I replaced my Norton 2004 with Norton 2005 and was then told that I would have to remove my ZoneAlarm to install Norton 2005. Is this true? Is it a good thing? Should I have remained with Norton 2004? Thanks for your advice. Mike
I disagree. I think that you definetely need a personal firewall. Many times you will have adware on your computer and these programs will try to get on the internet. With ZoneAlarm you always have to option to deny them, and then you can use another program to get rid of them.
You also need an antivirus program at all times. In my opinion both are required of any PC connected to the Internet. In the first ten min. of a brand new computer connected to the Internet, people try to hack it.
Software doesn't get installed by miracle. You have only on your computer what you install yourself.
You only need to get rid of something, that you installed before.
No. Shut down all unwanted services, use safe client software, practice safe computing.
While it is correct that the risk of a compromise of a system within a very short time in our times of malware activities is high, the big pink letters (Don't panic) on the guide are still valid and measures can be taken that will overcome these risks. The first points among these are to lock down the box (this can be done offline) and to install all patches (this can be difficult without a network connection) before it is connected to the net. On windows systems the built-in packet filter is quite allright to stop access to the box from remote.
Just remember Dr. Struan 'Don't get bitten' Sutherland.
( I think that you definetely need a personal firewall.) - > I'm pretty sure that he doesn't.
I'm not sure what sort of information security classes, books, etc you have read or attended, but they all teach safe computing as having a firewall and an antivirus on every desktop. If they weren't required, then companies wouldn't need them, therefore nobody would make them. I work in the Information Security field and trust me, firewalls are needed. Companies spend millions on tightening up their security, that that included both firewalls and antivirus programs.
(You also need an antivirus program at all times). > No.
If you think that you don't need an anitvirus program, then send me your email address and I'll send you a very nice picture of Anna Kournikova. You'll love it. I'm not sure why you would think that you don't need an antivirus program? With all of the email borne viruses out there, you would be a fool not to have an antivirus program.
And let me guess, you are going to tell me that you should only open emails from the ones that you know. I can easily spoof the email address of your internet provider and tell you that there is something wrong with the account, and ask you to download that attachement that was sent along with the email. How many people would fall for that? Probably all that think that an antivirus or firewall is not needed.
computer what you install yourself.
Not true. "Web users are often unaware that spyware has been downloaded to their computers, and it can be very difficult or almost impossible to remove"
That quote was taken from National Conference on State Legislature website. So as you can see, spyware can install on your computer without the user knowing.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that both antivirus and personal firewalls are needed. Are they required? No really. You can do without them, just as well as you can do without having a lock on your door or eating without washing your hands after you were on the NY subway for a day. You really don't need to do either, but it would be smart if you did.
I do not need convincing that I need a personal firewall as well as anti-virus software, notwithstanding comments by Wolfgang Kueter.
However, a Symantec technician told me these three things over the telephone during the weekend:
Norton 2005 cannot be installed with ZoneAlarm present, whether or not it is running.
Norton 2005 cannot run with ZoneAlarm present.
Norton 2005 supplies all of the necessary functionality of ZoneAlarm.
The point of my post was to verify these claims, all of which I doubted. Since then, the American holiday ended, the work week began, and I had direct access to some experts on these things. Based on considerable experience of these notables, I was informed:
is false, although it is probably necessary to shut of ZoneAlarm during the installation.
was not addressed.
I was advised to install both. Having already ingested and, shall we say, discounted the suggestion that these tools deserve only pejoratives, I still wonder if there are any other opinions or experiences regarded the enumerated items above.
Darling, I am my internet provider. And no, you can't spoof that, at least not in mails to me.
Honey, if something will ever be wrong with any of my accounts I'm probably the first to notice and fix that. Besides that I really wonder whether I should be totally amused or completely shocked about your lack of knowledge.
Hint: Have you ever heard that computers that do not run windows _do_ exist? Do you have the slightest idea, what that means for your attack scnenario?
So please take your time to finish kindergarden and school. Once you've reached the university you might be a bit surprised to meet me again standing in front of the class you just entered.
People who bash OE posters for security reasons need not be taken seriously. That OE has or has had numerous security issues for *mail* is irrelevant when it's used as a *Usenet* client. OE as a news client has many other flaws, but security-wise it's no worse than others. There's been security holes fixed for Pan (which you appear to use) too.
Now that's some sweeping generalizations. You can't judge *all* users based on your perception of *some* of them. There *are* clued users who use OE for Usenet too, and likewise there's idiots who post with other software. I see a lot of idiots using Forte Agent -- possibly they're more interested in leeching pr0n than learning how to post, but that doesn't mean I hold the choice of client against Agent users or assume that because of their choice of client, they're idiots.
I can do the *opposite* and judge that because someone is an idiot, they might be posting with OE or Agent, but I can't judge the user based on the client.
What's "most people"? And patches these days pretty much auto-installing.
So are old versions of most any news client. In this particular case, the poster was using the latest version, which is much more secure *by default* than many other news clients.
Do a search on Bugtraq for various news readers, and subtract what's email vulnerabilities only, and you'll find plenty of other things than OE to worry about. Heck, some other news clients that do NOT show up are exploitable because they use DOM or COM *without* the security layer that OE (now) enforces, and you won't even see a problem reported, while in reality they might happily send an attachment straight to the system.
In my experience, the real issue with OE users is that most of them have no clue that Usenet is not email and that posting methods are different. Most of them have no clue about how Usenet works, how to cross-post, how to munge their email address, how to properly quote, how to properly bottom reply, HOW TO CLIP parts that are not needed in a reply..... The worst part about most OE users is that they post HTML into non HTML specific groups.
Another consideration is that most people using OE don't have fully patched systems because they only know how to use what came with the machine, and patches require at least minimal effort and understanding.
Considering all of the above, using OE, in it's default state, is a security threat for the User.
If you notice, not once did I say ALL OE users. As most machines don't come with Usenet clients other than OE, many of the masses that find Usenet do so using OE any more - MS ruined that for us (and I'm a MS partner, so I'm not bashing them for being MS).
There are lots of 'idiots' on both sides, but, since FA requires user action to find/install, the users are more likely to be at the very least more competent than the typical OE user on Usenet.
I don't judge the user at all, not on any application, I judge the application. OE is a terrible Usenet client, always was and always will be. MS cut corners in order to make a multi-use product and should have just provided two versions. Look at the number of posters using OE that improperly post vs those using other apps that improperly post.
There are a great many systems that are not running SP1 or SP2, and many that are not running XP even. So, auto-update would be only about 50% of the machines I've seen in the hundreds of residential users I've experienced.
Actually, most users don't update OE, they don't have a clue that updates exist, don't properly patch it, don't quote properly, still thing it's an extension of email, and even some thing it is email. It's a threat to have Usenet clients that are more than text.
I see far more OE users systems compromised than I do ThunderBird or Netscape or ones that use proper Usenet clients. OE only enforces something if the user has upgraded or updated it, and MOST users that I've experienced have still not applied XP-SP2 or any other updates.
He is also dead as well!!!! Was one of Australia's most informed experts on venomous snakes and spiders and helped develop antivenins for many deadly creatures (considering Australia has some of the most venomous snakes, spiders and sea critters in the world). Unfortunately Straun died several years ago and was truly a great scientist. GRHS.