AMD 64 Virus Protection

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Dennis Gordon, Dec 12, 2005.

  1. I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use, but I
    just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with XP SP2:

    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html

    Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.

    So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you are
    otherwise protected?

    Just wonderin'...
    Dennis Gordon, Dec 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I did not see in the article anything other than it is a protection from
    "certain viruses." There are many kinds. I use eTrust AV 7.1x on XP x64.
    I don't know what you mean by "otherwise protected" but I doubt that anyone
    who posts here often would recommend relying on the AMD hardware level
    protection only.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:%234pcR%23t$...
    >I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use, but I
    > just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with XP
    > SP2:
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    >
    > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    >
    > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you
    > are
    > otherwise protected?
    >
    > Just wonderin'...
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Yes, it applies. It is certainly a useful addition to a defense in depth
    strategy, but is insufficient.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use, but
    > I just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with XP
    > SP2:
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    >
    > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    >
    > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you
    > are otherwise protected?
    >
    > Just wonderin'...
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 12, 2005
    #3
  4. So... what works with SP2 applies as well to XP 64 bit? Sorry if I'm dense.
    I didn't read the article very thoroughly. And if I'm "otherwise"
    protected... that is, up to date with my NOD32 and XoftSpy, Adaware, etc.,
    does it really matter?


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:et91GGu$...
    > Yes, it applies. It is certainly a useful addition to a defense in depth
    > strategy, but is insufficient.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > > I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use,

    but
    > > I just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with

    XP
    > > SP2:
    > >
    > > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    > >
    > > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    > > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    > >
    > > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you
    > > are otherwise protected?
    > >
    > > Just wonderin'...

    >
    >
    Dennis Gordon, Dec 12, 2005
    #4
  5. The 32-bit software drivers in many anti-virus products that work in XP SP2
    prevent them from working in x64. NOD32 is recommended by many and I have
    used very recent versions in x64. XoftSpy and Adaware are good also and
    perform functions that the AMD hardware cannot do. If you are asking
    whether all of this matters, the answer is yes. If you are asking if it
    matters what products you use, then no (so long as they run under x64 of
    course). One thing that all researchers report is that there is no single
    anti-spyware program that catches everything. Two or three in combination
    seem to catch what is out there right now.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:uyFpDPu$...
    > So... what works with SP2 applies as well to XP 64 bit? Sorry if I'm
    > dense.
    > I didn't read the article very thoroughly. And if I'm "otherwise"
    > protected... that is, up to date with my NOD32 and XoftSpy, Adaware, etc.,
    > does it really matter?
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:et91GGu$...
    >> Yes, it applies. It is certainly a useful addition to a defense in depth
    >> strategy, but is insufficient.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> Dennis Gordon wrote:
    >> > I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use,

    > but
    >> > I just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with

    > XP
    >> > SP2:
    >> >
    >> > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    >> >
    >> > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    >> > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    >> >
    >> > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you
    >> > are otherwise protected?
    >> >
    >> > Just wonderin'...

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Dennis Gordon

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:%234pcR%23t$...
    >I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use, but I
    > just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with XP
    > SP2:
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    >
    > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    >
    > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you
    > are
    > otherwise protected?
    >
    > Just wonderin'...
    >
    >


    I suggest you read the article again.

    With SP2, you are protected against a particular "class" of threats, a
    buffer overflow.
    It basically protects a bit of malicious code from running in the memory
    space outside the buffer in the processor.

    You still need to have full AV and firewall protection.

    Bobby
    NoNoBadDog!, Dec 12, 2005
    #6
  7. "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:%23B6mKmu$...
    > The 32-bit software drivers in many anti-virus products that work in XP
    > SP2 prevent them from working in x64. NOD32 is recommended by many and I
    > have used very recent versions in x64. XoftSpy and Adaware are good also
    > and perform functions that the AMD hardware cannot do. If you are asking
    > whether all of this matters, the answer is yes. If you are asking if it
    > matters what products you use, then no (so long as they run under x64 of
    > course).
    > One thing that all researchers report is that there is no single
    > anti-spyware program that catches everything. Two or three in combination
    > seem to catch what is out there right now.


    This is neews to me - often you are not supposed to have competing schemes
    running concurrently. Will such a setup not have things stepping on each
    other's toes all the time?

    Tony. . .
    Tony Sperling, Dec 12, 2005
    #7
  8. Dennis Gordon

    Rick Guest

    It's primarily referring to the Data Execution Protection (DEP) that was
    implemented in SP2 and caused problem with some programs attempting to
    write to protected memory. It's a hardware feature of the Athlon 64 CPUs.

    If you'll open the System Properties, then Performance Options, you'll
    see a tab for Data Execution Prevention. That's what AMD is referring to.


    Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use, but I
    > just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with XP SP2:
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    >
    > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    >
    > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you are
    > otherwise protected?
    >
    > Just wonderin'...
    >
    >
    Rick, Dec 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Okay, that's what I missed. I do recall having a problem with DEP once or
    twice after SP2 (some sort of warning). Thanks for the clarification...


    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:e9fxEZx$...
    > It's primarily referring to the Data Execution Protection (DEP) that was
    > implemented in SP2 and caused problem with some programs attempting to
    > write to protected memory. It's a hardware feature of the Athlon 64 CPUs.
    >
    > If you'll open the System Properties, then Performance Options, you'll
    > see a tab for Data Execution Prevention. That's what AMD is referring to.
    >
    >
    > Dennis Gordon wrote:
    > > I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use,

    but I
    > > just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection with XP

    SP2:
    > >
    > > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    > >
    > > Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    > > should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    > >
    > > So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you

    are
    > > otherwise protected?
    > >
    > > Just wonderin'...
    > >
    > >
    Dennis Gordon, Dec 12, 2005
    #9
  10. That is only true of antivirus programs. You should only install one
    antivirus program. It is definitely not true of anti-spyware programs.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:eTJVeww$...
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23B6mKmu$...
    >> The 32-bit software drivers in many anti-virus products that work in XP
    >> SP2 prevent them from working in x64. NOD32 is recommended by many and I
    >> have used very recent versions in x64. XoftSpy and Adaware are good also
    >> and perform functions that the AMD hardware cannot do. If you are asking
    >> whether all of this matters, the answer is yes. If you are asking if it
    >> matters what products you use, then no (so long as they run under x64 of
    >> course).
    >> One thing that all researchers report is that there is no single
    >> anti-spyware program that catches everything. Two or three in
    >> combination seem to catch what is out there right now.

    >
    > This is neews to me - often you are not supposed to have competing schemes
    > running concurrently. Will such a setup not have things stepping on each
    > other's toes all the time?
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Thank you, nice thing to know!

    Tony. . .


    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:u0$gamz$...
    > That is only true of antivirus programs. You should only install one
    > antivirus program. It is definitely not true of anti-spyware programs.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:eTJVeww$...
    >>
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%23B6mKmu$...
    >>> The 32-bit software drivers in many anti-virus products that work in XP
    >>> SP2 prevent them from working in x64. NOD32 is recommended by many and
    >>> I have used very recent versions in x64. XoftSpy and Adaware are good
    >>> also and perform functions that the AMD hardware cannot do. If you are
    >>> asking whether all of this matters, the answer is yes. If you are
    >>> asking if it matters what products you use, then no (so long as they run
    >>> under x64 of course).
    >>> One thing that all researchers report is that there is no single
    >>> anti-spyware program that catches everything. Two or three in
    >>> combination seem to catch what is out there right now.

    >>
    >> This is neews to me - often you are not supposed to have competing
    >> schemes running concurrently. Will such a setup not have things stepping
    >> on each other's toes all the time?
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Dec 12, 2005
    #11
  12. You're welcome.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:eIbUjC0$...
    > Thank you, nice thing to know!
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:u0$gamz$...
    >> That is only true of antivirus programs. You should only install one
    >> antivirus program. It is definitely not true of anti-spyware programs.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eTJVeww$...
    >>>
    >>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23B6mKmu$...
    >>>> The 32-bit software drivers in many anti-virus products that work in XP
    >>>> SP2 prevent them from working in x64. NOD32 is recommended by many and
    >>>> I have used very recent versions in x64. XoftSpy and Adaware are good
    >>>> also and perform functions that the AMD hardware cannot do. If you are
    >>>> asking whether all of this matters, the answer is yes. If you are
    >>>> asking if it matters what products you use, then no (so long as they
    >>>> run under x64 of course).
    >>>> One thing that all researchers report is that there is no single
    >>>> anti-spyware program that catches everything. Two or three in
    >>>> combination seem to catch what is out there right now.
    >>>
    >>> This is neews to me - often you are not supposed to have competing
    >>> schemes running concurrently. Will such a setup not have things stepping
    >>> on each other's toes all the time?
    >>>
    >>> Tony. . .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #12
  13. Exactly. And Server 2003 SP1 has the same ability to take advantage of that
    hardware feature.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    NoNoBadDog! wrote:
    > "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    > news:%234pcR%23t$...
    >> I don't really read that much of the hype on the products that I use,
    >> but I just read the AMD bit on their 64 bit CPUs and virus protection
    >> with XP SP2:
    >>
    >> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html
    >>
    >> Of course, this is news to me, since I don't pay attention as well as I
    >> should. I'm running a 3800X2 these days.
    >>
    >> So... does any of this apply to XP 64 bit? Does it really matter if you
    >> are
    >> otherwise protected?
    >>
    >> Just wonderin'...
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I suggest you read the article again.
    >
    > With SP2, you are protected against a particular "class" of threats, a
    > buffer overflow.
    > It basically protects a bit of malicious code from running in the memory
    > space outside the buffer in the processor.
    >
    > You still need to have full AV and firewall protection.
    >
    > Bobby
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 12, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dalgibbard

    AMD Sempron vs AMD Athlon

    Dalgibbard, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    670
    Shel-hed
    Sep 16, 2004
  2. Peter Maurice Cram

    Norton virus protection shutsdown - virus?

    Peter Maurice Cram, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    603
    WebWalker
    Sep 12, 2004
  3. thingy
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    885
    ~misfit~
    Dec 2, 2007
  4. thingy
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    644
    Richard
    Mar 9, 2008
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,071
Loading...

Share This Page