Vista - Antispyware

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:03:46 -0600, SteveC619
<SteveC619.33isz1@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote:

I don't know what the beta versions were like, but, as I said, I
haven't had any problems with the RTM version. What problems have you
seen?


Running more than one anti-spyware program is a very good thing to do.
I also run several. None is good enough to rely on completely.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:39:35 +0100, "Charlie42"
<Charlie42@xxxxxx> wrote:
What part of "avoid it entirely" did you fail to understand?
Then they better learn. And they don't need all this protection stuff
you mention. No matter what, modern OS's kept updated happen to be
pretty secure. It's highly up to oneself. The idea that one cannot be
connected to the Internet without some kind of "protection" is a
fallacy imposed by security companies.

And they better teach their kids too. I assume they don't send their
kids out in the traffic without proper guidance either. And BTW, kids
should never have administrative privileges on computers.
If keeping ones computer patched and thinking about what to
run/install is too big a task, one should reconsider using a computer
at all.
That's no argument. Any sophisticated tool you use you have to
understand how to use properly. I bought a car only to be able to get
me from A to B. I'm just a user. That doesn't mean I don't have to
learn how to get from A to B safely.
The human factor is the main problem and therefore the human factor is
where there is the most to gain security wise. Just installing
"security" products in order to "fix" the human factor doesn't bring
us anywhere in terms of security. A stupid user with a security suite
is still a stupid user.
Software is unable to determine if what you're doing is good or bad.
That's just a fact.
What nonsense... What "security" software company do you represent?
if you allow kids to download and install programs on their own, we
are no longer discussing security.
if you install/run programs from questionable sources like P2P
networks, we are no longer discussing security.
Policing software is an illusion. There is no easy cure for stupidity.

"Straight Talk" <b__nice@xxxxxx> wrote:
Possibly what you meant by "it". I was under the impression you were
referring to anti spyware programs, perhaps you meant the spyware itself? I
sometimes find it a bit hard to interpret your posts, you ought not to leave
us guessing at the meaning of your short statements.

Employing a firewall and taking a restrictive approach to downloads are of
course the better ways to prevent any form of malware, but we were talking
about the cases in which a user - presumably without realizing it - is in
the process of downloading/running a bugger, or has already had his or hers
machine infected.
And still my OS manufacturer (Microsoft) recommends adding security
software, in fact their OS starts screaming for it if it's missing or merely
outdated.
And the OS manufacturer, and the OEM's and so on? I'm thoroughly familiar
with the fundamentals of online dos and don'ts, but would you care to
elaborate on how the security developers managed to pull off this conspiracy
without any of us realizing it, and why security software can do us
absolutely no good? I find that to be a sensational, but puzzling, claim.
Agreed. Standard user accounts only for them as well.
Bin the computer entirely, just because it's hard to judge what's good or
bad on the Net? The world simply doesn't work that way, Straight Talk.
I assume you disabled ABS, anti spin, air bags, safety belts, head
restraints and the other safety measures of your car. Following the logic
from the software parallel, they're probably a waste of money too - all you
have to do is to drive carefully, right? With no worries for how others on
the roads might behave?

Personally, I wouldn't take such risks when driving. I'm probably a wary
bloke, I safe guard my computers as well.
I fully concur.
I don't consider the computer commoner to be stupid. Particularly not those
who care enough about their data to operate software to help them protect
it.
Is it? One key element of hardwalls and scanners is to set predefined rules
(human decisions on policies, malware signatures aso) that data traffic can
be tested against at a later point. Whether the initial decisions are
flawless or not, It has been my understanding that computers are
particularly useful at carrying out large scale logical tests like this. And
the output provides me with part of the basis for making informed decisions
later on.
My employer neither develops nor retails software.

But I'll rephrase myself: *Encountering* ad and spyware is inevitable,
getting an actual infection depends on what you do when challenged. Bells
and whistles from a real time protection program will make most of us stop
and think, utter silence may not.
Media sharing is a major thing today, we both know that, and the security
issues of it have to be addressed. Doing something as simple as enabling a
firewall and scanning files when you download/before you run something,
significantly reduce the risks, even though risk can never be completely
ruled out, particularly not on these networks.

Charlie42

Hi, Ken. You will notice that the "Windows Vista Compatible" logo was
removed from the Lavasoft web pages and blog. My guess is that they may have
jumped the gun a tad bit. The Windows Vista AppReadiness website does show
the Ad-Aware 2007 products as "Ready!". (Go to
http://www.appreadiness.com/default.aspx and select "L" for company name
Lavasoft).

With regard to the Ask Toolbar, Lavasoft is "considering" it but as far as I
know has not yet made a decision on whether it will be incorporated.

--
Corrine
Microsoft MVP


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 05:20:01 -0800, Corrine
<Corrine@xxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, thanks. I see it's gone now. Nevertheless, it works fine here
without a problem.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Hi, I'm a Newbie to both PC's & Vista. So double shocked! Norton Internet
Security 2008 has just been shown by Windows Defender to NOT be installed.
Though it shows to be active. Is it the Defender or Norton whose right?
Is there any way to tell?
--
shellp (tecno newbie)


"robinb" wrote:

scott m. wrote adaware2007 gave me nothing but problems with the vista home
basic on an emachine pc.i had it installed for 6 months and it only caught
one critical spyware.it would shut down on its own.i uninstalled it and put
"spybot search and destroy" on it with the resident shield and tea timer
installed and it works great.
i also have "spy sweeper" installed and between the two they catch most
everything.
"SteveC619" wrote:

"shellp" <stell@xxxxxx> wrote:
Are you being told by the Security Center that no malware protection is
present?

Charlie42

I reccomend Pc tools Spyware doctor. I once tried Ad-aware, and after using
the "write protect system files" option, my whole system crashed and I had to
reload xp again.

I don't. I found it slows down the computer on startup to a crawl and I
found this on a bunch of computers that it was on. I used to recommend it
until this starting happening to so many of my clients. Now I recommend
superantispyware pro or free
robin
"Nick" <Nick@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9EBC1B88-DEBE-43CA-9CD3-FC23396DA9D1@xxxxxx