OK so you have your AntiVirus software installed, set up and running and automatically checking for updates whenever you are online; your Firewall is blocking unwanted traffic and shielding you from all those nasties; your Pop-Up blocker is set up and you feel safe as houses. Right? WRONG!

Unless you have a good antispyware program running the ickle gits in SPAM land can still get to you. There are several good ones out there, you can even get one from Yahoo which runs on a toolbar in IE6.0 and above. However I recommend Spybot Search and Destroy, AdAware and (shock, horror) Microsoft AntiSpyWare.

Yes you read right a Microsoft product actually being recommended!! It's easy to use, simple to set up and very efficient, it even found stuff on my laptop that neither Spybot nor AdAware picked up so must be good. Its only available via the Windoes site and is a test version right now but I have to say its worth downloading.

So don't let the ickle gits have their fun make sure you protect yourself in CyberSpace. Best thing is there are still free AV and SpyWare software to be had on the net so no excuses about cost.

Alex
xxx

I prefer to use firefox. It's Internet Explorer that's the problem. Since using firefox, I've had no problem.

Incidentally, niether adaware nor spybot can remove one of the most prolific pieces of rubbish on the web, Cool Web Search.

So CWS Shredder is also a usefull application to have handy.

I used Firefox for a while but started having problems getting in here and my Internet banking doesn't work with it so had to revert back to IE, hence the reason why I take so many precautions against all the nasty ickle gits out there.

Thing is even using non Microsoft products, like Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, the viruses etc can still get on your machine if you are not careful. Better safe than sorry.

indeed, A virus will get to your machine nomatter what browser you use, by the nature of what they are.That said, Worm is usually written with a particular vulnerability in mind, and we all know that the browser with the most known and unpatched holes is still IE. The same goes for Spyware. The thing is...

...If a firewall works, it'll protect you.

...If an antivirus works, it'll scan your machine and tell you if you have a virus. A good antivirus will detect the problem en-route to your machine and stop it before it gets there using what's sometimes known as a resident shield.

...With Spyware and browser hijacks, unless you see it happening, there's nothing you can do. These things are written to hide the fact that they're installing and generally causing trouble. Anti-spyware products, while incredibly important, only scan for and repair damage that's been caused after the event. The reason Firefox protects so well agains spyware is because just like worms, spyware has to be coded to make use of a particular vlnerability, or to make use of a particular file, or a particular common path onto your system. This is system/browser specific in the same way as the fact that you cannot install the google toolbar for IE onto firefox. Instead, you have to install the firefox version of the same thing. Sure, you still have to use common sense, and on rare occasions, you'll still get your browser hijacked, but very, very, very rarely.

This is a problem that Microsoft, despite all their efforts, have been unable to patch, by the nature of what Internet explorer is. Sadly, Internet explorer is not an internet browser as it's name suggests, it's a shell extention of windows that acctually comprises of a re-write of a patch, of a patch, of a patch of Internet Explorer 4.

Because Firefox is a stand-alone browser, having very little to do with the operating system directly, it's already far more secure. That added to precastions against spyware and hi-jacking that have been programmed into it, it's a very safe browser to use, particularly if it's set up correctly.

I understand that many people still need to use IE. If for nothing else, M$ has made it so the windows update site will only work through IE, which is a deliberate ploy to monopolise the browser market in light of a failing product.

I would however still reccoment to those that care what's on their computers to only us IE for those sites which they absolutely know are safe, and won't work with another browser. For all other sites, I would strongly recommend firefox.

lets see now...

firewall running under linux.... check..
email running under linux....... check..
web browsers in 'paranoia mode'. check..
scripting enabled only for trusted sites...

oh yes and above all else.. all my data files networked mounted such that the windows superuser cannot see them. also makes nuking windoz to the stone age easy enough since my stuff tis generally safe.

oh and if i have doubt about anything.. i browse under linux as well.. konqueror may not be able to get into chat.. but then many things can't get into konqueror either..

mozilla is also nice it has to be said..

The problems is windows however.. it was *never* designed for security.. thus sortware tends to state that it requires administrator rights to even run.. which is the worst thing you can possibly do.

te he he. all that security under linux!? Geez, you must be worried! lol

well said Wendy

I have to say though, NAV is yucky. What you're using may be free, but it's not something to make do with. It's far superior to many commercial anti-viruses, NAV included

I'd love to be able to say that that's just a matter of poinion, but unfortunately there's good reason for my statement

yes. Things do change pretty quickly. The trouble with Norton/symantec is that NAV made a great name for itself, being far superior to anything else, but then they became arrogant and started relying on their reputation for sales instead of their product. Combined with a few wrong decisions, it just went downhill.

There are a couple of reasons NAV is bad. Firstly, as you say, it doesn't update often enough. In a world where new and nasty virus threats are found in the wild every day and spread around the world within hours, definitions do need to be updated every day, or made availiable for update every day at the very least!

Secondly, NAV mislables certain programs, most commonly under the term 'hacker tools' which is a frigtening and misleading term. It's Symantecs way of trying to police the internet. It's the job of an anti-virus to catch and prevent damage by worms, viruses, and sometimes trojans. It's not the job of an anti-virus to decide what programs you can and cannot use on your system. NAV can also be somewhat over-zealous too.

Thirdly NAV, despite its faults and because of its previous reputation, is well known. It's truly a testament to what marketing and advertising can do that so many people are still under the impression that it's as good as it was years ago. The truth is, IT IS as good as it was years ago, and that's the problem. Most of the rest got better over the years. As a result, it's targeted more often than almost any other anti-virus by attempts to disable it or hide from it. These attempts are also more likely to succeed because it's better known.

Finally, It's system invasive.computers operate best in layers. at it's simplest, on the bottom is the hardware. Working on top of that is the operating system. On top of that are the programs that work WITH the OS. NAV (much like AOL) buries itself deep into Windows and effectively becomes PART OF the OS, which is far from ideal. The result is that it reduces overall performance, and often times, small and unseen problems with windows that wouldn't normally matter can completely destroy a NAV installation or bring NAV grinding to a halt. Sadly, the reverse is also true. I hang out a lot in a few tech support forums, and the two things I notice are that the cutting edge IT proffesionals (the programmers, the sys admins, etc) all reccomend against nave for these reasons, and more than half of the people that post with regular windows problems have NAV installed. Incidentally, a substantial few of those who fall into neither catagory but made the mistake of installing Norton seem to complain like hell about the problems it causes them.

As for the firewall, I have to agree that ZoneAlarm is suberb (though the free version can be a little restrictive/annoying). A good alternative would be Sygate Personal Firewal Free, which does have it's own problems, but is highly effective, and highly configurable.

In NAV's defence I have seen my auto updater work 3 times in one day so it doesn't just update weekly, if it is only updating weekly there is probably something up with your settings. My Live Update sits there in the background and whenever it detects something to update it gets on with it without disturbing me or slowing performance.

I have also not had an attack or a nasty slip through the system in over 3 years so I personally think it is amongst the best. MacAfee (which my parents have) has leaked like the proverbial sieve and screwed up settings left, right and centre. As for AVG or any of the others I can't compare as never having had used them but I'm sure they work fine.

Lets face it as long as you have some form of AV,Firewall and AntiSpyware on your computer you are better protected than without, however it works and that is what we should all be aiming for after all.

Alex
xxxx

Absolute;y Alexandra. I just don't see the point in paying for a product when you can get a far better one for free.

before bashing MSIE to hard, consider that some of the weakness it has may not be totally random, theres a nasty little loophole in its cookie routine, well actually in the cookie specs exploited by the doubleclick company and microsoft, one to generally track where you go to allow ads to be targetted the other, well microsoft are actually using this as an 'advantage' its how the passport system works. after doing a bit of reading thats one feature that got nuked on my XP install.

cool web search is certainly annoying. you can cripple how it works by having your weblinks with 'http://' infront of them, its when you just type 'www.something.com' that MSIE tries to find out what you mean, then CWS injects itself and can send you anywhere.

the machine i'm using now has all manor of nasty's on it, but tis not mine and i've been asked to leave it alone, they saw me comming... :-D

firefox is the way to go, well actually anything that seperates the web from the operating system. microsoft tied them together to kill netscape, they also shot themselves in the foot over security by doing it.

Let's make it clear, to the uninformed, that no ONE antispyware program will catch everything, or the same malware. I alternate days on SPYBOT SEARCH AND DESTROY, and ADAWARE. Even so, I know they do not catch 100% and I should add a third and get ADAWARE's proactive upgrade. The best protection does, as pointed out, require frequent updates. Daily for my antivirus software. ZONE ALARM's free firewall does excellent work and self updates. I do like NORTON ANTIVIRUS, but can't afford it yet so I use AVG's free software. Since I am on dial-up and a dynamic IP, I am a moving target. If you are on Cable or DSL you had best realize that you will be located, identified, and targeted more often than a dial-up connection. Protect yourself accordingly.

If you want to put in the work. Knowing what all your running programs are called and do helps to identify any new applications that may sneak in. You will learn a lot about how your computer and the internet functions as well. PrcView will give you more information than M$ Ctrl+Alt+Del Task Manager. And it is free. Saving your running apps list can be a real help when comparing current running apps. Know what you are approving when you OK a program with your firewall.

Remember, the average computer is attacked within 20 minutes of going online. Don't count on being lucky. It's like having unprotected sex.

Nothing changes faster than the computer field. NAV was the best, some time back. That may have changed, the way Zone Alarm took out the commercial firewalls with it's FREE version. AVG FREE is certainly effective. It has never failed me and I've seen it stop incoming attacks.j It autoupdates DAILY I have never seen NAV fail on the other computer, either, but it autoupdated WEEKLY and I had to do a manual update at least once a week to feel safe. Anything is better than nothing. The best changes.

What are the reasons for your statement?

Alex,
I believe that NAV updates once a week AND any special, critical updates that Symantec releases. Ordinary updates wait for the weekly rounds unless you do them yourself. Estimating my time before being a target, after a new virus comes out, as approx 2-3 days worst case, I update twice a week....except my idiot roommates didn't pay for the updates in November and then went from dial up to cable. I tend to only game on their computer now and I keep Zone Alarm and the antispyware apps as current as I can....it's only a matter of time of course...their solution? Shut off the computer when you are not using it. You have to realize that these are the folks that didn't want to switch from a coaxial to a composite connection from the cable box to the VHS recorder because they didn't want to be responsible for damaging the cable box by upgrading to 1950's technology. So they use coax with their new LCD tv-monitor. May I be a bit out of character here, and just comment "DOH!" ( 8(|)