are going to be technical about it; as home systems tend to use PAT, not true one to one NAT. Dr. P
DrP0rn0 wrote:Well, I'm very surprised that a "hardcore tech guy" such as yourself would be unaware of such things, but here goes: Since you deny the need for all malware prevention, I will give examples of all three 1. When a website pumps malware to you, and it attempts to install, your antispyware program will notify you of the registry change, and allow you to veto it. 2. Assuming you miss option 1, when the new program attempts to open a port, your software firewall will notify you of the unauthorized traffic and give you the option to veto it. 3. When email or instant messaging software pumps malware to your system, your anti virus scanner will detect it and put the offending code into a quarantine directory, whence you may delete it. 4. When a website exploits a weakness to change code in an existing program, if that program subsequently attempts to open a port, your software firewall will notify you of the change and give you the option to veto it. NAT routing will have no effect on any of the exploits mentioned above. If you have malware protection, it protects you from all of the above exploits, sometimes by preventing them from installing at all, and other times by preventing them from operating once they have installed. Edited by - licker on 7/15/2008 11:02:45 PM
Well, it's time to belly up to a heaping plate of crow. Specially prepared for me to consume for your viewing pleasure. I'm not going to address the NAT router versus software firewall debate. Rather, I'm going to comment on my previously stated stance on anti-virus and anti-malware programs. Oh and windows updates. Yesterday I visited some adult site (found via a link from a link from a search) and my system went crazy allocating memory. (lots of hard disk access) After killing off firefox and a few processes that were obviously rouge, I knew I was in for some fun. I just didn't know how much. :) Long story short, I got a nasty trojan on my system and spent many, many hours removing it and fixing the fallout. In the process I actually installed a malware scanner for the first time in years (Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware) and found evidence of components of another malware problem on my system, in addition to the one I knew I had. I also reinstalled a program I had used in years previous called Geek Superhero. Among other things, it constantly monitors the registry and all other areas that can contain startup items and lets you know if they change, allowing you to deny those changes if you want to. In a way this is an "firewall for your OS". I still maintain that most people won't get actual real "viruses" and don't need traditional AV software. They just don't seem to be prevalent any more. To quote Buffy, "they are so 1992". I also stand by my statement that Norton and other products are much more trouble than they are worth. But other malware does seem to exist and I seem to have gotten it. So perhaps a program like Geek Superhero and *maybe* a software, port monitoring, firewall are a good idea. I must concede at least this segment of the argument to licker. ...and believe me, going through this was far more painful than admitting that I was wrong. Final notes: If you suddenly find yourself seeing a program called "Antivirus XP 2008" on your computer, please don't buy it. It's a trojan that wants your money. It will lie to you and say you have viruses, promising to clean them if you buy it. I wasn't naive enough to fall for it, but I still had to spend forever removing it from my system. If my system had the latest windows updates, it's highly likely that I would not have gotten this trojan, as it seemed to have been delivered via . Another reminder that, if like me, you surf the dark areas of the internet and use windows, you need the latest updates. Dr. P Edited by - drp0rn0 on 8/12/2008 7:59:20 PM
Glad I could help Lindi. 
