software help needed

Have a question or want to start a discussion? Post it! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View



Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweacker,Regtool,system
mechanic 9 and anti-virus. I have spent money on all of these and its
gotten crazy. Im looking for either one program or two at the most that
does all of this. Im confused and dont know what I need or what works.


--
bojack01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bojack01's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/125919.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/virus-spyware/1252682.htm

http://forums.techarena.in


Re: software help needed


bojack01.3zamzb@DoNotSpam.com says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You're better off with individual pieces. You should be able to get
everything you're looking for without spending anything. Check out the
suggestions on these websites:

http://lists.thedatalist.com/pages/New_Links.htm
http://www.techsupportalert.com /

Re: software help needed


Hi Bojack,
run the free verision of Super AntI Spyware and/or Malware Bytes.
Thier free verisions also remove most common spywares and malwares
MalwareBytes download
http://darfuns.com/download-malwarebytes /
Suer AntiSpyware download
http://darfuns.com/download-super-anti-spyware /

Re: software help needed


bojack01 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hello:

In the minds of some, you don't require any registry utilities at all.
The other antimalware applications is the price of keeping a system
secure.  Many find that an investment in a so-called security suite is
an expensive undertaking that of course expires at the end of the
"lease" period and may still be troublesome.

Many have found that best in breed security applications give them
greater peace of mind and in fact much better provable protection.

Welcome to today's cyberspace and stop looking for easy-out solutions
to absolutely immense security problems.  BTW - Do you have a good NAT
router in use?

The folks at your forum reposted this to the comp.security.firewalls
Usenet newsgroup.  What was your firewall question again?  :-)

HTH

--
1PW

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

Re: software help needed


Jon Solberg wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

How so Jon?  Inquiring minds...

--
1PW

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Because NAT breaks things.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

Re: software help needed


Jon Solberg wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hello Jon:

If it breaks 'your' specific things, then of course it's a serious
issue for you and I understand.  However, as a generality nearly 100%
of enterprise must be using NAT routers now.

Without question, NAT routers have certainly helped the average home
user greatly enhance their security in the last few years.

What sort of trouble has a NAT router given you?  If my NAT router
failed, I'd be terribly frightened about bypassing it till the trouble
was resolved.  Therefore, I do have a spare.

--
1PW

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, it doesn't break 'my' things since I don't use it. It breaks how
protocols are designed to function.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Bullshit. There's no NAT at my present (or any of my previous work
places, ranging from universities to smaller consulting firms), we all
have/had public IPs behind a firewall. That NAT must be used together
with firewalls is one of the most widespread misconceptions about
firewalls there is. Please don't spread that misconception any
further. NAT is address translation, not a security policy.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't have one, will never get one, so hence none whatsoever.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

Re: software help needed


Jon Solberg wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I too have come from one of the above environments.  Years ago we
began to turn away from "public" static IPs and move to "hidden"
networks with DHCP for better user safety.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

For the average home user, would you say that a NAT router is just
"snake oil", or do you believe the average home user can benefit from
the use of a NAT router?

--
1PW

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

IP masquerading in itself is not a security policy, even though some
still seems to believe that. It's a bit like saying 'if I cut my
network cable, I'm secure'.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, mainly due to the lousy IP masquerading implementation used in
many 'broadband routers' and because it tend to break things general
users do (Torrent traffic, VoIP, FTP, different gaming protocols et
c). It causes more problems than it solve.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

Re: software help needed


Hello Jon:

I checked out your web site.  Simply excellent.  You need to add some
photos of your cats and wife.


--
1PW

Re: software help needed


jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The your places of work were wasting IP space.

We've got hundreds of corporate networks, all behind NAT, since the
firewalls implement it perfectly.

We have the option of not using NAT, but have yet to find anything the
businesses need that it causes a problem with.

NAT used in home/residential class routers IS a protection, it blocked
unsolicited connections to the LAN.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.  
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

No they are using IPv6. The problem of limited addressing is not
solved by using NAT:ed IPv4. It's a broken solution.

NAT is not equal to IP Masquerading.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Like VoIP then?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But a false one due to crappy NAT/IP Masquerading implementations in
consumer broadband routers.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

Re: software help needed


Jon Solberg wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

My only expertise here is as a user.  My VoIP works amazingly well on
a resource starved system I use but through a very recently
manufactured and more recently updated NAT router.  Strictly as a
guess, I wonder if those VoIP failures are incorrect implementations
because several VoIP standards are in use?

dd-wrt.com appears to be taking corrective steps for VoIP for one.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wonder here too if recent NAT router updates, that accept multiple
VoIP standards, have corrected this?

--
1PW

Re: software help needed


jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have a firewall appliance that does VOIP just fine, in fact I have 4
Vonage devices behind my Firebox x1250 and they have no issues at all.

I have entire medical centers behind firewall appliances, using NAT,
where there are VOIP based systems for some departments - and they work
across a site-site VPN through the firewalls.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And I have yet to actually experience one that is broken and I started
with the first NAT router that was released for residential use and have
used Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, 3COM, CISCO devices without breaking
anything.



--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.  
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: software help needed


On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in


Quoted text here. Click to load it


It's kind of wishy-washy, but see RFC4864

  4864 Local Network Protection for IPv6. G. Van de Velde, T. Hain, R.
       Droms, B. Carpenter, E. Klein. May 2007. (Format: TXT=95448 bytes)
       (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

An artifact of the way blocks of IP addresses were handed out in the
1970s through mid 1990s.  Initially, you got the next larger size of
a /24, /16 or /8.  This attitude is shown by the effective use of a
single host with _two_ slant eights (0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.0) verses
two (or more) /32s.   If you look at the way blocks are being handed
out now (2009), the majority of new blocks are smaller than /20s
(255.255.240.0 or fffff000 - 4094 usable addresses)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

At the moment, it's not solved by IPv6 either. Ignoring work (because
of an NDA), just one of the four ISPs I regularly use provides real
IPv6 addresses. If you look world wide, that is above the average.  On
15 September 2009, the five Regional Internet Registries (AfriNIC,
APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE) had allocated or assigned 2,923,334,816
IPv4 addresses (78.87 percent of non-RFC3330 address space) in 97651
networks.  They've also allocated or assigned 1.103e33 IPv6 addresses
(0.026 percent of the non-RFC5156 address space) in 3697 networks.
You're posting with a .se domain - Sweden had 870 IPv4 blocks and just
66 IPv6 blocks.   Great - there are a jillion IPv6 addresses (the
_smallest_ assigned blocks are 4 /64s, each of which is 1.845e18
addresses - six billion times the total current IPv4 space)  but if
the only way I can get to them is through the equivalent of NAT, and
that adds 6 to _20_ hops to the path (latency), it's not doing me a
whole lot of good.    Chicken? Egg?  Sure, eventually IPv6 is going to
save the planet, but that day isn't in sight yet, and until then, NAT
and RFC1918 is going to remain an important part.  

        Old guy

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please elaborate. How exactly does NAT "break how protocols are designed
to function"? Some special cases (particularly IPSec AH) aside I fail to
see how that would be.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: software help needed


Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, it hasn't. NAT was never designed, nor is it suited, to be a
security feature.

What you're referring to is dropping inbound connection attempts, which
any even halfway decent packet filter should be able to do.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: software help needed


Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hello 59cobalt:

When an unwise user installs their new computer, with XP & only SP2
from an OEM build over a year old, no AV, no antimalware, and little
self control, and their sweaty shaking hands connects that system to a
NAT router's LAN port, I'd feel just a tiny bit better than if they'd
connected directly to a bare cable modem.  Wouldn't you?  :-)

Respectfully,

--
1PW

Site Timeline