Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (
More info?)
figaro wrote:
> I will soon be getting a computer and for the first time have XP home. Been
> using ME. I have always had Norton Utilities and Antivirus. I mostly used
> utilities to defrag, scan disc etc. Looking at the XP web site it looks like
> there are plenty of maintenance tools that come with it so I wonder if the
> Norton utilities are worth it.
Once a useful utility suite, back in the days of MS-DOS, when Peter
Norton was more than a picture on the box, Norton Utilities have been
becoming increasingly useless and redundant over the years. There's
little offered by NU that WinXP cannot already do natively. And some of
Systemworks's features, like CrashGuard and CleanSweep (if they're still
included) cause far more problems then they prevent.
>I do like having the Anti-virus that warns me
> when one is coming in the email. Does XP have a feature that will do this
> and update virus definitions each day?
No, WinXP - like every other modern operating system - has no antivirus
protection built-in. You'll need to add the antivirus application of
your choice.
Given today's widely-publicized and well-known hostile Internet
environment, only a fool or a masochist would go on-line without both a
firewall and antivirus protection. Such basic precautions are the
computing equivalents of wearing seatbelt while driving or riding in an
automobile - they're there to prevent/reduce the damage if an accident
should occur.
I used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton Internet
Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP, all
without any significant problems. I had used McAfee prior to that.
But it's been several years since I've been tempted to try McAfee
products. Their quality seemed to take a steep nose-dive after they
were acquired by Network Associates.
> Any program better and if so why?
When my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton Internet
Security 2002 came up for renewal (at a cost substantially higher than
the preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less expensive
solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of GriSoft's AVG
(http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php ) and the free version of
Sygate's Personal Firewall (http://smb.sygate.com/free/default.php ).
Both have proven to be easily installed, easy to use, and quite
effective. Additionally, I was pleasantly surprised to see a small but
very noticeable improvement in my PC's performance, once I'd replaced
the Symantec products.
> What about the firewall that you can get with service pack 2. Is that all I
> need?
>
>
WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
. For this I used to use 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram