Free security softs vs not free

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Parisian, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. Parisian

    Parisian Guest

    Hi,
    Do you think that the free security softs (AV, antispywares, personal
    firewall) can be really as efficient as the other ones ?

    --
    spam protected :
    click here to answer :mailto:http://www.cerbermail.com/?8Cxy3i0dq0

    Parisian
     
    Parisian, Oct 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Parisian wrote:

    > Do you think that the free security softs (AV, antispywares, personal
    > firewall) can be really as efficient as the other ones?


    They stated types of pseudo-security software have nothing to do with
    efficiency. Why don't you talk about rootkit analyzers, sudo for Windows,
    system management and analyzation software, auditing tools and alikes?
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Parisian

    Moe Trin Guest

    On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <45362ce7$0$27387$>, Parisian wrote:

    >Do you think that the free security softs (AV, antispywares, personal
    >firewall) can be really as efficient as the other ones ?


    Do you think that red wine can taste as good as white wine? Your
    question is equally easy to answer.

    But why are you installing viruses, spyware, trojans, and similar in the
    first place? Or do you believe there is a "Mal-ware Fairy" that comes
    around and waves the magic wand over your computer to install malware
    without your knowledge.

    >click here to answer :mailto:http://www.cerbermail.com/?8Cxy3i0dq0


    Post here - answers here. HTML mail is one of the important sources of
    mal-ware, but I guess you haven't learned about that yet.

    >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869


    and you probably have everything enabled so that you don't have to think
    about clicking on those warning messages.

    Old guy
     
    Moe Trin, Oct 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Parisian

    Parisian Guest

    "Moe Trin" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news: ...
    > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in
    > article
    > <45362ce7$0$27387$>, Parisian wrote:
    >
    >>Do you think that the free security softs (AV, antispywares, personal
    >>firewall) can be really as efficient as the other ones ?

    >
    > Do you think that red wine can taste as good as white wine? Your
    > question is equally easy to answer.

    Don't see the connection : if white and red wines are different (I'm a wine
    producer), may be if one is free and the other not, it doesn't mean that the
    more expensive is better.
    >
    > But why are you installing viruses, spyware, trojans, and similar in the
    > first place? Or do you believe there is a "Mal-ware Fairy" that comes
    > around and waves the magic wand over your computer to install malware
    > without your knowledge.
    > Don't be innocent, even if you're very cautious, a lot of dirt comes into
    > your PC...!
    >>click here to answer :mailto:http://www.cerbermail.com/?8Cxy3i0dq0

    >
    > Post here - answers here. HTML mail is one of the important sources of
    > mal-ware, but I guess you haven't learned about that yet.
    >
    >>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869

    >
    > and you probably have everything enabled so that you don't have to think
    > about clicking on those warning messages.
    > I don't understand what you mean and thinck I'm not concerned ?
    > Old guy
     
    Parisian, Oct 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Parisian

    Moe Trin Guest

    On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <45372ec4$0$25929$>, Parisian wrote:

    >"Moe Trin" <> a écrit dans le message de
    >news: ...


    >> Do you think that red wine can taste as good as white wine? Your
    >> question is equally easy to answer.


    >Don't see the connection : if white and red wines are different (I'm a wine
    >producer), may be if one is free and the other not, it doesn't mean that the
    >more expensive is better.


    Yes - that is the point. Cost != Quality

    >> But why are you installing viruses, spyware, trojans, and similar in the
    >> first place? Or do you believe there is a "Mal-ware Fairy" that comes
    >> around and waves the magic wand over your computer to install malware
    >> without your knowledge.

    >
    > Don't be innocent, even if you're very cautious, a lot of dirt comes into
    > your PC...!


    Look at the headers of this post - I'm not using a web browser for everything
    because it's the only "tool" I can use. Do you use a hammer to weed the
    vineyard? Do you use the same hammer to crush the grapes? Do you use the
    same hammer to prune the vines? Then why do you use the same web browser
    for all access to the computer and Internet? It is because I am not using
    a browser for everything that I don't have to worry about all of the
    mal-ware in the mail, or on some web site that is really a downloading service.

    Old guy
     
    Moe Trin, Oct 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Moe Trin wrote:

    >>> But why are you installing viruses, spyware, trojans, and similar in the
    >>> first place? Or do you believe there is a "Mal-ware Fairy" that comes
    >>> around and waves the magic wand over your computer to install malware
    >>> without your knowledge.

    >>
    >> Don't be innocent, even if you're very cautious, a lot of dirt comes into
    >> your PC...!


    This is nonsense, at least when you're not believing in Malware Fairies. On
    the other and, what about stating an example where cautiousness with all
    its implicitations is insufficient to address any such problem?

    > Look at the headers of this post - I'm not using a web browser for everything
    > because it's the only "tool" I can use.


    I wonder, because he doesn't seem to do so either. However, he uses Outlook
    Express, which has well-known unpatched vulnerabilities and by design isn't
    suitable to be used on the internet (or any other untrusted network)

    > It is because I am not using a browser for everything that I don't have to worry
    > about all of the mal-ware in the mail,


    There's actually no reason to worry about malware in eMails, because
    there's absolutely no need to execute it. Well, unless you're misusing OE
    as an eMail client.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Parisian

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:50:20 -0500,
    (Moe Trin) wrote:

    >It is because I am not using
    >a browser for everything that I don't have to worry about all of the
    >mal-ware in the mail,


    What you don't remove attachments at the mail server ?

    Kill them all I say.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 22, 2006
    #7
  8. Parisian

    Moe Trin Guest

    On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <>, Jim Watt wrote:

    > (Moe Trin) wrote:


    >> It is because I am not using a browser for everything that I don't
    >> have to worry about all of the mal-ware in the mail,


    > What you don't remove attachments at the mail server ?


    The mail reader I use (a recent release of the original Berkeley 'mail'
    program from the late 1970s) only knows how to _display_ mail as text.
    It doesn't matter what the mail is, I see it as text. Now seeing as how
    I really don't give a d4mn what color crayon you used to scrawl your
    brilliant thoughts on the computer screen, if the mail doesn't look like
    words in a language I understand displayed in a typeface and font size of
    my choosing, it gets tossed unless I know exactly what the garbage is.
    Oh, and not running windoze means the mal-ware isn't coded to be able to
    run on my O/S even if I were st00pid enough to try to run it manually.

    However I must also admit that yes, I do run a filter on the mail server.
    To those who whine that I may miss some important mail because of that,
    I point out that email is not a guaranteed delivery service (read the
    specifications), and should never be trusted for important deliveries
    that may effect your lifestyle. Yes, that means I've missed all those
    wonderful offers from the widows, orphans and shady bank officials to
    share those millions of dollars, or those notifications that I had won
    that lottery that I never entered - that would be more than enough to pay
    off the mortgage, buy all the pills, cars, or insurance I could ever need
    (or desire), or what-ever. And how _will_ I ever survive if they disable
    those accounts I don't have at CitiBank, BofA, Sumitomo Bank, Handelsbank,
    or Paypal. Oh, deary, deary me. Tough, isn't it.

    >Kill them all I say.


    The attachments? Or those who send them?

    Old guy
     
    Moe Trin, Oct 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Moe Trin wrote:

    >>> It is because I am not using a browser for everything that I don't
    >>> have to worry about all of the mal-ware in the mail,

    >
    >> What you don't remove attachments at the mail server ?

    >
    > The mail reader I use (a recent release of the original Berkeley 'mail'
    > program from the late 1970s) only knows how to _display_ mail as text.
    > It doesn't matter what the mail is, I see it as text. Now seeing as how
    > I really don't give a d4mn what color crayon you used to scrawl your
    > brilliant thoughts on the computer screen, if the mail doesn't look like
    > words in a language I understand displayed in a typeface and font size of
    > my choosing, it gets tossed unless I know exactly what the garbage is.


    Now sorry, but that's a bit lousy. It should support MIME, it should
    support S/MIME and OpenPGP/MIME and maybe also OpenPGP/inline. It should be
    able to handle various mailing list headers, and support for text/enriched
    (you know: *fat* _underlined_ /cursive/ <http://hyper.link/blah>) would
    also be nice.

    Anyway, attachments aren't a problem. The problem are mailclients that
    render attachments containing HTML like websites, partitially even with
    support for JavaScript.

    >>Kill them all I say.

    >
    > The attachments? Or those who send them?


    No need to do so. However, those who consider sending a mail that only
    consists of one single attachment in HTML containing the real message, but
    no cleartext part, should be reported to the abuse department. After all,
    no serious client would even try to break down the HTML part into
    cleartext, and neither display it - but simply show a blank message, as
    exactly what it is.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 23, 2006
    #9
    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. AM
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    969
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    861
  3. Rick Sears
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    540
    Rick Sears
    Jul 29, 2003
  4. COMSOLIT Messmer

    IT-Security, Security, e-security

    COMSOLIT Messmer, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    658
    COMSOLIT Messmer
    Sep 5, 2003
  5. n o s p a m p l e a s e

    Free AntiVir with Free Norton Security Scan

    n o s p a m p l e a s e, Oct 20, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    658
    Plato
    Oct 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page