Home
Monday, July 24, 2017
12:52:53 AM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Software

Forums | Software Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page 
Worth Getting Kaspersky?
confined 
12/8/08 12:53:33 PM
Immortal

Quote by tantryl
For that I'd probably suggest either Spyware Doctor or SUPERAntiSpyware (horrible name, good program).


Righto. I have both of those already so I guess I'm sorted.

Thanks for the feedback folks.

-----
Voyevoda.

  

tantryl 
12/8/08 6:40:13 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
Quote by tantryl
I disagree.



Then you don't know what you're talking about.



I know exactly what I'm talking about, you on the other hand are a bit of a drama queen.

*EDIT* For example in removing ad/spy/malware and viruses off of hundreds of computers in the last few years I've come across maybe once or twice where it presented a challenge, and maybe once when it required a reinstall of Windows. I can't remember the last time data loss was involved.

*EDIT2* I think the main issue you have with me appears to be semantic (not Symantec). You have a different idea of what a problem is, and a different idea of the context of confined. As far as I'm aware confined is quite capable.

A "problem" in my mind in terms of a virus is something that's going to cause data loss or render the computer useless. There's also the outside chance of unwanted sharing of personal information, but that's generally more annoying than it is problematic, it's rare a virus will get bank login details these days.

Annoyances? Sure. Daliences? If you like. Problems? Rare.

Should the average user have AV? Well, if you've read me as thinking the average user shouldn't then your contextual barometer is way off. Of course they should.

Should confined? I don't think so. He keeps patched, he's cautious opening downloaded files and he's not likely to click "yes" to everything that pops up at him.

Occasional sweeps with online AV and ad/spy/mal programs would cover him just fine.


Edited by tantryl: 12/8/2008 06:57:53 PM

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
12/8/08 8:29:57 PM
Primarch
I'm a drama queen? Look how upset you got.

I agree, I consider a problem more than just something that prevents windows from working. That would be a serious problem. Any unauthorized program sending out information or using your computers resources in an unauthorized way is a problem. To say otherwise is just willful ignorance, or a lack of knowledge.

You don't sound like the average user I referred to, and I don't know confined well enough to make a judgement. But most people on this forum, even just going by the amount that do feel the need to run AV software, are average users. I did go offtopic, and agree that occasional sweeps would cover confined just fine, or at least if he does needs AV software he should not spend money on it. I got more caught up in you saying viruses were not a problem for the last few years.

Seriously though, I'm a drama queen? Look how upset you just got.

You do home repairs. Fine. I actually work with infected and compromised computers, not just someone who needs help installing a driver and happened to click on an msn virus. I would also guess that since you don't think they are an issue, if you don't suspect a machine is infected you won't make sure, which means you actually would not know.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
12/8/08 9:03:49 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
I'm a drama queen? Look how upset you got.

I agree, I consider a problem more than just something that prevents windows from working. That would be a serious problem. Any unauthorized program sending out information or using your computers resources in an unauthorized way is a problem. To say otherwise is just willful ignorance, or a lack of knowledge.

You don't sound like the average user I referred to, and I don't know confined well enough to make a judgement. But most people on this forum, even just going by the amount that do feel the need to run AV software, are average users. I did go offtopic, and agree that occasional sweeps would cover confined just fine, or at least if he does needs AV software he should not spend money on it. I got more caught up in you saying viruses were not a problem for the last few years.

Seriously though, I'm a drama queen? Look how upset you just got.

You do home repairs. Fine. I actually work with infected and compromised computers, not just someone who needs help installing a driver and happened to click on an msn virus. I would also guess that since you don't think they are an issue, if you don't suspect a machine is infected you won't make sure, which means you actually would not know.




Yes, you're right, my calm and rational explanation of this conflict which we both agree is purely a semantic argument followed by you trying to insult me for several paragraphs shows how off the handle I can go.

Quick, reign me in, I called you a drama queen instead of trying to belittle your opinion and job.

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
12/8/08 9:41:39 PM
Primarch
I never tried to belittle your job, only your claim(not an opinion) that viruses were not a problem for the last few years, which is factually inaccurate. You then gave a definition of the word problem different from how most people would interpret the word to save grace. But yeah, calm and rational..completely.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
12/8/08 10:16:24 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
I never tried to belittle your job, only your claim(not an opinion) that viruses were not a problem for the last few years, which is factually inaccurate. You then gave a definition of the word problem different from how most people would interpret the word to save grace. But yeah, calm and rational..completely.



So you don't consider an explanation of my stance including a reason why we were disagreeing calm and rational?

OK.

Quote by TheSecret
You do home repairs. Fine. I actually work with infected and compromised computers, not just someone who needs help installing a driver and happened to click on an msn virus. I would also guess that since you don't think they are an issue, if you don't suspect a machine is infected you won't make sure, which means you actually would not know.



For the record, this is belittling. My statement is factually accurate. You can tell because I told you it is, and therefore you can't disagree without chucking a hissy fit.

*EDIT* I'm curious now though.

Since you're a security expert, please inform us of your amazing escapades against serious security threats. What horrible viruses have you defeated in the last 4 years?


Edited by tantryl: 12/8/2008 10:30:33 PM

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
13/8/08 3:31:12 AM
Primarch
I would say at first we were both calm and rational, when you simply said you disagree without bothering to say why, and I said you don't know what you're talking about, you ceased being calm and rational.

I don't see how what I said was belittling anymore than what you have said. What I have said is rational, if you don't think viruses are still a problem(even by your definition), then why would you check? I am still not sure what statement you are claiming is factually accurate.

For the record, I never stated I was a security expert. It has however been my field for quite a while, bordering on 10 years, and I consider myself quite experienced and knowledgeable on the subject. When I finish learning how to reverse engineer and have a more complete knowledge of various protocols then I may be an expert.

There have not been any major viruses, but on the majority of clients machines, including in businesses, there have been viruses present, most of which don't even seem too malicious, but they are there. Windows and programs will work fine, without too much of a performance impact, but after removing them, there is a speed improvement. More often than not they can be badly written, and cause an error which may not be apparent at first. Just check for example the amount of each viruses that come each month, even if you say the majority are low risk, I still consider it a problem.

Actually, last year around july I was in the uk doing some work, and many many people were getting a virus through msn. These people were stupid enough to click on it, and it would create hidden msn windows to spread itself. There are many viruses like this, but this one was particularly malicious and was a pain to remove.

Even if viruses are low risk and have no errors or performance impact, I consider unauthorized software doing who knows what a problem.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
13/8/08 10:26:51 AM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
You do home repairs. Fine. I actually work with infected and compromised computers, not just someone who needs help installing a driver and happened to click on an msn virus.



Quote by TheSecret
Actually, last year around july I was in the uk doing some work, and many many people were getting a virus through msn. These people were stupid enough to click on it, and it would create hidden msn windows to spread itself. There are many viruses like this, but this one was particularly malicious and was a pain to remove.



Funny.



Quote by TheSecret
I would say at first we were both calm and rational, when you simply said you disagree without bothering to say why, and I said you don't know what you're talking about, you ceased being calm and rational.



I disagree. :)

Please, point out something I said that wasn't calm or rational, keeping in mind the drama queen comment comes directly after you proclaiming I had no idea what I was on about.

Quote by TheSecret
There have not been any major viruses, but on the majority of clients machines, including in businesses, there have been viruses present, most of which don't even seem too malicious, but they are there. Windows and programs will work fine, without too much of a performance impact, but after removing them, there is a speed improvement. More often than not they can be badly written, and cause an error which may not be apparent at first. Just check for example the amount of each viruses that come each month, even if you say the majority are low risk, I still consider it a problem.



Then, as I said, your contextual barometer is out of alignment.

My original comment was in direct response to confined and his query in this thread. The phrase "haven't really been a problem" was to be taken in that context. It can be read as "only minor problems" or "no major problems". The "haven't really" part shows that they have been there, but not that huge of an issue, even without taking that context into account.

As I said, purely a semantic argument, and certainly no call for trying to pull security rank and tell someone they're definitively wrong, simply because you focused on one word instead of the phrase it was within and the context within which it was delivered.


Edited by tantryl: 13/8/2008 10:57:16 AM

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
13/8/08 11:16:01 AM
Primarch
Quote by tantryl
Funny.



Funny HAHA or Funny strange? I have to say, I read that first as deliberately belittling, but I could be wrong.

Quote by tantryl I disagree. :)

Please, point out something I said that wasn't calm or rational, keeping in mind the drama queen comment comes directly after you proclaiming I had no idea what I was on about.



It is possible to point out that someone has no idea what they are talking about, if it seems supported in a calm and rational way. Resorting to name calling is ceasing to be calm and rational.
Quote by tantryl Then, as I said, your contextual barometer is out of alignment.

My original comment was in direct response to confined and his query in this thread. The phrase "haven't really been a problem" was to be taken in that context. It can be read as "only minor problems" or "no major problems". The "haven't really" part shows that they have been there, but not that huge of an issue, even without taking that context into account.



Even so, your advice that he does not need an AV scanner at all. When he has to ask if he should get an AV scanner or not, it is a good indication he probably does need one. Maybe not need, but would be better of with one, at least if you acccept my definition of problem.

Quote by tantryl As I said, purely a semantic argument, and certainly no call for trying to pull security rank and tell someone they're definitively wrong, simply because you focused on one word instead of the phrase it was within and the context within which it was delivered.


I was not trying to pull security rank, I did, and still do think you were wrong, which when you're giving advice to people can have negative affects for them.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

Invention 
13/8/08 11:17:10 AM
Primarch

Oh for fucks sake.

-----

tantryl 
13/8/08 11:25:18 AM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
I was not trying to pull security rank, I did, and still do think you were wrong, which when you're giving advice to people can have negative affects for them.



Cool. About what?

*EDIT* And the funny part is you belittling removing stupid little MSN viruses and then your example being about removing an MSN virus. It's haha funny. Is it belittling? Could be. You'd certainly deserve it for pulling that one.


Edited by tantryl: 13/8/2008 11:26:52 AM

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
13/8/08 11:50:14 AM
Primarch
OK, I can see the humour in that :)

I think you are still wrong that it is mainly a semantic problem, and that viruses are not a problem in the more general sense of the word. Unauthorized programs doing random things...that's a problem. In fact, even for some home users, that could be a very very serious problem, if they were working from home or something.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
13/8/08 12:01:48 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


You're still getting stuck up on the word instead of the context.

Have I said that viruses can't be a serious problem? No. Have I suggested no-one needs AV? No. Have I suggested leaving viruses running on a system is a good thing? No.

Have I stated that malware is a bigger problem at the moment? Yes. Do you disagree? (Note, even though viruses are technically included in malware I hate that there isn't a word for everything else, so I just use malware because I'm lazy and can't be bothered typing ad/spyware).

Have I stated that viruses are far less of a problem than they have been in the past? Yes. Do you disagree?

Am I going to add to that that AV is fairly useless when a serious problem does come along? Yes. A virus that these days knows of a vulnerability not patched by MS through auto-update and utilises it correctly will generally also get past an AV program. AV's are reactive, the fixes/protection for specific viruses are released after people have been infected. This doesn't render them entirely useless because most people don't get the virus the instant it's released, but AV is generally a lot better at prevention than it is removal. Often viruses that get through the first line of defense remain until a specific tool is run to remove them. Your UK-MSN-capades for instance, the first thing you suggested as a serious problem, was likely on computers that had AV. To fix it did you just let the installed AV do it's job? No, you had to take measures seperate from the installled AV. And to avoid a semantic argument on this one: "fairly useless in the event of a serious problem" is not the same as "entirely useless in every situation".

All I'm suggesting is that the problems are few and far between, and usually easily avoided for the likes of confined.


Edited by tantryl: 13/8/2008 1:22:54 PM

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
13/8/08 7:04:10 PM
Primarch
I don't feel I am getting stuck on the word and not the context, I jumped on what you said exactly because it seemed wrong in the context of which I read it.

Malware as seperate from viruses is still a big problem, and I would put it close to equal as far as infected machines can go. I would not say it is a bigger problem than viruses, if nothing else because there are more viruses, and viruses are more likely to exploit vulnerabilities to spread.

Of course I disagree that viruses are less off a problem then they have been in the past, unless you are explicitly referring to Sasser style viruses. Which don't come that often, and we are probably due for one soon. Take for example as an example of a problem, the Storm worm.

I would say the use of AV software is prevention and removal equally, it will first and foremost try to prevent an infection, but failing that it should still be able to remove it. The reason I am saying viruses are a problem for most users though, is that they tend to get infected by ones that have been out for a while, and fixes are readily available. But they don't update, or close the AV because it is interfering or whatever.

My UK-MSN-capades, there was not an immediant fix available, and it took me a while to find out what it actually was, and yes in this case AV software was useless, but only at first. However once installed and being aware of it, it prevented any further attempts, and fixing subsequnt machines was much cleaner with using AV software.

As far as confined, I stick by what I said, that if he has to ask advice on if he should get a virus scanner or not, then he probably could do with a free one that did not affect performance. If there were no viruses in 3 months or whatever, then he would know he doesnt need it.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
13/8/08 7:16:24 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
Of course I disagree that viruses are less off a problem then they have been in the past, unless you are explicitly referring to Sasser style viruses.



So you don't think the implementation of Windows auto-updates, the widespread use of NATs thanks to broadband (it's pretty rare for a network based virus to get past NAT), and of course the ever increasing bundle of AV that most users use including firewalls, the introduction of Defender etc. etc. have had no impact on degree of problems viruses cause?

Really?

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
13/8/08 9:41:08 PM
Primarch
Not when you consider an awful lot of people don't use automatic updates, either because they think microsoft is spying on them, or it interrupts their downloading or something. Likewise, most home user setups with stanard DSL simply have a direct connection, so NAT does not apply. I think a lot of technologies have reduced the risk potential, even Vista in particular, but people still don't patch, or always update, and there are still viruses coming through every month.

Just like people who click on image links on MSN their friends may have sent them.., do you think confined would be able to recognize the message as false and know not to click it? Or other, even more common users who simply click yes to any prompt to make them go away.

Until users get smarter, or the security architecture gets significantly better, viruses will still be a problem for users who can't be bothered to learn more. Which is fine, because it keeps me in business.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
13/8/08 10:45:34 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


So you're contesting that those things had no effect because there's been some kind of dumb person population boom that compensates for the extra inbuilt security, or possibly that dumb people didn't exist earlier?


Edited by tantryl: 13/8/2008 10:45:55 PM

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
13/8/08 10:53:54 PM
Primarch
I am asserting they had little effect on home users, because a technical solution can not peoples unwillingless to learn or exercise caution. I do not think there was a dumb population boom, the population od fumb people has remained constant, which is why they still click on or install stupid things, which is why viruses are still a problem.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

tantryl 
14/8/08 12:05:46 AM
SuperHero
Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
I am asserting they had little effect on home users, because a technical solution can not peoples unwillingless to learn or exercise caution. I do not think there was a dumb population boom, the population od fumb people has remained constant, which is why they still click on or install stupid things, which is why viruses are still a problem.



I'd contest that's why ad/spyware has become a bigger problem and viruses have become less of a problem.

-----
Well, I guess we learned something today. It's wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don't eat meat at all you break out in vaginas. - Stan Marsh

TheSecret 
14/8/08 12:27:16 AM
Primarch
Why do you consider them seperate? Some viruses have to be clicked on, some make their way through vulnerabilities..you could say malware was perhaps a slightly bigger problem because it is trojanlike...but I think the difference is negligible.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

 Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3  | Next Page 
Forums | Software