NAV or AVG #2

Ten Laws of Computer Security

If your lawnmower ran amok, got free and ran over your neighbor's roses and garden, you'd apologize and offer to pay for damages, right? Or if you hit and knocked down her mailbox with your car? If your dog bit her, or if your kid threw a rock through her window, you'd also be accountable.

If your computer is infected, and is being used to generate mail (whether infected or not) or launch denial of service attacks, then you are just as responsible for the "damages" as the examples above. You wouldn't litter, would you? If your computer is not under your control, you are inconveniencing other people, the cyber equivalent. Ignorance is not an excuse for a poor security policy, or lack of one.

Just as in medicine, prevention is always easier than cures. I have cleaned up many infected machines, but never my own. I have never had to. I have a strict security policy, which basically boils down to : If my security is not in place and enabled, my comp is NOT online, if I have to physically disconnect the cable. Period. Read the MS essay, and realize that your actions have an impact on everyone else. It's not just security, it's also courtesy.

Johanna

 

Johanna said:
Norton has two major issues:
1. It needs to be installed directly after the OS (and before going online, of course!) and forget trying to reinstall or uninstall it without a reformat.
2. "Average Users" don't know enough about the software on their systems to make good rules from the start. Norton is also the first thing they disable at any sign of a problem, which always leads to more problems.

I just uninstalled NAV 2003 on 2 desktops and 2 laptops so I could install NAV 2004 which we bought for sales tax only, each copy with 2 licenses. I did not seem to have any problems doing the uninstall or the subsequent install. Am I dumb, lucky or what?

 

First, when you uninstalled, it didn't really go away.
Second, when you installed the new, it simply replaced all the old.
None the wiser

 

Nothing Wrong With Norton

Ackerberg
I probably wouldn't have bothered to uninstall the old version. I would have just installed 2004 overtop.

What I think Reboot means is that no matter how you uninstall Norton products, the registry is forever littered with remnants of the Symantec programs, and the folders and files will do no harm, but wull occupy space. My comp can easily handle Norton's resource demands, and I don't begrudge it what it wants. (With Norton, when in doubt, use the default)

Reboot, and several other people I respect, do not like the bloated Norton products, but I have been very pleased with NIS 02, 03 & 04. Norton has useful features I like, and it has never let me down.

Problems with Norton products are hard to solve, I admit that. Nothing can lock up a computer like Symantec! The users I support also tend to disable Norton at the first sign of a difficulty, which usually compounds any existing problem ten fold, because then they are online, without a firewall or AV. The software is written with choices and explanations, too, and I think the users appreciate being able to make an informed decision. I am fond of my "tattletale" globe, which alerts me to any net activity.

When possible, I like to install Norton directly after the OS, and before going online. Then I go online and run Live Update until it is exhausted. It is NOT OKAY to go online without a firewall, and no, XP's built in one isn't enough. Neither are the dial up ISPs that promise "security filters ". Whatever software you use, Norton or the many alternatives, keep it up to date, and enabled.

Johanna

 

My biggest problem with Norton . . . .

NAV '02, '03, '04, ( '05, '06, '07 ad infinitum?? ) = $ - $ - $.

Do ya think Symantec will ever get tired of re-re-rebuilding this thing? I doubt it. At least not as long as they can sell a "new" version of it every year or so.

I use CA's 'free-for-a-year' eTrust EZ Armor and love it. When the time comes, I'll pay for it.

Over time, I have used several of the AV programs available. I won't allow anything "McAfee" in my house. Norton worked okay but wanted to take over and rule the computer. AVG was a good alternative for me but I just prefer what I have now.

One user - one opinion.


Mike

 

indutch

Two users, two opinions.

 

Make that 3, all of the same I believe.

 

Zander
I meant to comment that, like you, I have had no problems with plain ordinary Outlook Express. The integration with the browser does not irritate me, on the contrary, I see it as a convenience. Configured properly, I don't see any more security problems than with any other email client, and OE is very easy to "talk someone through" who is new to it.

I keep my WAB backed up, and it is stored, along with my dbx files, on my second partition. I have gotten 32 infected emails this past week, none made it past Postini, but if one should slip through, like Beagle showed itself, I'm confident Norton will catch it. I don't use the preview pane, open suspicious email, or disable incoming or outgoing Norton AV scanning. I see no need for another email program because OE does what I want it to do, and does it well. I like to KISS.

So, Zander, if we are satisfied with our "primitive" OE, at least there are two of us. And ain't it great that we can pick our own software? I wouldn't presume to rag on someone's choice of Eudora, or whatever, any more than I would expect them to try to shove their choice down my throat. One thing I like about the BBS is that posters usually stick to facts, or "this was my experience ", when they describe an issue, and do not resort to computer snobbery or emotional persuasion to advocate their choice. We all have different systems, different needs, and like different features. Our comps aren't any more alike than our houses and cars. About the only thing we will ever completely agree on is that the software and hardware technology is advancing so rapidly right now, that if you build and set up a state-of-the-art computer today, it will be "out of date" in less than a year. Everything else is just an "opinion ".

Johanna

 

Johanna
I would agree with pretty much everything you said. When I first started using email (back in the windows 3 days) I used the email program that came with Netscape. I was a big Netscape fan back then because in my opinion it was light years ahead of everybody back then (I hated IE 2 and 3). I used a few others over the years and when OE first came out I must have had it on my computer for at least a couple of years before I even bothered to give it a good look. Once I did, I found like you that it does everything I want it to and does it well. As for security, at least for scripts and active x controls, that's not as much a problem as it used to be either. MS finally got smart and set the default security settings in OE 6 to the restricted zone. Unless you change the settings in the restricted zone in IE (I doubt very much that many,if any, do), those sort of things won't run.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=291387

For now, I'll just continue to use my fake (as opposed to reboots real) email client. For what it's worth, I took it that Newt's reference to primitive was pointed at Eudora. At least that's the way I took it. It made me smile.

Now I'll have to wait and see if Newt jumps in and corrects me on this and makes me frown instead.