What security setup do you have?

chev65 · 21 Aug 2009

None at all. To me, most of the so called anti virus anti malware programs are worse than the programs they are trying to stop.

Once my system has been infected I just back up and reinstall the Op system. I don't trust anything to remove viruses because you never really know if you got them all.

I keep a running back up handy on one of my other machines and can do a complete restore with all my files back in less than an hour. Avoiding malware and viruses has more to do with knowing where not to go than anything else. Using your brain when browsing prevents more infections than any anti virus program.

Mercurial · 21 Aug 2009

the thing is we are not testing your antivir but your firewall...
its good that ESET detected it but what if one virus does slip thorough...(trust me all of them trip up once in a while)
that is where your firewall comes in....
and if your firewall is not setup correctly the it will let other malware get in...
this is good example (this was one of the first leaktest software created)
and one of first "Intrusion Protection" packages to block it...

well its been like 2 or 3 months since using RTM no virus yet with eset =)...

also I don't really believe the idea" virus slips once in awhile"( you haven't used eset or kapersky yet? nothing slips lol) since they make nasty registry entries once they run so yea(prevent is better than cure)... eset ftw...

as I said of previous post if you're anti-virus even lets you download such a thing with ugly codes in it... then you're in big trouble... forget the firewall test lmao.

I only rely firewall for unwanted pings,dos,telnet(disabled on vista and 7 by default) and such =) coming from outside... I rely on my AV so nothing can get inside =) so yea meh =)

if you want to test your antivirus in action in reallife situations visit this site :P

Watch - A Cinderella Story - Streaming Google Chrome has a bad protection tsk tsk tsk... it allows that java script to infect you're system... without eset I'm doomed D=;
eset strikes again.!

darkassain · 21 Aug 2009

Mercurial said:

well its been like 2 or 3 months since using RTM no virus yet with eset =)...

also I don't really believe the idea" virus slips once in awhile"( you haven't used eset or kapersky yet? nothing slips lol) since they make nasty registry entries once they run so yea(prevent is better than cure)... eset ftw...

as I said of previous post if you're anti-virus even lets you download such a thing with ugly codes in it... then you're in big trouble... forget the firewall test lmao.

there is a reason they call a antivirus reactive security instead of proactive (heuristics covers that but is still limited as encryption can somewhat render that useless, some of the av vendors just block most with such encryption techniques, even ones that valid and non-malware...

)
there will always be 0 day exploits and malware that will exploit them in the wild that even heuristics will not catch...

I only rely firewall for unwanted pings,dos,telnet(disabled on vista and 7 by default) and such =) coming from outside... I rely on my AV so nothing can get inside =) so yea meh =)

i see so what if it does not work (the firewall)?
what is the point of testing your firewall if you are testing your AV with a firewall leaktest?
also if you have residential broadband you should have a router and that router should have nat enabled...
back in the old days when nat was not as wide spread i can see a firewall as the primary vector for this kind of defense but unless you opened a bunch of ports i dont see how pings and anything else gets outside....
leaktests are for outbound protection where you choose which apps to connect to the internet (and you clearly dont have a need for that...

)

if you want to test your antivirus in action in reallife situations visit this site :P

Watch - A Cinderella Story - Streaming Google Chrome has a bad protection tsk tsk tsk... it allows that java script to infect you're system... without eset I'm doomed D=;
eset strikes again.!

and noscript to the rescue again...

there is a difference between malware and a javascript ad...

there is always choice, you can choose a av vendor and products or you can choose to use safe practices (you can even do both if you wish) in the end though your security is as strong as your weakest link, which is right now is the person with no knowledge of safe practices (of course i am not referring at you but at the masses that click on random websites)...

also please refrain from using links to infected websites (since you said it was infected) if you do please make it so the parser does not identify it as website...

h t t p : / / w w w.tvokay.c o m /movie/a-cinderella-story.htm

back OT
im am testing the server aspects of FCS...:)

MadMax · 22 Aug 2009

darkassain said:

sorry wrote in the wrong section...

here is like it should have been..

yes that is true (there is a well laid out article on the code project that i really like..

)
but this is the first step (it seems) of locking the kernel down and preventing access from anyone unauthorized to do so...
patchguard feels to me more like a bandaid (blocking the good guys from patching, while the bad guys can still get in)

yup,fully agreed.

my prediction is that we will end up with some sort of hypervisor protection scheme (which will no doubt have its bugs too) which is that we need, something above the kernel enforcing protection upon it (that cant be too easily accessed)...

hopefully with windows 10

and of course using no security thorough obscurity (but i doubt that will happen...

didn't happen yet so,i guess fat chance:/

yes and i have heard accounts from a number of people having bsod's and amoung other things because of this (eventually their code matures and is more stable but you still see bsod's by AV's kernel drivers happening in xp...)
i mean Microsoft isnt perfect either but at least they know this way when they need to patch the kernel they know that none of the av vendors are in there hooking the kernel and if they patch something it will not break or BSOD because something is not patching the kernel (unless of course malware is there but then again you should have a hips or a heuristics to counter such things)...:)

xp didn't need an av to patch the kernel to BSOD itself

lol i just had to say it:)

and i do remember the times when KPP was not around (as i used to a very secure hips/firewall called core force which i used before comodo's early betas...:)) they also use KP and with that style of protection and with enough knowledge (which is what you really need with such a advance product as this one) nothing and i mean nothing should should get into your computer and execute without your approval (it was also incredibly flexible, i kinda actually wished UAC would have a more simpler version of this (im pretty sure it would have been seen better if was more flexible...

))

tell me bout it,patching the kernel might leat to stability issues[eventhough they wont be very obvious most of the time],but it worked so darn well when it came to dealing with malware

yes and like i said this is just a step (as i think of it) to a more robust solution like hypervisor protection

hopefully with windows 10 at the earliest lol

i really do like their corporate products but recently (with a Endpoint protection feature not compatible with vista, forgot which one though) i changed to using more "the user in control" approach (as of now, using noscript and carefully checking whether to allow scripting or not, and adblock plus and nothing else apart from UAC and the Winfirewall, i have not been exploited by malware[expecpt that firefox heap bug, which i initiated downloading from millw0rm and executing the script, but then again no payload was there...

] out there in the web)

i'm currently thinking of this approach,but then again sandboxing on a x64 windows machine still has the same issue as with other security products.sadly though x64 systems still remain to be on the bleeding edge *sigh*

***didn't get any sleep for more than a day so do excuse my rather short reply.not like that i had anything to add to it anyway :) apart from BSODs on xp lol

Mercurial · 22 Aug 2009

darkassain said:

and noscript to the rescue again...

there is a difference between malware and a javascript ad...

yes there is but the common thing is you don't want them in your system lol...
so yea just saying my current protection is awesome =)

darkassain said:

also please refrain from using links to infected websites (since you said it was infected) if you do please make it so the parser does not identify it as website...

h t t p : / / w w w.tvokay.c o m /movie/a-cinderella-story.htm

lmfao IDFC everyones on their own ;P (its a test how you really trust you're protection setup, so much chit chat but does it really protect you?)
well see how PRO you are :P

and this has been a fun discussion =)

Zahl · 22 Aug 2009

Router
Symantec NIS 2009
SuperAntiSpywarePro

This combo kept me safe on Vista and I am glad its doing the same on windows 7:)

Dinesh · 23 Aug 2009

im trying avast 5 beta for now.

rEnEeK · 23 Aug 2009

Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 :)

wildbilly · 23 Aug 2009

using Microsoft forefront (member on tech net) Works good.....seems to anyway, Win 7 indicates everything is A OK.

Sassa · 23 Aug 2009

Testing avast 5 beta