Comments for Running Without a Net

Comment from Ivan Tadej on 2007-01-27

2007-01-27T19:49:18Z

Well, as first regarding the "real-time" protection (be it anti-virus or anti-spyware), I am personally more and more against it. And the main reason in my case to stop "torturing" my computer with "protection" from all these programs (again, I am talking in particular about those programs offering "resident" protection of any kind); is that in all that time they haven't "catch" anything. But it's true that even before realizing that I've only trialed a few of this type of programs (mostly for not more than a week or so), and that was pretty much it. Finally, I visit more or less same "set" of trusted/well-known websites during my online sessions (i.e. when being connected to the Internet; note that I am still on dial-up so I am not connected 24/7), while I also rely on common sense, so that must be it I guess.

And secondly regarding the firewalls (particulary "two-way" ones); this particular question was discussed many times on Ars Technica forums where I participate (one such thread was for instance the relatively recent "Kaspersky AV vs. F-Secure AV": http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/155000260831 one), and the consensus seems to be (i.e. what the majority of members are saying) that, quoting: "Once the malware is on your computer you are owned. It could turn off your firewall and disable the security center, same result, more headaches.", although you might notice my post (my nick is "shirker") in which I say the following: "Yes I agree, it certainly could... But there is also a possibility that it wouldn't. I mean, there are so many different firewall-programs out there, that it's almost impossible to "target" them all." However, I do fully agree with Ars Technica members in regards to other "aspect" of them, i.e. it's that the average/inexperienced user could never really know for sure what to allow and what not (which process trying to establish/accept connection) when being "asked" by firewall, which was precisely what happened in Don Davis's case, as we can all read above. That's why I use default Windows XP SP2 firewall and am completely content with it.

________

best regards,
Ivan Tadej, Slovenia
http://tadej-ivan.50webs.com/

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from david on 2007-01-15

2007-01-16T03:56:56Z

yeah, most free email servers scan all the attachments and let ya know if its suspect, then lets you choose to download it or not....of course if your machine is protected enough you can download anything....I do...

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from Leo Notenboom on 2007-01-10

2007-01-10T23:21:28Z

Email programs aren't nearly as critical as they once were. More importantly is simply the knowledge not to open unknown attachments.

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from Bill Zimmermann on 2007-01-10

2007-01-10T18:26:51Z

Hi Leo,

GRRRRReat website!
Regarding Running Wihout a Net? "Does it make any difference if you run alternative non-windows mail clients and browsers like Mosilla and non-outlook mail clients? I have heard that people who do not run anti-virus software or anti-malware (supposidly to speed up their pc) use these alternative clients because they can not be penetrated by viruses. Of course if you download anything, or open a virus attachment you will also get a virus. I was wondering since the MAC community boasts of less or little vulnerability if using alternative software levels that playing field?

Bill Zimmermann San Diego
Monogram Systems Computer Systems and Consulting Inc.

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from David on 2007-01-07

2007-01-08T05:32:55Z

hey todd, why would you have to reformat if nothing's wrong? I don't know much about linux but I suppose there's some maintenance with it. No os is perfect...plus linux has a big learnin curve and windows is more accepted around the world. lol...I know most linux users profess it to be perfect and windows is satan's os....but with my protection I've had no problem, and I go to all the sites not recommended...p2p sites, crack sites, and generally any warez sites. My point is you can use windows for any site or program as long as you protect yourself right. lol...and they don't cost ya anything...

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from Todd on 2007-01-07

2007-01-07T20:44:50Z

Hi Leo,

I was actually just thinking of disabling AV and AS etc. I gave up on Windows and started using linux, specifically Kubuntu. Since I have a history of XP docs etc., I set the linux up on one partition and the XP on another, dual boot I think it's called. Kubuntu is nice; loaded in about 15 minutes; no more viruses, no more spies, no more worms or germs (for now). And it's graphical (read: no typing gibberish into a black terminal screen). Anyway, I still go back and boot XP and use it since I need to visit sites that use plug-ins and authentications which are NOT linux supported. But XP is so slow compared to linux. And, there are something like 60 updates to XP; it was gonna take an hour or two just to patch it. Then, load the antivirus, update it; load antispy, update it; then wash windows; then fix registry; then optimize. Yeesh; so... why not run XP behind my firewall, without protection, only visiting the two or three official sites I need to? Honestly, even if I "protect" my XP, I'm just going to have to wipe clean soon anyway since it is now standard protocol to wipe XP clean and re-install every few months anyway, yes?

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from David on 2007-01-06

2007-01-06T23:03:37Z

yeah, I pretty much know what I'm doing but I go to alot of questionable sites and download alot of questionable files so I rely on my security programs alot. On this computer there's Norton's suite plus cyberhawk, windows defender, ewido, spy sweeper and trojanhunter. I've never had a problem that they didn't catch...so I recommend using as many security programs as you feel safe with...lol

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from Don Davis on 2007-01-06

2007-01-06T17:35:40Z

The only known damage I ever rceived was from vigilanties accociated with the DVD industry. I allowed "Interactual Player", a suposidly legitimate program, out through my firewall and as a result lost approx 20 GB of my family photographs. Regardless of how knowlegable you may be never connect a computer to the internet without understanding and use of security. To not do so is like leaving your wallet on the sidewalk over night and expecting only honest people to walk past. D.D.

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.

Comment from Mary on 2007-01-04

2007-01-04T16:04:01Z

Let me begin by saying I'm not an expert with computers. As a newbie, I've tried to "edumacate" myself. But it's really confusing when it comes to antivirus and antispyware programs. You've got freebies and paid. You've got scan only and real-time monitoring. You've got stand alone programs and you've got security suites. You've got experts saying all you need is one AV program, etc. but another expert says you should have more than one because not every program is 100% effective 100% of the time. You've got some people saying "ABC" antivirus is a memory hog, makes your computer run slow, but it's effective. Someone else says "XYZ" AV is a lite version, doesn't hog memory, it's better. And then you've got the companies themselves and their own advertising hype. How does the average user separate the wheat from the chaff?

As a consumer, I want the opportunity to "test drive" a program for 30 days under my own real-life conditions. I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee. But I don't want to get locked into a 1 or 2 year subscription and I don't want a program that can't be uninstalled short of reformating my hard drive. Is it any wonder some people just throw up their hands in frustration and just take their chances?

]]>

A comment on: Running Without a Net

Tech Questions? Get Answers! - Ask Leo! ... by Leo Notenboom
Leo's Answers Newsletter - Ask Leo! in your inbox every week.