Best AV, Schmest AV!

[jlowell]

Pardon the play on words, but reviewing the most recent reviews of AV software, one gets the impression that there are two clear leaders depending upon what you most need to protect yourself against: NOD32 if you want protection against the most vicious and recent little devils brought into being out there - and even some that many not deserve the name - and KAV if you want protection against known entities and don't care to speculate much about definitions. I realize that the reasoning process prefers categories and generalizations to vacilation and deep analysis, but for the sake of discussion, would you consider the above a valid conclusion?
Here's one of the bases for it:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Comments?

jlowell

[ronjor]

jlowell

I modified your link. AV-Comparatives.org does not want direct links to test data.


{QUOTE-> Please link ONLY to our main site www.av-comparatives.org and not to the other subpages.
It's forbidden to use/provide our test results/documents on other sites without our permission.
If you find anything on other sites, please inform the forum/site admin to remove it.
<-QUOTE}

[jlowell]

ronjor,

Thank you for saving me the trouble; I hadn't realized that there might be a need for modification. Its all in knowing your way around it would seem.
:)

jlowell

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Pardon the play on words, but reviewing the most recent reviews of AV software, one gets the impression that there are two clear leaders depending upon what you most need to protect yourself against: NOD32 if you want protection against the most vicious and recent little devils brought into being out there - and even some that many not deserve the name - and KAV if you want protection against known entities and don't care to speculate much about definitions. I realize that the reasoning process prefers categories and generalizations to vacilation and deep analysis, but for the sake of discussion, would you consider the above a valid conclusion?
Here's one of the bases for it:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Comments?

jlowell <-QUOTE}
Yes I would but Bitdefender is bidding to become a front runner as well.

[ronjor]

{QUOTE-> ronjor,

Thank you for saving me the trouble; I hadn't realized that there might be a need for modification. Its all in knowing your way around it would seem.
:)

jlowell <-QUOTE}

Maybe this would work. Go to AV-Comparatives.org, online results, number six.

[richrf]

Hi jlowell,

If someone is looking at it purely from the perspective of detection capabilities, then it is possible to make a very strong case for KAV since KAV is detection upwards to 99% of the malware out there, plus it has very rapid response on any new malware that is discovered. NOD32, as you indicated, has demonstrably one of the best (possibly the best) heuristic engines, for detecting new malware - though its overall detection rate is somewhat lower than KAV across all types of malware.

However, if you read the various threads on this forum, there are other variables that must be addressed by each individual when choosing an AV, e.g. cost, resource usage, compatibility with other system software, availability for a specific platform, support, performance, usability, etc.

Each user will weigh each variable, and hopefully come up with an AV that best suits their needs. Personally, when working with friends who are having problems with infections, I usually start with KAV and see where it goes from there. But everyone has a slightly different perspective on what is important for an AV, so naturally you will have a reasonably large selection of AV products to choose from.

Cya around,
Rich

[SDS909]

{QUOTE-> Pardon the play on words, but reviewing the most recent reviews of AV software, one gets the impression that there are two clear leaders depending upon what you most need to protect yourself <-QUOTE}

Says who? You? One site? Please... The leader is a very subjective thing, and certainly including NOD32 in the mix is subjective to your opinion.

How do you define leader? Sales? Then Norton wins.. Detections? Then KAV wins. Lightweight? Then DrWeb or VBA32 win. Heuristics? a few win.

Declaring a 'Leader' without the conditions of the lead and varied and diverse data to substantiate this claim is pretty bold and irresponsible imo.

[waters]

Asking for coments is fine but remember, nod has a forum here so take replys as such.

[jlowell]

SDS909,

You say:

"Declaring a 'Leader' without the conditions of the lead and varied and diverse data to substantiate this claim is pretty bold and irresponsible imo."

There I go again, citing reliable sources and being utterly irresponsible. Will the need for change ever impress itself sufficiently upon me? The whole thing is reprehensible, particularly so since I'm held in such high regard by known experts. ???

jlowell

[pvsurfer]

{QUOTE-> Says who? You? One site? Please... The leader is a very subjective thing, and certainly including NOD32 in the mix is subjective to your opinion.

How do you define leader? Sales? Then Norton wins.. Detections? Then KAV wins. Lightweight? Then DrWeb or VBA32 win. Heuristics? a few win.

Declaring a 'Leader' without the conditions of the lead and varied and diverse data to substantiate this claim is pretty bold and irresponsible imo. <-QUOTE}
I have to disagree with this premise. It seems to me that the clear objective of an AV product is obvious and measuring how well an AV accomplishes its objective should not be based on its sales, how 'light-weight' it is, or whether it uses a virus definition database, heuristics, or voodoo.

As I see it, the real problem in determing the best AV is the same problem as with any test. The test or benchmark is only as good as its construct and accuracy. Therein lies the difficulty.

Just my $.02 worth... ;)

[bigc73542]

I use the best av that Is available at this time in my opinion even though I am a low risk surfer. But as to an overall best av, that is very subjective as to what is best for each individual. What I consider the best av might not be for someone else due to cost, resource usage or complexity in configuration. Or their may even be other reasons as to why. But just choosing one antivirus program to be the best overall is an act in futility, there is no such thing IMO.

bigc

[richrf]

Hi Bigc,

Very true indeed. A AV can have the best overall dectection on the planet, but if a user cannot use it, then it is for all intents useless to that user. There are many factors that render an AV more or less suitable for a given person. I always try to remember that everyone looks at things from a different colored lens.

Rich

[SDS909]

I use the best AV in the world.. Common Sense..

Seriously, in actual tests i've performed, Safe'n'Sec as the *ONLY* protection on a PC and I was unable to effective pass it, and infect it. That is with on-demand scanning new files I recieve, and relying on its ID type protections incase I missed something.

The point is I guess, the best AV is pretty relative.

[richrf]

Hi SDS909,

I am guessing that you are referring to the version of SnS + BitDefender. Yes, I have also found this kind of multi-prong approach to security is extremely effective. I use, as you know, KAV+Ewido+ProcessGuard+RegDefend and nothing has ever gotten past this defense on any of the machines that I have installed it. It is very powerful. But no matter how good a defense may be, there is always a hole lurking somewhere, so I use caution when surfing. I am certainly no maniac surfer. :)

As for "commonsense", I would need to have it defined before I can recommend it so someone. Conceptually, it may be more difficult to grasp than the concept of "the best AV". :)

Cya around,
Rich

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Says who? You? One site? Please... The leader is a very subjective thing, and certainly including NOD32 in the mix is subjective to your opinion.

How do you define leader? Sales? Then Norton wins.. Detections? Then KAV wins. Lightweight? Then DrWeb or VBA32 win. Heuristics? a few win.

Declaring a 'Leader' without the conditions of the lead and varied and diverse data to substantiate this claim is pretty bold and irresponsible imo. <-QUOTE}
Generally in business it is considered good practice to flatter and persuade your potential customers, not attack them. i don't think you made a sale here.

[SDS909]

{QUOTE-> Generally in business it is considered good practice to flatter and persuade your potential customers, not attack them. i don't think you made a sale here. <-QUOTE}

Uhh, I don't sell anything. You must have me confused with someone else.

I can't be the only one that gets sick of these "I proudly proclaim XYZ-AV to be the best because of XYZXYZ reasons!".. I mean come on, it is like a rite of passage for newcomers to post something silly like this or something. They are gettin' old.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Uhh, I don't sell anything. You must have me confused with someone else.

I can't be the only one that gets sick of these "I proudly proclaim XYZ-AV to be the best because of XYZXYZ reasons!".. I mean come on, it is like a rite of passage for newcomers to post something silly like this or something. They are gettin' old. <-QUOTE}
Veterans also seem to post stuff like that from time to time but that's just enthusiasim. I haven't been here that long myself. As for it getting old imagine how a moderator must feel reading some of our stuff. Thousands of posts. For us newer guys it seems like finding the Holy Grail when we find a program that does what we need. As we gain experience with various security programs and read the posts of more experienced posters concerning the programs they use we'll tone it down. And yes I did have you confused with someone else. Sorry but I thought you were associated with the company obviously that is not the case.

[jlowell]

The Hammer,

You say:

"Generally in business it is considered good practice to flatter and persuade your potential customers, not attack them. i don't think you made a sale here."

You certainly got that right! Let's be charitable and just say that SDS909's strengths aren't inter-personal. I'm told that strong purgatives and larger sized underwear can help in cases like this though. Either that or prayer and hourly sessions in front of a mirror solemnly promising himself that, just for today, he won't embarrass himself by being such a schlemiel.

jlowell

[SDS909]

I'm absolutely not embarrased. But i'd be embarrased if I came to this forum and proclaimed av-comparatives as cool and new, and the best source of all things AV.

[BlueZannetti]

OK folks, could we please keep the discussion focused on the nominal topic of the thread and leave the personal jabs aside? Thanks.

Blue

[Anon]

The best AV is the one I'm using, untill I'm convinced otherwise anyway.

It's the same for everyone else I bet.

[StarrobinSingapore]

{QUOTE->

As for "commonsense", I would need to have it defined before I can recommend it so someone. Conceptually, it may be more difficult to grasp than the concept of "the best AV". :)

Cya around,
Rich <-QUOTE}


I know that many people have reccomended using common sense before.....but in one aspect of reality all common sense (as it applies to security) really appears to be is the knowledge level of a particular user on how best to keep the computer secure at a given point in time.

In my opinion, reccomending "common sense" as a one all, be all approach is just as bogus as telling someone to load up their computer with so much security software that the computer is at a virtual standstill.

Different solutions apply to different situations. The level of knowledge of the computer user is one consideration. For someone that is highly educated in computers....well, they might need virtually no security software because their level of knowledge is so high that commonsense helps them avoid many dangers.

For other users who have no education or little education.....well they might need a whole lot more security software on their computer to overcome their lack of knowledge/judgement.

It might be one persons path to load up their computers with security software as a noob and as they educate themselves over weeks, months, years drop their security software requirements down to virtually nil.

We are all on different paths and to me the percentages are extremely low that someone will find a "one all, Be all" approach. The reasons why there are so many AV's is because there is no AV that provides the best solution for all.

It is just my opinion but usually the "who is number one?" have three types of people. Those that I consider of lesser knowledge will argue about how the software they use is number one. The ones of greater knowledge don't argue which one is the best but mostly focus on feature comparisons and then there are the people that are in between....They will compare features and then argue their software is number one.

But of course this is just my opinion and it is subject to change with time.



Starrob

[richrf]

Hi Starrob,

I agree. In the interest in helping someone, I would neither recommend "commonsense" (it has not concrete defintion that someone can act upon), nor would I recommend "hardening your system" (also undefined and quite open-ended). As an alternative, I would recommend, for example:

1) avoiding porn sites
2) avoiding the use of P2P
3) avoid downloading applications from untrusted sites
4) avoid opening attachments
5) avoid linking to sites direclty from email

I think these are more concrete suggestions that can be discussed. But notice, each one of these are "avoid" and require judgment - as does the use of many software tools, and thus subject to mistakes and errors. So no approach is perfect.

Hope you are enjoying yourself in Singapore!

Cya,
Rich

[Anon]

{QUOTE-> Hi Starrob,

I agree. In the interest in helping someone, I would neither recommend "commonsense" (it has not concrete defintion that someone can act upon), nor would I recommend "hardening your system" (also undefined and quite open-ended).
<-QUOTE}

For some terms "hardening your system" I agree would have to be broken down naturally, but the assumption normally is that someone who is a regular here knows full well what to do.

If you don't know what to do, feel free to ask.

As for common sense, I notice you have zero problem in comining up with fairly effective list, despite not even being close to being an expert on computer malware.

If you can do it, I don't see what's so uncommon about it.

Of course, there are users below even your level, but here's where we rely on you to educate them.

[richrf]

Hi Anon,

Yes, my point is that there is a difference between articulating a specific list and using generalized terms. What is interesting about an actual list, as opposed to generalized terms, is that a list can be discussed and problems with the list can be uncovered. There is nothing in my "commonsense list" that cannot be disputed because they all require "judgement". In other words, there is no perfect recommendation - not even "commonsense", commonsense being one of the most imperfect since it is both undefined and requires the imagination of the reader. Even worse is "hardening of the system" which not only requires imagination but a leap into the stratosphere for most new users, who ostensibly would be the type of persons asking the question.

There are all kinds of expertise required by an "expert". Some of them would be understanding of the problem in question, ability to articulate a solution, listening skills, patience, empathy, communication skills, etc.

Cya,
Rich

[SDS909]

Just pick a couple good security products, add a hardware firewall, relax and be happy. Life is too short to sit around worrying if there is a trojan around the next corner .

You don't need to license 10 security products to have a protected PC.

[Anon]

{QUOTE->
There are all kinds of expertise required by an "expert". Some of them would be understanding of the problem in question, ability to articulate a solution, listening skills, patience, empathy, communication skills, etc.

Cya,
Rich <-QUOTE}

Rich, Yes, all these is important, but being technically proficient is the most basic requirement of all, without which, it is all for naught.

As for your other remarks, it's pretty obvious that one would never dream of saying 'harden your OS' to a newbie, but here among relatively skilled users, such terms can be thrown about freely with a high possibilty of both sides knowing what is being specified to a high level of accuracy.

And again, if you only have a vague idea of what is meant by this, don't by shy to ask.

{QUOTE-> There is nothing in my "commonsense list" that cannot be disputed because they all require "judgement". In other words, there is no perfect recommendation - not even "commonsense", commonsense being one of the most imperfect since it is both undefined and requires the imagination of the reader. <-QUOTE}

Common sense appears to be a catchall term for a common pool of basic computer practises that all experienced computer users acquire. Some of which you have already listed. Though , there is obviously some room for debate, by and large most of the principles and practices are not disputed.

Admittedly, the knowledge is not as "common" as hoped, though it should be, at least around these parts.

There is some judgement involved, I suppose, since people might dispute over whether a site is a porn site or not :)

Your list is fine for a complete newbie, but a higher skilled user might add a few qualifers to your list. For example not all attachments are as dangerous as others, the difference between an expected email and one not expected.

And so it goes.

It is not perfectly defined as you can see, and some people have higher degrees of knowledge (Do you use a hex editor to look at a file first?) but it's relatively trival to look at someone's behavior and conclude with a high level of agreement whether he has "common sense" or not.

Someone opening an unexpected exe file from someone unknown could easily be classified as lacking 'common sense', or basic computer security knowledge or he just doesn't care.

Anyone who lacks even the basic knowledge on how to protect himself is doomed for failure, regardless of the software he uses.

The basic knowledge has to be there before adding security software. Unfortunately, there's a much easier tendency to blame software for failing to protect one's computer (Norton sucks etc.), then to admit one's own responsibility for the failure.

[controler]

Hello all


Here is one thing I mentioned here before & is a fact.
Before 911, Most state run agencies IT people), those that housed social workers didn't even keep their AV Defs up to date. Then when their workers computers got infected they were blaming the poor workers. After 911, the gov started cracking down and wanted to make sure gov info was being
guarded. What did they do? well they installed computer minitoring programs on their workers. Most of the infections came by way of e-mail.
What I also found the the young punk IT personal didn't want to listen to sdvice given to them by the workers , whci some of the workers got from people like myself. Some of these It personal even took care of the olice computers at the same time. Now that is one scarry thought isn't it?
Like many of the AV gurus will tell you, All that is needed is to change an entry point or some other file altering way in order to evade AV's.
Drive by downloads are becomming more sinister. P2P downloads are so very popular & are infecting millions all the time.
I do think public computers should be controled with software such as Microsofts shared computer toolkit.
and it sure doesn't hurt to have it on home computers along with other protection such as PG set to never allow new drivers ect. I think PG still needs some tweaking to make it more user friendly to common home users.
CD bootable Os's are nice but you have to resetup everything everytime you boot. Such as knoppix. I have used it and like it.
Windows rootkits are the future for right now without alot of solutions.
it is nice to see so many now using imaging software.

controler

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Just pick a couple good security products, add a hardware firewall, relax and be happy. Life is too short to sit around worrying if there is a trojan around the next corner .

You don't need to license 10 security products to have a protected PC. <-QUOTE}
What is your current setup? And would you equip a noobie differently than yourself?

[richrf]

{QUOTE-> Just pick a couple good security products, add a hardware firewall, relax and be happy. Life is too short to sit around worrying if there is a trojan around the next corner .

You don't need to license 10 security products to have a protected PC. <-QUOTE}

Can you be more specific? Which two security products would you recommend? And which hardware firewall? "Good" is very subjective and my guess is that it is possible to find a group of people who would consider any given security product as being "good". This would imply just choosing any two security products which I don't think is your intention (but I could be wrong). Thanks.

Rich

[SDS909]

Good is relative as well. For me, I want the lightest and lowest footprint AV's possible on my personal machines. Not because my machines are slow - quite the opposite, all of my machines are 3Ghz or higher. I just don't like conflicts or products that increase drag.

My security consists of SMC Barricade SPI Hardware Firewall, Dr.Web or VBA32, and Safe'n'Sec+AV.

On noOb machines I setup, I install GDATA AVK(KAV and BitDefender engines on) and Safe'n'Sec (non-av, set to trusting). I've yet to have to find any threats on any of the hundreds i've setup this way - and prior to this - these were infested.

I also install, and encourage the switch to Firefox, which helps fend off a majority of infestation issues.

[richrf]

Thanks SDS909 for the additional info.

Rich

[Starrobinsingapore]

{QUOTE->

It is not perfectly defined as you can see, and some people have higher degrees of knowledge (Do you use a hex editor to look at a file first?) but it's relatively trival to look at someone's behavior and conclude with a high level of agreement whether he has "common sense" or not.

<-QUOTE}


I only agree with this statement if it is qualified. i agree if the statement is worded this way:

"It is not perfectly defined as you can see, and some people have higher degrees of knowledge (Do you use a hex editor to look at a file first?) but it's relatively trival to look at someone's behavior and conclude with a high level of agreement whether he has "common sense" or not, IN MY OPINION."


A extremely high percentage of the statements that I read on this board appear to be nothing more than a relative opinion. Time appears relative and if you add that to the equation, for someone that lived in the time of Jesus Christ, it might not be "common sense" to be afraid of someone having a loaded gun pointed at them because it was not in their framework of knowledge to know what a gun is at that period in earth's history.

Just as today...there are some that don't know what trojans, viruses, keyloggers, spyware are and if you go out into the jungles of Borneo, the people there might not know or care but then again some of the inhabitants of Borneo might be able to survive out in the jungle for a lot longer period of time than anyone on this board. Do I lack commonsense for not being able to survive in the jungle? From my relative point of view, "I don't think I could survive in the jungle long" but I do think I lack the knowledge on how to keep myself alive.

In my opinion, a word like common sense is meaningless. What does have meaning is levels of knowledge. There may be in this seemingly infinite universe the possibility that someone with limited or unlimited knowledge (and everything in between) that might require ten different security softwares at a given point in time and knowledge.

I used to think I had all the answers at one point in my life but then again, I learned over time that there is simply too many variables for me to accurately predict a situation 100% of the time.

To me...Common sense appears to be only common in the mind of the beholder. In my opinion, it is best for everyone to seek the best solution for them considering all of the factors that they consider important to them.



Starrob

[richrf]

Hi Starrob,

Yes, I agree. Rather than to tell someone to use commonsense, I suggest specific advice that are actionable and can be reviewed by others as well as tested. "Commonsense" is not specific, it is not actionable, it cannot be reviewed or commented on, and it certainly cannot be tested. What's more, what is considered "commonsense", as you pointed out, changes from place to place, moment to moment, as new information is gathered.

As for expert knowledge, technical knowledge is useless, if it is not applied and communicated correctly. Technical expertise is just one aspect among other equal aspects. If it is not communicated and applied to a specific problem in the correct way, then it not only is useless, it can be quite harmful. That's commonsense. ;)

Cya,
Rich

[Mrkvonic]

Hi,
The biggest problem with people is the gap between mental and physical abilites. Anyone can buy a computer. But you need no qualification whatsoever to use it. Internet driving has so many unlicenced drivers out there, people who do not even know how to properly reboot, and yet, they surf and donwload things and use p2p and then they wonder what's wrong.
Common sense should be teaching people how to use their computers. 99% of people are virtually computer illiterate. They have the ignorant sort of common sense, which says I'll click anyway, what can happen.
I cannot understand how can someone surf and not even know what a trojan horse is. That's like driving and not knowing what a stop sign is.
That's my speech for the moment.
Mrk

[richrf]

Hi Mrk,

PCs are marketed as such (very easy to use) - and people believe it. Unfortuntately, we all go through these "learning lessons" in life. However, within a short time, I think people begin to realize the difficulties and seek solutions. Very similar to buying and owning a house.

Cya,
Rich

[Anon]

{QUOTE-> A extremely high percentage of the statements that I read on this board appear to be nothing more than a relative opinion. Time appears relative and if you add that to the equation, for someone that lived in the time of Jesus Christ, it might not be "common sense" to be afraid of someone having a loaded gun pointed at them because it was not in their framework of knowledge to know what a gun is at that period in earth's histor <-QUOTE}

Starrob, what possible relevance is this?

This is a security forum, not a philosophy forum for you to push your Relativism on the rest of us.

For some who believes that there is nothing but opinions, you sure like to rebuke everyone and push your opinions on others.

[Anon]

{QUOTE-> Hi Starrob,


As for expert knowledge, technical knowledge is useless, if it is not applied and communicated correctly.
Cya,
Rich <-QUOTE}

So says one who doesn't have any techical expertise. :)

[Starrobinsingapore]

{QUOTE-> Starrob, what possible relevance is this?

This is a security forum, not a philosophy forum for you to push your Relativism on the rest of us.

For some who believes that there is nothing but opinions, you sure like to rebuke everyone and push your opinions on others. <-QUOTE}


I only make comments like everyone else. I don't push my opinions on anybody. Whether someone believes I push my opinions is in the mind of the beholder.

This is a security forum and to me security appears to be very much a philosophy. There are many different philosphies on how to secure computers on this board and I make comments like everyone else.

Some accept my comments. Others reject my comments and others are neutral. It is up to the individual.

One belief that I do have is that everyone should be able to decide what security that they want on their own computers. Some disagree with this notion....like possibly Microsoft. Sometimes, I read about things that are disturbing to me concerning Longhorn....like possibly Microsoft and/or partners wanting to control more of what is on my computer.

I am not sure if this is true or not. We will have to see when Longhorn comes out.



Starrob

[richrf]

As an ordinary PC user (with admittedly some extra computer background in my career), I need to determine for myself whose advice to investigate. Usually, when I look for advice, I take the demeanor and approch of the advisor quite seriously. For example, (and just as an example), I am always quite interested in Starrob's comments (among many others on this forum) because I understand his approach and he is quite clear on what he is trying to say (at least from my perspective) and - he is never condescending. This is important to me when evaluating advice.

Rich

[Anon]

{QUOTE-> I only make comments like everyone else. I don't push my opinions on anybody. Whether someone believes I push my opinions is in the mind of the beholder. <-QUOTE}

I only make comments like everyone else. I don't push my opinions on anybody. Whether someone believes I push my opinions is in the mind of the beholder.

[Anon]

{QUOTE-> As an ordinary PC user (with admittedly some extra computer background in my career), I need to determine for myself whose advice to investigate. Usually, when I look for advice, I take the demeanor and approch of the advisor quite seriously. For example, (and just as an example), I am always quite interested in Starrob's comments (among many others on this forum) because I understand his approach and he is quite clear on what he is trying to say (at least from my perspective) and - he is never condescending. This is important to me when evaluating advice.

Rich <-QUOTE}

Are you shocked to know that Starrob thinks you are far more wrong (70%-80%) than you are right?

[richrf]

No, I am not surprised. 20 - 30% agreement in this world is pretty good. Better than I have with most of my friends. :) However, since you are speaking for Starrob, (probably based on confidential discussions) and he is not speaking for himself, I will leave it at that. "Wrong" and "right" are extremely subjective.

As I said, I choose who I listen to. This does not mean I blindly follow any one person's advice or preference. I take a little from here ... and I take a little from there ... and that is how I develop my own preferences. As I said demeanoer is one quality I look for. But there are lots of people on this forum who have very nice demeanors and still can disagree. There are many things that Starrob does that I do not do. And that is the way the world turns.

BTW, I am sure that Starrob is pleased that you are now speaking on his behalf.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Are you shocked to know that Starrob thinks you are far more wrong (70%-80%) than you are right? <-QUOTE}
If and when I need more security advice richrf is probably one of those I will seek out. The reason being ,that as one of the illiterate great unwashed horde out there, I know that I can ask what might seem like the dummest question and not get a condesending answer or a quick dismissal. I have learned a lot reading his posts and he does not seem overly impressed with himself.

[Starrobleavingsing]

Well, I would comment but I have to leave this debate. It is my last day in Singapore. I have to go out and have some fun in the real world before I leave.

Maybe I'll flip a coin and decide to comment when I get home or maybe not....LOL...I don't take all this as seriously as some people. I only take computer security seriously when it comes to my own computer. I leave it to others to decide what they want to do.....Bye until I hit the USA!!!


Starrob leaving Singapore