The top eight...

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by SleeperMan, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    i just found out this link:

    http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm

    Right now i have Norton NIS 2004. But, i wonder, should i change...
    so, can you review this site and maybe say anything about which is good,
    which eats not too much resources etc...
    comparing to NIS2004...
    for running on XP PRO. Firewall is a must, since i have ADSL. Automatic
    virus update very wanted...
    THX
     
    SleeperMan, Feb 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SleeperMan

    Gladys Pump Guest

    On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:02:54 +0100, "SleeperMan" <>,
    whilst in the alt.computer.security newsfroup, articulated the following
    sentiments :

    >i just found out this link:
    >
    >http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm
    >
    >Right now i have Norton NIS 2004. But, i wonder, should i change...
    >so, can you review this site and maybe say anything about which is good,
    >which eats not too much resources etc...
    >comparing to NIS2004...
    >for running on XP PRO. Firewall is a must, since i have ADSL. Automatic
    >virus update very wanted...
    >THX
    >


    Everyone has their favourites. Currently running on my system, and
    integrated with my mail server is NOD32. Very transparent, and very small
    'footprint' on installation too.

    http://www.esetsoftware.co.uk/

    Regs, Pete.
     
    Gladys Pump, Feb 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SleeperMan

    Alan Walker Guest

    Gladys Pump wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:02:54 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security
    > newsfroup, articulated the following sentiments :
    >
    >> i just found out this link:
    >>
    >> http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm
    >>
    >> Right now i have Norton NIS 2004. But, i wonder, should i change...
    >> so, can you review this site and maybe say anything about which is
    >> good, which eats not too much resources etc...
    >> comparing to NIS2004...
    >> for running on XP PRO. Firewall is a must, since i have ADSL.
    >> Automatic virus update very wanted...
    >> THX
    >>

    >
    > Everyone has their favourites. Currently running on my system, and
    > integrated with my mail server is NOD32. Very transparent, and very
    > small 'footprint' on installation too.
    >
    > http://www.esetsoftware.co.uk/
    >
    > Regs, Pete.


    Having read around the reviews and compared friends experiences with my own
    I opted for Kaspersky AV and ZoneAlarm Pro as a firewall, though I'm
    seriously thinking about switching to Kerio. My mail server runs McAfee so
    everything goes through both with less chance of anything falling through
    loopholes.

    If you're not running any server (including P2P) then XP firewall should be
    enough on it's own if you only open ports you really need.

    --

    Alan
     
    Alan Walker, Feb 21, 2004
    #3
  4. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Alan Walker typed:

    > Gladys Pump wrote:
    >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:02:54 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    >> <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security
    >> newsfroup, articulated the following sentiments :
    >>
    >>> i just found out this link:
    >>>
    >>> http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm
    >>>
    >>> Right now i have Norton NIS 2004. But, i wonder, should i change...
    >>> so, can you review this site and maybe say anything about which is
    >>> good, which eats not too much resources etc...
    >>> comparing to NIS2004...
    >>> for running on XP PRO. Firewall is a must, since i have ADSL.
    >>> Automatic virus update very wanted...
    >>> THX
    >>>

    >>
    >> Everyone has their favourites. Currently running on my system, and
    >> integrated with my mail server is NOD32. Very transparent, and very
    >> small 'footprint' on installation too.
    >>
    >> http://www.esetsoftware.co.uk/
    >>
    >> Regs, Pete.

    >
    > Having read around the reviews and compared friends experiences with
    > my own I opted for Kaspersky AV and ZoneAlarm Pro as a firewall,
    > though I'm seriously thinking about switching to Kerio. My mail
    > server runs McAfee so everything goes through both with less chance
    > of anything falling through loopholes.
    >
    > If you're not running any server (including P2P) then XP firewall
    > should be enough on it's own if you only open ports you really need.


    Unfortunately, i do occasionally use Kazaa or EMule. I thought a bit of
    NOD32. McAfee - i'v ehad a bad experience with it( BSOD's), so that's out of
    my choice. Right now i'm thinking going back to NIS2003 and compare it to
    2004...
    hard to say indeed, on one side many reviews say Norton's AV is among the
    best, on the other side many say it's resource hungry...i guess i should
    test each of them by running PC without any AV and firewall (with Internet
    shut off, sure), then comparing.
     
    SleeperMan, Feb 21, 2004
    #4
  5. SleeperMan

    Gladys Pump Guest

    On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security newsfroup,
    articulated the following sentiments :

    >Having read around the reviews and compared friends experiences with my own
    >I opted for Kaspersky AV and ZoneAlarm Pro as a firewall, though I'm
    >seriously thinking about switching to Kerio. My mail server runs McAfee so
    >everything goes through both with less chance of anything falling through
    >loopholes.


    That wouldn't be Kerio Mail Server would it Alan ? If so, same as mine, but
    without the McAfee integration.

    Regs, Pete.
     
    Gladys Pump, Feb 21, 2004
    #5
  6. SleeperMan

    Alan Walker Guest

    Gladys Pump wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    > <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security
    > newsfroup, articulated the following sentiments :
    >
    >> Having read around the reviews and compared friends experiences with
    >> my own I opted for Kaspersky AV and ZoneAlarm Pro as a firewall,
    >> though I'm seriously thinking about switching to Kerio. My mail
    >> server runs McAfee so everything goes through both with less chance
    >> of anything falling through loopholes.

    >
    > That wouldn't be Kerio Mail Server would it Alan ? If so, same as
    > mine, but without the McAfee integration.
    >
    > Regs, Pete.


    Yup, actually I've got Symantec on the box and the McAfee integrated now as
    I'm playing around with options, the built-in McAfee never catches anything
    as the Symantec's grabbing it all in the temp files first.

    --

    Alan
     
    Alan Walker, Feb 21, 2004
    #6
  7. SleeperMan

    Gladys Pump Guest

    On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:37:36 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security newsfroup,
    articulated the following sentiments :

    >Gladys Pump wrote:
    >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    >> <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security
    >> newsfroup, articulated the following sentiments :
    >>
    >>> Having read around the reviews and compared friends experiences with
    >>> my own I opted for Kaspersky AV and ZoneAlarm Pro as a firewall,
    >>> though I'm seriously thinking about switching to Kerio. My mail
    >>> server runs McAfee so everything goes through both with less chance
    >>> of anything falling through loopholes.

    >>
    >> That wouldn't be Kerio Mail Server would it Alan ? If so, same as
    >> mine, but without the McAfee integration.
    >>
    >> Regs, Pete.

    >
    >Yup, actually I've got Symantec on the box and the McAfee integrated now as
    >I'm playing around with options, the built-in McAfee never catches anything
    >as the Symantec's grabbing it all in the temp files first.


    Cool. I just have NOD32 as the AV app that Kerio uses. I set it to exclude
    the Kerio Mail Server directory, so the 'active' scanner checks the rest of
    the system, and the main AV engine takes care of email attackments.

    However, these are few and far between now that I've gone back to munging my
    email address on USENET. When SWEN first hit the Net, I got 1000 in the
    first day. This went down to around 300-400 a day, then to around 50 a day.

    I never saw one of the actual attackments. Just the 'neutered' emails
    themselves. I don't believe in bouncing stuff back, as aside from adding to
    the general 'noise' of the Net, most of the time the return addresses are
    false or just plain invalid. Now I just discard them silently. Better. :)

    Apparently, there's a new KMS build out anytime now ...

    Regs, Pete.
     
    Gladys Pump, Feb 22, 2004
    #7
  8. SleeperMan

    Alan Walker Guest

    Gladys Pump wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:37:36 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    > <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security
    > newsfroup, articulated the following sentiments :
    >
    >> Gladys Pump wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    >>> <>, whilst in the alt.computer.security
    >>> newsfroup, articulated the following sentiments :
    >>>
    >>>> Having read around the reviews and compared friends experiences
    >>>> with my own I opted for Kaspersky AV and ZoneAlarm Pro as a
    >>>> firewall, though I'm seriously thinking about switching to Kerio.
    >>>> My mail server runs McAfee so everything goes through both with
    >>>> less chance of anything falling through loopholes.
    >>>
    >>> That wouldn't be Kerio Mail Server would it Alan ? If so, same as
    >>> mine, but without the McAfee integration.
    >>>
    >>> Regs, Pete.

    >>
    >> Yup, actually I've got Symantec on the box and the McAfee integrated
    >> now as I'm playing around with options, the built-in McAfee never
    >> catches anything as the Symantec's grabbing it all in the temp files
    >> first.

    >
    > Cool. I just have NOD32 as the AV app that Kerio uses. I set it to
    > exclude the Kerio Mail Server directory, so the 'active' scanner
    > checks the rest of the system, and the main AV engine takes care of
    > email attackments.
    >
    > However, these are few and far between now that I've gone back to
    > munging my email address on USENET. When SWEN first hit the Net, I
    > got 1000 in the first day. This went down to around 300-400 a day,
    > then to around 50 a day.
    >
    > I never saw one of the actual attackments. Just the 'neutered' emails
    > themselves. I don't believe in bouncing stuff back, as aside from
    > adding to the general 'noise' of the Net, most of the time the return
    > addresses are false or just plain invalid. Now I just discard them
    > silently. Better. :)
    >
    > Apparently, there's a new KMS build out anytime now ...
    >
    > Regs, Pete.


    I'll keep an eye out for it, though the current one's doing fine for me
    right now.

    --

    Alan
     
    Alan Walker, Feb 22, 2004
    #8
  9. SleeperMan

    Dazz Guest

    On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    <> wrote:

    <snipped>

    >If you're not running any server (including P2P) then XP firewall should be
    >enough on it's own if you only open ports you really need.


    XP's "firewall" only offers inbound protection. Outbound traffic is
    virtually free to do whatever it wants to do - whether it is malicious
    or not.

    Why on earth would anyone put any faith into something that only does
    half the job?

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Feb 23, 2004
    #9
  10. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Dazz typed:

    > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > <snipped>
    >
    >> If you're not running any server (including P2P) then XP firewall
    >> should be enough on it's own if you only open ports you really need.

    >
    > XP's "firewall" only offers inbound protection. Outbound traffic is
    > virtually free to do whatever it wants to do - whether it is malicious
    > or not.
    >
    > Why on earth would anyone put any faith into something that only does
    > half the job?


    i guess for that same reason some would have a faith in MS products...which
    also half works, half doing BSOD's...
     
    SleeperMan, Feb 23, 2004
    #10
  11. SleeperMan

    Dazz Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:55:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    <> wrote:

    >Dazz typed:
    >
    >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snipped>
    >>
    >>> If you're not running any server (including P2P) then XP firewall
    >>> should be enough on it's own if you only open ports you really need.

    >>
    >> XP's "firewall" only offers inbound protection. Outbound traffic is
    >> virtually free to do whatever it wants to do - whether it is malicious
    >> or not.
    >>
    >> Why on earth would anyone put any faith into something that only does
    >> half the job?

    >
    >i guess for that same reason some would have a faith in MS products...which
    >also half works, half doing BSOD's...


    lol - there's no such thing as a half BSOD - Micro$oft have been
    working long and hard to ensure you get the full BSOD. ;-P

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Feb 24, 2004
    #11
  12. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Dazz typed:

    > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:55:31 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Dazz typed:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0000, "Alan Walker"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <snipped>
    >>>
    >>>> If you're not running any server (including P2P) then XP firewall
    >>>> should be enough on it's own if you only open ports you really
    >>>> need.
    >>>
    >>> XP's "firewall" only offers inbound protection. Outbound traffic is
    >>> virtually free to do whatever it wants to do - whether it is
    >>> malicious or not.
    >>>
    >>> Why on earth would anyone put any faith into something that only
    >>> does half the job?

    >>
    >> i guess for that same reason some would have a faith in MS
    >> products...which also half works, half doing BSOD's...

    >
    > lol - there's no such thing as a half BSOD - Micro$oft have been
    > working long and hard to ensure you get the full BSOD. ;-P
    >
    > Dazz


    ROFL
     
    SleeperMan, Feb 24, 2004
    #12
    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. Jef Poskanzer

    The Eight Megapixel Invasion

    Jef Poskanzer, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,001
    Jef Poskanzer
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Armando

    Eight New Photography Newsgroups !!!!

    Armando, Dec 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    338
    Jon Pope
    Dec 1, 2004
  3. Au79

    Eight Vulnerabilities You May Have Missed

    Au79, Jun 17, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    491
  4. T.N.O.
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    465
    Bruce Sinclair
    Oct 23, 2003
  5. Ray Fischer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    257
    Atheist Chaplain
    Jul 24, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page