security

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

i have mcafee security features guarding my computer. i recently came across
spyware stormer and downloaded a free cleanser to do away with any adware or
spyware clinging to any files downloaded. after cleansing, spyware stormer
said i had 73 files infected! how can that be!?! i ran my cleanser through
mcafee and it found nothing. spyware stormer wants $, how much security do i
need to purchase?
--
none*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

You need:

Ad-Aware (www.lavasoft.com)
Spy Bot S&D (www.safer-networking.org)
Spyware Blaster (www.javacoolsoftware.com)

All these are free so why waste money on stuff that you don't need!

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.freelanceit/index.htm
"G." <G@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
newsFF1853E-D559-4510-93AB-F4F7B2C0AF40@microsoft.com...
>i have mcafee security features guarding my computer. i recently came
>across
> spyware stormer and downloaded a free cleanser to do away with any adware
> or
> spyware clinging to any files downloaded. after cleansing, spyware stormer
> said i had 73 files infected! how can that be!?! i ran my cleanser through
> mcafee and it found nothing. spyware stormer wants $, how much security do
> i
> need to purchase?
> --
> none*

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

John Barnett MVP wrote:
> You need:
>
> Ad-Aware (www.lavasoft.com)
> Spy Bot S&D (www.safer-networking.org)
> Spyware Blaster (www.javacoolsoftware.com)

John. Do you mind if I ask you if you have used or have an opinion about
Pest Patrol vs. Adaware? I have seen many posts referring LavaSoft Adaware
and none about PP. I find Adaware extremely slow while PestPatrol screams in
comparison. Am I missing something here?

TIA

Jimmy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Ad-Aware works quickly for me. Haven't tried Pest Patrol.

Ted Zieglar

"Jimmy" <jimmycliff@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:LWrvd.495459$wV.5825@attbi_s54...
>
>
> John Barnett MVP wrote:
>> You need:
>>
>> Ad-Aware (www.lavasoft.com)
>> Spy Bot S&D (www.safer-networking.org)
>> Spyware Blaster (www.javacoolsoftware.com)
>
> John. Do you mind if I ask you if you have used or have an opinion about
> Pest Patrol vs. Adaware? I have seen many posts referring LavaSoft Adaware
> and none about PP. I find Adaware extremely slow while PestPatrol screams
> in
> comparison. Am I missing something here?
>
> TIA
>
> Jimmy
>
>

 

[map]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"G." wrote:

> i have mcafee security features guarding my computer. i recently came across
> spyware stormer and downloaded a free cleanser to do away with any adware or
> spyware clinging to any files downloaded. after cleansing, spyware stormer
> said i had 73 files infected! how can that be!?! i ran my cleanser through
> mcafee and it found nothing. spyware stormer wants $, how much security do i
> need to purchase?
> --
> none*


You had 73 infected files because Spyware Stormer installed them,Spyware
Stormer is on the list of products to stay away from.
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm


If you want programs to remove scumware use these.

Sometimes,when you remove malware it will stop your TCP/IP
stack from working (Internet connection).
Winsock or LSP-fix will correct the problem,Download first.
Note to anyone using NOD32 Anti-Virus software,Do Not delete the
"imon.dll" this fix reports,That is your e/mail scanning engine.

YES-You need more than 1 malware program,the one's below are all free
and work well.
LSP-fix- http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm
Spybot S&D - http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html
CWS Smart Killer- http://www.safer-networking.org/minifiles.html

About Buster- http://www.spychecker.com/program/aboutbuster.html
Ad-Aware SE - http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/
CWShredder - http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4086.html
Hijack this - http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3155.html\
Hijackthis tutorial - http://forums.maddoktor2.com/index.php?showtopic=165
SpywareBlaster - http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
SpywareGuard - http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html
WinPatrol - http://winpatrol.com
BHODemon - http://pcworld.com/downloads/file_download.asp?fid=23611&fileidx=1
Bazooka -http://www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/index.html
asquared2 "Trojan Remover" - http://www.emsisoft.com/en/
Socklock- http://nsclean.com/socklock.html
A nice site -
http://groups.msn.com/TeMercInternetSecuritySite/malwarecountermeasures.msnw
NOD32Anti-Virus Free 30 day trial
http://nod32.com/download/trial.htm
Process Guard-
http://www.diamondcs.com.au/processguard/index.php?page=download
A link for free online virus and trojan scanners.
http://virusall.com/downscan.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I won't repeat the excellent advice of the other posters. However, I wanted
to address your question about McAffee's failure to detect the
spyware/adware.

While all the major anti-virus companies have added other types of malware
protection, they are still primarily anti-virus solutions rather than
spyware/adware/trojan solutions. They aren't intended to handle all threats.
Even if you add McAffee's (or Norton's or ZoneLabs or ...) firewall to the
mix, it still doesn't cover all the bases. The only thing that offers 100%
protection against all security threats (as a prof of mine used to say) is to
unplug the device. If you can use it (it's got power), someone can abuse it.

Spyware/adware isn't really a virus, though it often seems like it. While
the plumber may be willing to fix my toaster, it would be foolish to expect
him to protect me from toaster malfunctions.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Jimmy I have never used pest patrol. The reason why you hear more about
ad-aware is because ad-aware has a 'free' version which is really effective.
Pest patrol can cost anything from £12 to £18, although a 30 day trial
version is available. I'll download a copy of PP and take a look at it.
To be honest I've never found ad-aware slow even though the latest version
scans for MRU's (most recently used files) and offers them for deletion if
necessary.
There are so many applications available now that the only way to get the
best is via recommendation. Some are, obviously, good others are not so
good. Those that I have recommended work fine for me.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.freelanceit/index.htm

"Jimmy" <jimmycliff@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:LWrvd.495459$wV.5825@attbi_s54...
>
>
> John Barnett MVP wrote:
>> You need:
>>
>> Ad-Aware (www.lavasoft.com)
>> Spy Bot S&D (www.safer-networking.org)
>> Spyware Blaster (www.javacoolsoftware.com)
>
> John. Do you mind if I ask you if you have used or have an opinion about
> Pest Patrol vs. Adaware? I have seen many posts referring LavaSoft Adaware
> and none about PP. I find Adaware extremely slow while PestPatrol screams
> in
> comparison. Am I missing something here?
>
> TIA
>
> Jimmy
>
>

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

John Barnett MVP wrote:
> Jimmy I have never used pest patrol. The reason why you hear more
> about ad-aware is because ad-aware has a 'free' version which is
> really effective. Pest patrol can cost anything from £12 to £18,
> although a 30 day trial version is available. I'll download a copy of
> PP and take a look at it.
> To be honest I've never found ad-aware slow even though the latest
> version scans for MRU's (most recently used files) and offers them
> for deletion if necessary.
> There are so many applications available now that the only way to get
> the best is via recommendation. Some are, obviously, good others are
> not so good. Those that I have recommended work fine for me.
>

Thanks John. I will be looking forward to any comments you might have. I
used Adaware first for sometime until I tried PP. I compared them and like I
said but maybe I might have had Adaware set to do a deeper scan somehow.
Maybe I should try again.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:12:35 GMT, Jimmy wrote:

> Thanks John. I will be looking forward to any comments you might have. I
> used Adaware first for sometime until I tried PP. I compared them and like I
> said but maybe I might have had Adaware set to do a deeper scan somehow.
> Maybe I should try again.
>
> Thanks.
>
> J.

Hi Jimmy,
I have both Pest Patrol and Adaware installed. Reason: No one program can
be "best" at detecting all intrusions. I also like Spyware Blaster and
Spybot Search and Destroy. Checking with a few programs - using current
updates - is a good belt and suspender approach.

Neither program is allowed to run all of the time. I perform manual scans
on a regular basis. Every few days or after an intensive surfing
expedition.

I do get a false positive from Pest Patrol over some registry keys used by
a cursor customizing program that I have installed (Cursor XP from
Stardock). After checking carefully that the customizing program was the
reason for the values in the registry keys, I added them to Pest Control's
exclusion list.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Sharon F wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:12:35 GMT, Jimmy wrote:
>
>> Thanks John. I will be looking forward to any comments you might
>> have. I used Adaware first for sometime until I tried PP. I compared
>> them and like I said but maybe I might have had Adaware set to do a
>> deeper scan somehow. Maybe I should try again.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> J.
>
> Hi Jimmy,
> I have both Pest Patrol and Adaware installed. Reason: No one program
> can be "best" at detecting all intrusions. I also like Spyware
> Blaster and Spybot Search and Destroy. Checking with a few programs -
> using current updates - is a good belt and suspender approach.
>
> Neither program is allowed to run all of the time. I perform manual
> scans on a regular basis. Every few days or after an intensive surfing
> expedition.
>
> I do get a false positive from Pest Patrol over some registry keys
> used by a cursor customizing program that I have installed (Cursor XP
> from Stardock). After checking carefully that the customizing program
> was the reason for the values in the registry keys, I added them to
> Pest Control's exclusion list.

Thank you Sharon. I have been using PP primarily and have not tried others
but now I will as it seems to be the reasonable thing to do. I have never
gotten a reaction from any registry entries but I will watch out for false
readings. This seems like it could be trouble if one were to delete a needed
key.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:14:36 GMT, Jimmy wrote:

> Thank you Sharon. I have been using PP primarily and have not tried others
> but now I will as it seems to be the reasonable thing to do. I have never
> gotten a reaction from any registry entries but I will watch out for false
> readings. This seems like it could be trouble if one were to delete a needed
> key.

It could be but in this case the program replaces the keys when it runs.
Alternatively, one could rebuild them by reinstalling the program. PP isn't
the only program that is capable of delivering false positives: antivirus
and other anti-adware programs have a track record with this too. Example:
AdAware recently was flagging some registry keys related to IE security as
a problem and have since corrected that in their recent version.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Another thing I've noticed Jimmy with PP is that it picks up my
freshdownload software as adware and suggests I delete or quarantine.
Freshdownload is download accelerator software. It seems ridiculous that PP
picks this up as 'troublesome' and yet Ad-aware or spybot ignore it. I am
aware that I can set PP to ignore this application but it shouldn't be there
in the first place. It can also cause problems with spybot too.
I have tested it against ad-aware and scan time is exactly the same with
both. PP also picked up the same problems as ad-aware with the exception
that PP insisted that freshdownload was troublesome.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.freelanceit/index.htm
"Jimmy" <jimmycliff@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:gedwd.507824$wV.16989@attbi_s54...
>
>
> Sharon F wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:12:35 GMT, Jimmy wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks John. I will be looking forward to any comments you might
>>> have. I used Adaware first for sometime until I tried PP. I compared
>>> them and like I said but maybe I might have had Adaware set to do a
>>> deeper scan somehow. Maybe I should try again.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>> Hi Jimmy,
>> I have both Pest Patrol and Adaware installed. Reason: No one program
>> can be "best" at detecting all intrusions. I also like Spyware
>> Blaster and Spybot Search and Destroy. Checking with a few programs -
>> using current updates - is a good belt and suspender approach.
>>
>> Neither program is allowed to run all of the time. I perform manual
>> scans on a regular basis. Every few days or after an intensive surfing
>> expedition.
>>
>> I do get a false positive from Pest Patrol over some registry keys
>> used by a cursor customizing program that I have installed (Cursor XP
>> from Stardock). After checking carefully that the customizing program
>> was the reason for the values in the registry keys, I added them to
>> Pest Control's exclusion list.
>
> Thank you Sharon. I have been using PP primarily and have not tried others
> but now I will as it seems to be the reasonable thing to do. I have never
> gotten a reaction from any registry entries but I will watch out for false
> readings. This seems like it could be trouble if one were to delete a
> needed
> key.
>
> J.
>
>

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Sharon F wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:14:36 GMT, Jimmy wrote:
>
>> Thank you Sharon. I have been using PP primarily and have not tried
>> others but now I will as it seems to be the reasonable thing to do.
>> I have never gotten a reaction from any registry entries but I will
>> watch out for false readings. This seems like it could be trouble if
>> one were to delete a needed key.
>
> It could be but in this case the program replaces the keys when it
> runs. Alternatively, one could rebuild them by reinstalling the
> program. PP isn't the only program that is capable of delivering
> false positives: antivirus and other anti-adware programs have a
> track record with this too. Example: AdAware recently was flagging
> some registry keys related to IE security as a problem and have since
> corrected that in their recent version.

So I guess that there is probably not much of a difference making no
application any more efficient than any other and a combo can't hurt.
Wouldn't the real bottom line be the prevention of any file to phone home
and to illuminate any tracking cookies? Put this way it doesn't seem that
complicated. Shouldn't a scan be done while surfing? If I have spyware or
tracking software installed at first then my system is already compromised
until it is removed. Once a week is not enough if I understand this
correctly?

Thanks for any comments.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:05:49 GMT, Jimmy wrote:

> So I guess that there is probably not much of a difference making no
> application any more efficient than any other and a combo can't hurt.
> Wouldn't the real bottom line be the prevention of any file to phone home
> and to illuminate any tracking cookies? Put this way it doesn't seem that
> complicated. Shouldn't a scan be done while surfing? If I have spyware or
> tracking software installed at first then my system is already compromised
> until it is removed. Once a week is not enough if I understand this
> correctly?
>
> Thanks for any comments.

Combos are a good idea when trying to protect against intrusions that
evolve so quickly. There is a time lapse between discovery, updating to add
protection and then distributing that update to users. One week software
package A gets the fix delivered a few days before package B. The next
week, package B is ahead of the game. For this reason, some folks use
multiple antivirus programs. Running auto-protect from one. Then unloading
the program and manually running a scan with another.

The flip side of this is being too paranoid - running too many programs and
managing them in a way that they fight each other or cause errors on the
system. This can be frustrating, not effective and could endanger your
system. How many programs should be used and how often? One needs to find
their own comfort zone.

Consistency is another important factor. For example: I always update my
programs and scan my systems on Saturday mornings. I also manually scan
downloaded files before opening or running them. I'm never online without a
firewall in place. Even if I don't perform an additional scan in between, I
know that this "Saturday checkup" will occur.

You asked whether you should scan while browsing. You could but it's not
terribly convenient. If you do it an hour later or a few days later or at
least once a week, that will work too. However, if you have reason to
suspect that "something" happened during your computing or browsing session
- don't hesitate to scan the system immediately.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Sharon F wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:05:49 GMT, Jimmy wrote:
>
>> So I guess that there is probably not much of a difference making no
>> application any more efficient than any other and a combo can't
>> hurt. Wouldn't the real bottom line be the prevention of any file to
>> phone home and to illuminate any tracking cookies? Put this way it
>> doesn't seem that complicated. Shouldn't a scan be done while
>> surfing? If I have spyware or tracking software installed at first
>> then my system is already compromised until it is removed. Once a
>> week is not enough if I understand this correctly?
>>
>> Thanks for any comments.
>
> Combos are a good idea when trying to protect against intrusions that
> evolve so quickly. There is a time lapse between discovery, updating
> to add protection and then distributing that update to users. One
> week software package A gets the fix delivered a few days before
> package B. The next week, package B is ahead of the game. For this
> reason, some folks use multiple antivirus programs. Running
> auto-protect from one. Then unloading the program and manually
> running a scan with another.
>
> The flip side of this is being too paranoid - running too many
> programs and managing them in a way that they fight each other or
> cause errors on the system. This can be frustrating, not effective
> and could endanger your system. How many programs should be used and
> how often? One needs to find their own comfort zone.
>
> Consistency is another important factor. For example: I always update
> my programs and scan my systems on Saturday mornings. I also manually
> scan downloaded files before opening or running them. I'm never
> online without a firewall in place. Even if I don't perform an
> additional scan in between, I know that this "Saturday checkup" will
> occur.
>
> You asked whether you should scan while browsing. You could but it's
> not terribly convenient. If you do it an hour later or a few days
> later or at least once a week, that will work too. However, if you
> have reason to suspect that "something" happened during your
> computing or browsing session - don't hesitate to scan the system
> immediately.

Thanks again for the input. I am most likely as safe as can be with a BB
router and ZA Pro with PP. The only thing I DL are update drivers for video
card and such. I am more worried about MS updates causing more trouble and
the install of SP2 going ok.

Thanks again.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:19:27 GMT, Jimmy wrote:

> Thanks again for the input. I am most likely as safe as can be with a BB
> router and ZA Pro with PP. The only thing I DL are update drivers for video
> card and such. I am more worried about MS updates causing more trouble and
> the install of SP2 going ok.
>
> Thanks again.

You're welcome, Jimmy. It's always good to reassess your safety practices.
If it works for you and the system remains relatively clean (I would rate a
nothing found but a few cookies as "okay"), you're set.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User