Minimalistic vs. maximalistic - right approach to security

looks to be the same scanspyware, only problem i have had with it is twice the display has screwed up (video card issue), but i have found it has cleared issues that ad-aware, spybot, and a few others couldn't. and Pc's with serious spyware issues have run well after a full scan.
I'm satisfied with the job it's done for the 2 years I've been using it.
maybe being purchased helps?

 

It might make for some good (optional) profile fields.. although making your posts clear and appropriate for all skill levels is the most beneficial to others, as well as a good chalenge in itself.

I agree.. sometimes you can even get better performance. Take NOD32 and Look'n'Stop for example.. there's a lot of room for other apps before you start getting bogged down like F-Secure or Norton. Disable some services and you have even more room.

This is why I recommend commercial tools over free ones if you don't have the time or know-how to troubleshoot. Commercial tools will have dedicated support and much more time and emphasis put on usability and reliability. This is also why many good free programs go commercial, or at least have a commercial enhanced version. To be conservative, however, you could use just Secure-It and Harden-It for good protection. WWDC is also the first and most basic to me, I've never had any problems with it stopping other services from running.. I don't think anything depends on RPC Locator (RPC would do it, but not the Locator)

XMLHTTP.. you can always enable them one at a time and go to Windows Update after each one.

 

Well as you know i'm no techie, but if the code can run in the context of a trusted program it will likely bypass all your other defenses. And then there's this talk about Shadowwalker memory cloaked stuff I think. Sounds scary.

I don't know, I have being reading these forums since late 2002, and had a interest in computer security a few years before that, and I still don't understand what's going on, or how safe I really am. Maybe I'm dumb, but for me the bar is high enough

Really? I have read that hackers when they will 'fingerprint' the operating system, and try to scout out the network. In big enough cases, they even create mocks up the network so they can probe it for weaknesses. Information is vital in war.

Okay so that is for big jobs, but even for small jobs, even such information can be vital. If I know you use product x, i can test product x for weaknesess. Or if i know you don't put much stock into application control for
firewalls, i don't need to worry about that after sneaking in the stuff. Or if I know you AV brand x, rootkit scanner brand y, I can buy the right verson of Hackdefender that is invisble to them.

Are you saying there is a 100% foolproof method against buffer overflows?? Which product do you recommend?

Well the point is v4.2 has being in use for months, during this period, anyone who knew the weakness could have hurt me! Presumably if i was using Pmail of course.

Exactly, why do you think I post as guest! but seriously the dangerous thing is not registering, but registering with the same alias, all throughout the internet. It is easy enough to do a google search, or googlegroup search and build a profile of you, your interests, your job, your real life, your habits, your setups. It's amazing what you can find out!

 

It's hard to give options that make sense without knowing much about what the user is facing. You are one of the advocates of the idea that there is no one size fits all, so surely knowing the 'size of the feet' of the poster is of great importance.

And if you think that an 'arbitary collection of citeria' is going to nip discussion in the bud, I think you underestimate the people's awesome ability to disagree even when faced with the same facts/evidence.

Of course, when there are ZERO facts , people are going to disagree even more wildly, since anything goes.

I would be inclined to agree, but I don't think we should actively discourage people who after all, may simply be the most risk adverse of us all, particularly if they insist they dont suffer popup fatiage and the system is stable.

Really? I would think the more enlightened members here , most of whom are in this thread would never be so foolish. I do remember one particular offender, but he doesnt seem to be posting anymore.

I would agree it exists a little but is far more subtle these days. For example, when you encouraged me to 'encourage their direction based on your read of the area' or when you talk about people doing so in the guise of "should I switch".

One thing i noticed , in Wilders, the act of saying a particular software is horrible or useless or bad even if backed by solid technical grounds , is usually a far worse crime then saying a particular software is a "must have" , neigh, one that you should have or you will be hacked before you can say "must have".

Because of this, you only hear people saying X is the best firewall, or X is good seldom if ever X is bad or horrible. Slightly more often people IMPLY that
say Ewido is better than Trojanhunter (just an example), by encouraging a switch, but they seldom say it outright.

Any newbie listening to advise can rely on people telling him what to add, but seldom on what to remove.

So people say things like You *must* get OA, but *maybe* you can drop Spywareguard if your computer feels slow, otherwise it can't hurt. People are always sure what you should add, but shy away from telling you what to drop, this leads to a upward creep in software load.

Seems like a solid 'Yes' to me. Even when you think of using KIS, you want to disable some functions to mix and match.

 

The link, I mentioned, is created by E. Howes, a well-known security expert.
I don't recommend any AntiSpyware that is mentioned on this list, even the ones that were de-listed later, like XoftSpy for instance.
The link also contains the good AntiSpywares, that can be trusted, if you read a little further.
It's entirely up to you, to use whatever you want. It's just a friendly warning.

 

Well, I do use SnS and one protection is writing into the space of another process. Is it infallible? I don't know. Does it work? Well, to the extent that I've tested it, yes.

High is relative I guess.

I do implicitly assume that they will focus on the big fish. For this information to be germane, it has to be a directed attack. I wouldn't dismiss that from a disguntled netizen aiming to stalk or make things miserable for someone, but that situation is typically known. I simply don't buy that this information must be held as tightly as one's bank card access number.

No, directly, none.

The same could be said for any fundamental OS-based security hole, but it all comes back to gaining execution access on your machine.

Well, in my case, one would find I frequent a couple of security sites and probably a few more details. Nothing that I would be reluctant for anyone to know simply because the leap from a couple of incidental facts about me to knowing sensitive information is rather large. But I do agree with the underlying theme, sometimes people divulge information too freely or casually (e.g. screen shots that display e-mail addresses, etc.).

Blue

 

Hopefully, that information will emerge as the discussion is joined. As the entry ticket to admission to the discussion, it seems a bit steep.

OK, you have me here. I do run into many cases of folks unwilling to let a couple of clear experimental facts ruin a perfectly good theory.

This is clearly my own prejudice, and I do try to convey that explicitly.

The nature of the TOS is one thing that does keep our eyes heightened to unsupported bashing. Unsupported glowing recommendations will also typically be brought back to ground, but by fellow posters. In both cases a correcting mechanism is in place.

Discussions in which the deficiencies in a particular product are covered unfortunately frequently become emotionally charged and no longer centered on the technical facts. On occasion, what constitutes a technical fact may also be in dispute - an example of this would be user based AV/AT performance tests using small test beds of uncertain parentage and validity.

I would hope that any new reader seeing any product positioned as absolute "must have" should approach the disucssion with a firm buyer beware conviction.

In part, that could be experience talking. For example, when I am interested in a product, I will trial it. I have multiple home systems and any purchase is generally done with an eye in maintaining a common configuration base, so if the trial works out and the product agrees with me, I will generally buy a single copy for some serious personal testing. I picked up Ewido some time ago, have the paid version on my machine the free version on the others, but use BOClean as my main AT/memory scanner at present. Trojanhunter competes with both. I've never trialed TH, so I can't personally comment on it. There are folks I respect who use it and swear by it, others who object to some aspects of it. From the outside it looks to be a solid product to me. I typically note this product area as a group with a number of solid entries (Ewido/TH/BOclean/a2)

Maybe that's where the "Blue plan" came from, a natural brake against that tendency.

OK, guilty as charged

Blue

 

It's a while ago now but as I recall it was Win 98 and IE.

 

What types of programs would these be?

 

Hi,
You can use the built-in options in every browser. But these options turn your choices global. For Firefox, there are very convenient extensions, like Noscript, Adblock and Flashblock, which allow you to remove ads, turns flash movies into clickable items that will show only if you choose, but mostly importantly, Noscript is a console that controls java and javascript, and allows you to allow them per site. Thus, you broswer conveniently with least functionality & max. security, and if you hit a site that you DO trust and you know you need java or javascript, you just right-click and temporarily (or permanently) allow the engines for the site. Very useful.
You can find Firefox and these extensions at the official mozilla site.
http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/?application=firefox
Mrk