Well my dad uninstalled the anti virus program and almost every anti spyware program

[cheater87]

on the family laptop. It has no firewall also except the windows firewall. I give up protecting my family. If they want a crappy slow computer that is infected with viruses and spyware then they can be my guests.

[steve161]

Not good, but that's family, right? Sneak in and download some background security programs that they might not notice. Better yet, sandbox the whole thing.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
Do you want a solution how to prevent them from doing it? Or, is this a general comment?
BTW, you don't have to get infected if you don't use AV / AS - all it takes is a bit of thinking.
Mrk

[Rmus]

Do they need your permission to install programs?

-rich

[herbalist]

{QUOTE-> If they want a crappy slow computer that is infected with viruses and spyware then they can be my guests. <-QUOTE}
That may be why he removed the anti-spyware and AV. One of them or an interaction between them may have been bogging down the system. What did you have installed, the items in your signature or is that for your own PC?
What are the performance specs of this laptop?
It would help to know exactly what it is that your dad didn't like, prompts, general slowness, slow loading, etc. This could be just a case of matching the security-ware to the user.
If nothing else, you might consider partitioning the hard drive, putting system files on one partition and user files on the other, then make a backup of the system partition that can be restored as needed.
Rick

[cheater87]

Well the computer is old and has like 5 user profiles on it. I think thats why it was slow.

[snapdragin]

Escalader - so we don't take this thread off-topic, I've moved your partition question to herbalist over into the Software & Services forum, along with re-titling it. You can find your new thread here: Partitioning for better management of computer (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=159177)

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Well the computer is old and has like 5 user profiles on it. I think thats why it was slow. <-QUOTE}cheater87,

Multiple profiles don't do it; slower speed and a RAM/disk space starved unit could.

You don't need a slew of armaments to keep a PC clean. Many items that used to readily get through are now filtered at the ISP level. Keeping your temp file locations, space consumption, and activity at bay (CCleaner (http://www.ccleaner.com/)), using Windows firewall (if needed), and a decent AV is plenty. You can get by with a lot less, I don't recommend it as generic advice, but you can, especially if you are PC aware and don't have an issue doing things manually or as a post-mortem if required. Also, on an older PC, software selection is very critical since they are generally not as highly spec'ed as current machines.

Blue

[mercurie]

One possible option if you don't think it will cause family strife or riff.

Password protected security set up. You set the password and don't tell.

My Outpost has it and my ZoneAlarm Pro did too. Never used the OutPost feature but ZA would not let me do anything without the password.

Just a thought. ;)

[cheater87]

Luckily I remembered that Spyware Terminator has ClamAV so I enabled that in the shield. My dad said he didn't want any anti virus programs on it. So I enabled that so he won't know.

[ClassicQ]

{QUOTE-> Luckily I remembered that Spyware Terminator has ClamAV so I enabled that in the shield. My dad said he didn't want any anti virus programs on it. So I enabled that so he won't know. <-QUOTE}If the owner of the PC [Your Dad] doesn't wish to have plethora security programs running, why are operating against the wishes of the PCs owner and your father? Not Cool :-\ >:(

Having lurked her for some time, I see this is a common theme with you. Security isn't about running every app on the market, so perhaps you're the cause of the problem? ;) Maybe if you took the time to investigate and understand 'security' you could better understand and define a SIMPLE security scheme for your family to adopt, understand and appreciate. What I can't understand is why you continually choose to blaze forward and run into the same wall. You don't seem to have learned from your past mistakes and don't seem to be willing understand and accept the needs of your family, nor understand that security isn't supposed to be obtrusive and/or the design of the PC experience. Considering those factors and putting forth an honest effort to achieve that, will go much further --- but as you have continually barraged your parents in the wrong way with the wrong things, it will take much longer to gain their confidence. If you continue down your current path, I can guarantee you'll never succeed.

The key to security is knowledge, it's time to invest some time into a little learning. ;)

Q

[ccsito]

I have a relative who has a laptop what only had the Windows XP firewall and an outdated Norton AV installed on it. After it got infected with a trojan program, my relative got fed up with the popup ads and browser hijacks and allowed me to install a ton of security software on it to get rid of the malware. The laptop is only used for surfing and photo editing so there is little other programs on the hard drive. I explained what each program that I was installing was doing so that it would be clear why I was using it.
I have several old computers that I would never install a lot of security software because they have old OS systems. Adding them would tax the limited resources and further slow down my system.

[twl845]

You could download SpywareBlaster to sit in the background and block spyware, and delete the shortcut so he can't play with it. Then every few months you could check for updates. :lurking:

[WSFuser]

try a HOSTS file (like MVPS) for blocking bad sites. see if your family can "uninstall" it.

[Long View]

{QUOTE-> on the family laptop. It has no firewall also except the windows firewall. I give up protecting my family. If they want a crappy slow computer that is infected with viruses and spyware then they can be my guests. <-QUOTE}

SIG - I have Spybot S&D 1.4, Adaware SE, Spyware Blaster 3.5.1, Prevx, Spyware Terminator real time shield enabled no HIPS, AVG anti spyware, A Squared free, Avast free edition, Firefox 2.0 with Noscript, IE7, Opera, Comodo Personal Firewall, Mcafee Site Adviser and common sense.

Have you heard the joke about the man who wanted a fairly quick pc ?
He bought a fast one and installed a bunch of security programs. I do hope you didn't install that lot on your dad's old pc - if so no wonder he has had enough.

;D

[herbalist]

Just how old of a unit are we talking about here? Your use of the term "profiles" suggests Win98 or WinME. As BlueZannetti stated, on these units, your choice of security apps and how many are in use at once is very critical. Many of the security apps that claim to be 98 compatible are not usable with the hardware these operating systems came with, RAM, processor speed, etc.
{QUOTE-> My dad said he didn't want any anti virus programs on it. <-QUOTE}
Can you give a reason for this statement of his? What does he have against an AV? I'm reasonably sure that if we can determine just what it is that he doesn't like about AVs and security apps, we can come up with something he will be happy with.
Who actually owns this family laptop?
{QUOTE-> If the owner of the PC [Your Dad] doesn't wish to have plethora security programs running, why are operating against the wishes of the PCs owner and your father? Not Cool <-QUOTE}
It's not that simple. It's much more that just saving them (or their PCs) from themselves. It's these unsecured PCs that get hunted down for use as spambots and other equally malicious uses. If anyone in that household uses this PC for any financial purposes, a malware infection can get very costly. I personally know several people who learned that lesson too late.
It isn't for any of us to decide whether it's proper or morally correct for cheater87 to install security-ware on the family PC. That part is his problem and decision. But if we can help him to determine just why his dad has a problem with security-ware and find a solution that satisfies both sides, the problem gets fixed, plus there's potentially one less PC spreading spam or virus infected e-mails on the net.
Cheater87, the better you can explain exactly why your dad doesn't like AVs and/or other security-ware, the better chance we have of finding something he'll be happy with.
Rick

[cheater87]

Oh no my sig is for my laptop. I only had adaware se, spybot spywareblaster and Spyware Terminator on the pc

[nigglesnush85]

My dad has an ancient pc, its always crashing and breaking, one day I just got fed up with it and sat him down and explained in idiot proof terms what was wrong with the pc, and what could be done, I assured him that no harm would come the pc. he was happy with that and now the contraption is working perfectly.

[Smokey]

{QUOTE-> Luckily I remembered that Spyware Terminator has ClamAV so I enabled that in the shield. My dad said he didn't want any anti virus programs on it. So I enabled that so he won't know. <-QUOTE}
Cheater87, your attitude is condemnable.

We are here on a security forum, and the main reason we are here is to protect us against sneeky acts like yours.
Your reputation on Wilders will be seriously damaged with such inadmissible behavior.

Grtz,

Smokey

[ClassicQ]

Well said Smokey ;)

May our young friend learn the right way to do things.

It is sometimes hard to recognize wrongs and usually even harder to state them, especially when others don't have the same perspective. :-\ May your voice bare fruit with young Cheaters. 8)

Q

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Cheater87, your attitude is condemnable.

We are here on a security forum, and the main reason we are here is to protect us against sneeky acts like yours.
Your reputation on Wilders will be seriously damaged with such inadmissible behavior.

Grtz,

Smokey <-QUOTE}

I agree. If someone tells me they don't want any security software, I just say fine. It is your computer, you can have it they way you want. Just be aware the consequences will also be yours. Then forget it.

[tobacco]

Ah!. One of my favorites - 'Morals'.

I've had this argument on another forum but from the opposite direction, that is the 'Parent' wanted to know what free 'Keylogger' software he could use to see what his children were doing on the computer. I explained to the parent that this was 'Morally Unexceptable', parent or not and that the best way to handle the situation would be to install parental control software and explain it to the kids up front and in the open that this software is in place and what is allowed and was isn't!. But the parent was only interested in 'Sneaking' around behind their backs:thumbd:

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Ah!. One of my favorites - 'Morals'.

I've had this argument on another forum but from the opposite direction, that is the 'Parent' wanted to know what free 'Keylogger' software he could use to see what his children were doing on the computer. I explained to the parent that this was 'Morally Unexceptable', parent or not and that the best way to handle the situation would be to install parental control software and explain it to the kids up front and in the open that this software is in place and what is allowed and was isn't!. But the parent was only interested in 'Sneaking' around behind their backs:thumbd: <-QUOTE}

Yeah, but there is two hugh differences. 1) Parents have a moral, and legal responsibility to know what their kids are doing. Kids don't have the same regarding their parents. 2) Who pays the bills. My parents always said if i wanted complete freedom to be free of supervision, I could have it when I had my own place, but as long as I was under their roof, and they were paying the bills, I lived by their rules.

[herbalist]

The one thing I still don't see here is some explanation of why he doesn't want Avs or security-ware on his PC or what it is he doesn't like. People don't dislike security-ware for no reason. I still think that if you'd openly ask him and post his reasons, there's a good chance we could address his concerns in a way that would satisfy all parties.
Rick

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> The one thing I still don't see here is some explanation of why he doesn't want Avs or security-ware on his PC or what it is he doesn't like. People don't dislike security-ware for no reason. I still think that if you'd openly ask him and post his reasons, there's a good chance we could address his concerns in a way that would satisfy all parties.
Rick <-QUOTE}

Rick, I don't think this is really a security issue. Not sure it's worth pursuing.

Pete

[tobacco]

{QUOTE-> Yeah, but there is two hugh differences. 1) Parents have a moral, and legal responsibility to know what their kids are doing. Kids don't have the same regarding their parents. 2) Who pays the bills. My parents always said if i wanted complete freedom to be free of supervision, I could have it when I had my own place, but as long as I was under their roof, and they were paying the bills, I lived by their rules. <-QUOTE}

lol! Hear we go!

Yes, but can this not be accomplished with out the use of a hidden keylogger?.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> lol! Hear we go!

Yes, but can this not be accomplished with out the use of a hidden keylogger?. <-QUOTE}

Yes Indeedie.

[herbalist]

{QUOTE-> Rick, I don't think this is really a security issue. Not sure it's worth pursuing. <-QUOTE}
The lack of an answer makes me inclined to agree. I have run into instances where users were convinced that any security-ware would bog their system down and thought this might be one of those cases. Gamers and file sharers mainly.

I can't completely agree with the rest of the conclusions and the "morality" rationale. It's not just the users problem when their unprotected PC becomes infected. When it becomes a zombie or infected with a spambot, it becomes everyones problem. The right and wrong aren't aren't so clearly defined when a users wishes are contrary to the greater good, especially when the average user doesn't begin to comprehend what PCs can do when they're used as weapons. Try explaining this to someone who's not computer savvy.
I spent well over a year trying to sway a friend who had cable internet and a long expired AV. To quote her feelings on this:
I don't care what they do with my computer, as long as I can play my games.
Just watching the hard drive and especially the modem LEDs when no one was using it was enough to convince me that this PC was being actively exploited. Is it better to do nothing and watch a friends PC being used to attack or spam someone else or is it better to intervene even when the PCs owner doesn't care? I chose to intervene. Her PC was being used in a DDOS attack.

IMO, a persons right to decide what is or isn't installed on their PC is inseparably tied to responsibility for what that PC does. If by their actions or inactions, someone allows their PC to be used maliciously, others have the right to intervene for the greater good. This doesn't mean that you or I can install a security app on a PC that either of us considers unsecured. If we know for certain that a PC is being used maliciously because it's owner hasn't bothered to secure it, IMO we're obligated to intervene for the sake of others.
I've no doubt that some will not agree.
Rick

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> I spent well over a year trying to sway a friend who had cable internet and a long expired AV. To quote her feelings on this:
I don't care what they do with my computer, as long as I can play my games.
Just watching the hard drive and especially the modem LEDs when no one was using it was enough to convince me that this PC was being actively exploited. Is it better to do nothing and watch a friends PC being used to attack or spam someone else or is it better to intervene even when the PCs owner doesn't care? I chose to intervene. Her PC was being used in a DDOS attack.
Rick <-QUOTE}
Why not teach them a hard lesson? Like installing a keylogger or a RAT and scare then a little.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Why not teach them a hard lesson? Like installing a keylogger or a RAT and scare then a little. <-QUOTE}Well, I suppose we could start with - because that's wrong, pure and simple.

The problem with much of this discussion is that it starts with the immediate premise that the most negative of all potential outcomes is what is inexorably achieved. That's nonsense pure and simple. Could they end up infected with a spambot? Sure. But let's not lose sight of the fact that, depending on usage styles and sites visited, ending up with a completely clean machine could be an alternate or even more probable result. As long as it is consistent with the installed program base and use style, transparent measures such as the use of limited accounts can yield a more effective preventative measure.

I'm all protecting user machines, but the ends are never justified by means such as some of those discussed above. In fact, it is the antithesis of much of what is discussed here and operationally no different than, for example, Sony installing a rootkit on your machine without your knowledge or consent simply because they're concerned about maintaining a high margin revenue stream. In addition, consider the potential fallout if a reluctant user decided to try out an AV or suite based on a change of heart, without knowing one had been surreptitiously installed by a "well-meaning" friend. I think most of us know that the potential outcome of that situation may not be all that pretty and could be a complete disaster.

No, the world does not need stealth system admins protecting everyone from themselves. People should focus keeping their own homes in order, offering a helping hand when it is needed or requested, and understanding that there are boundaries that should not be crossed.

Blue

[herbalist]

I'll agree that installing an AV without their knowing isn't a good idea but I don't have a problem with forcing them to realize that they need one.
{QUOTE-> Why not teach them a hard lesson? Like installing a keylogger or a RAT and scare then a little. <-QUOTE}
I thought about doing just that but decided on something not quite as extreme. Gamers don't like it when things open up on top of a game.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> I'll agree that installing an AV without their knowing isn't a good idea but I don't have a problem with forcing them to realize that they need one. <-QUOTE}I guess I have a major issue with the "forcing". If it is my machine, it is not forced, it is simply a condition for use. If it is not my machine, I really have no business forcing my preconceived notions of what is proper on the owner of that machine.

After all, how is this materially different than you ISP requiring/forcing you to use product X only, nothing else, and no more than that simply because they have determined that this is what is "best" for you? Would you have a problem with that if it occurred?

Blue

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> Well, I suppose we could start with - because that's wrong, pure and simple.

The problem with much of this discussion is that it starts with the immediate premise that the most negative of all potential outcomes is what is inexorably achieved. That's nonsense pure and simple. Could they end up infected with a spambot? Sure. But let's not lose sight of the fact that, depending on usage styles and sites visited, ending up with a completely clean machine could be an alternate or even more probable result. As long as it is consistent with the installed program base and use style, transparent measures such as the use of limited accounts can yield a more effective preventative measure.

I'm all protecting user machines, but the ends are never justified by means such as some of those discussed above. In fact, it is the antithesis of much of what is discussed here and operationally no different than, for example, Sony installing a rootkit on your machine without your knowledge or consent simply because they're concerned about maintaining a high margin revenue stream. In addition, consider the potential fallout if a reluctant user decided to try out an AV or suite based on a change of heart, without knowing one had been surreptitiously installed by a "well-meaning" friend. I think most of us know that the potential outcome of that situation may not be all that pretty and could be a complete disaster.

No, the world does not need stealth system admins protecting everyone from themselves. People should focus keeping their own homes in order, offering a helping hand when it is needed or requested, and understanding that there are boundaries that should not be crossed.

Blue <-QUOTE}
You are right. But I think you have not understood me completely.
I was thinking in requesting permission to make a demonstration of potential damage caused by malware and provide reading material about phishing, spam, botnets, identity thief, etc. This is different from installing malware without consent.

[mercurie]

{QUOTE-> I guess I have a major issue with the "forcing". If it is my machine, it is not forced, it is simply a condition for use. If it is not my machine, I really have no business forcing my preconceived notions of what is proper on the owner of that machine.

After all, how is this materially different than you ISP requiring/forcing you to use product X only, nothing else, and no more than that simply because they have determined that this is what is "best" for you? Would you have a problem with that if it occurred?

Blue <-QUOTE}Good point. I have had to throw in the towel many a time, (give up) and say I have done all I can. If the person will not listen then you should not "force" the issue.

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> I don't care what they do with my computer, as long as I can play my games. <-QUOTE}

I thought about this sentence and it sort of was close to a situation regarding one of my older PCs earlier which appeared to react oddly after I installed a replacement AV program to it. The mouse cursor would hesitate every few seconds when I moved it across the screen. My response to this was "WTF is going on here?!". I had no applications opened and I had to wait every few seconds just to move the mouse pointer from one icon area to the other. The hesitation continued when I started any application as well. Now if every AV program produced the same problem on my system, I think I would come close to saying "to hell with AV protection" and just boot up the PC without it. That would then make my PC more vulnerable, of course. But the annoyance of having to "drag and wait" for the mouse cursor to respond was quite aggravating. Playing a PC game (which I don't do anyway) would obviously have been affected. The hesitation issue appears to have been resolved now, so I was able to use the system without the annoying drag.:isay:

[lodore]

it seems that windows 98 and windows ME are the only OS to be affected by the mouse drag.
i had that mouse drag when trying most av's on my windows me system.
happerned with antivir dr web etc.
lodore