Norton AV '06 Killed Windows

"Brian A." gonefish'n@afarawaylake wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

That's the one thing many users are lousy at. This raises another
question. There's a setting in OE:

"Automatically put people I reply to in my Address Book"

It's checked by default. Translation: "If I get a virus that spreads via
email, be sure it is sent to everyone I ever had contact with, even if it
was just once". I'd like the phone number and home address of the genius
who came up with this idea.

True translation:
If someone I know/trust sends me an email and I reply to them, their addy
will automatically be added to book if it is not already in it. If I
don't reply they won't be automatically be added to the book.
If someone I don't know/trust sends me an email, I don't hesitate or even
think twice about deleting the message. If it happens to be someone I
know and don't realize it because I wasn't informed about their addy, too
bad, delete. If they had the resources to get my addy to eamil me, then
they have the resources to contact me in other ways.
If I get a virus that spreads via any shape or form, shame on me for not
keeping vigilant and/or having the proper elements up to date. A BIG
Slammin shame on my ISP for letting it get through their network servers.

"know/trust" is irrelevant if YOU were the first to get the virus. And, this
*does* happen (although rarely) if the virus is rampant before AV publishers
get ahead of it. So, you can get it first, and spread it to others.



Any virus that spreads via email is either propogated with their own mass
mailing engine or the unknowing user, whether or not they are in the
address book.

So, when AV publishers say that a virus re-sends itself to everyone in the
infected computer's address book, this is......a fairy tale?

Mike Williams wrote:
I use AVG Free for anti-virus
(http://www.grisoft.com/doc/40/lng/us/tpl/tpl01), Microsoft
AntiSpyware

Does it allow you to shut off email scanning COMPLETELY? A friend just
installed it and claims she can't stop email scanning. It's causing
timeouts with her ISP or some such problem. I haven't sat in front of
her machine to witness it.

There's options for turning off inbound & outbound email scanning or
both. The Control Center (main UI) has a big button for Email Scanning
options that's hard to miss.

If you disable AVG's Email Scanner, Security Center won't like it!
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org

"PA Bear" wrote in message
...
Mike Williams wrote:
I use AVG Free for anti-virus
(http://www.grisoft.com/doc/40/lng/us/tpl/tpl01), Microsoft
AntiSpyware

Does it allow you to shut off email scanning COMPLETELY? A friend just
installed it and claims she can't stop email scanning. It's causing
timeouts with her ISP or some such problem. I haven't sat in front of
her machine to witness it.

There's options for turning off inbound & outbound email scanning or
both. The Control Center (main UI) has a big button for Email Scanning
options that's hard to miss.

If you disable AVG's Email Scanner, Security Center won't like it!

Uh oh. What happens? Does SC start playing the Mission Impossible theme
song, followed by smoke coming out of the computer???

Doug Kanter wrote:
"PA Bear" wrote in message
...
Mike Williams wrote:
I use AVG Free for anti-virus
(http://www.grisoft.com/doc/40/lng/us/tpl/tpl01), Microsoft
AntiSpyware
Does it allow you to shut off email scanning COMPLETELY? A friend just
installed it and claims she can't stop email scanning. It's causing
timeouts with her ISP or some such problem. I haven't sat in front of
her machine to witness it.
There's options for turning off inbound & outbound email scanning or
both. The Control Center (main UI) has a big button for Email Scanning
options that's hard to miss.
If you disable AVG's Email Scanner, Security Center won't like it!

Uh oh. What happens? Does SC start playing the Mission Impossible theme
song, followed by smoke coming out of the computer???

I disabled it a little while ago as a test, and haven't heard a peep out
of Windows Securitall your base belong to us

"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"PA Bear" wrote in message
...
Mike Williams wrote:
I use AVG Free for anti-virus
(http://www.grisoft.com/doc/40/lng/us/tpl/tpl01), Microsoft
AntiSpyware
Does it allow you to shut off email scanning COMPLETELY? A friend just
installed it and claims she can't stop email scanning. It's causing
timeouts with her ISP or some such problem. I haven't sat in front of
her machine to witness it.
There's options for turning off inbound & outbound email scanning or
both. The Control Center (main UI) has a big button for Email Scanning
options that's hard to miss.
If you disable AVG's Email Scanner, Security Center won't like it!

Uh oh. What happens? Does SC start playing the Mission Impossible theme
song, followed by smoke coming out of the computer???

I disabled it a little while ago as a test, and haven't heard a peep out
of Windows Securitall your base belong to us

:-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
I use AVG Free for anti-virus
(http://www.grisoft.com/doc/40/lng/us/tpl/tpl01), Microsoft
AntiSpyware

Does it allow you to shut off email scanning COMPLETELY? A friend
just installed it and claims she can't stop email scanning. It's
causing timeouts with her ISP or some such problem. I haven't sat
in front of her machine to witness it.

There's options for turning off inbound & outbound email scanning or
both. The Control Center (main UI) has a big button for Email Scanning
options that's hard to miss.

If you disable AVG's Email Scanner, Security Center won't like it!

Uh oh. What happens? Does SC start playing the Mission Impossible theme
song, followed by smoke coming out of the computer???

No, Twilight Zone theme.

SC will tell you that the AV's not working properly and the AVG icon will be
grayed-out in Notification Area (AKA systray) until you re-enable Email
Scanning.

Only workaround I know of is to uninstall AVG then reinstall it using Custom
Install, opting out of installing the Email Scanner.

YMMV.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Brian A." gonefish'n@afarawaylake wrote in message

That's the one thing many users are lousy at. This raises another
question. There's a setting in OE:

"Automatically put people I reply to in my Address Book"

It's checked by default. Translation: "If I get a virus that spreads
via email, be sure it is sent to everyone I ever had contact with, even
if it was just once". I'd like the phone number and home address of the
genius who came up with this idea.

True translation:
If someone I know/trust sends me an email and I reply to them, their
addy will automatically be added to book if it is not already in it. If
I don't reply they won't be automatically be added to the book.
If someone I don't know/trust sends me an email, I don't hesitate or
even think twice about deleting the message. If it happens to be
someone I know and don't realize it because I wasn't informed about
their addy, too bad, delete. If they had the resources to get my addy
to eamil me, then they have the resources to contact me in other ways.
If I get a virus that spreads via any shape or form, shame on me for
not keeping vigilant and/or having the proper elements up to date. A
BIG Slammin shame on my ISP for letting it get through their network
servers.

"know/trust" is irrelevant if YOU were the first to get the virus. And,
this *does* happen (although rarely) if the virus is rampant before AV
publishers get ahead of it. So, you can get it first, and spread it to
others.

It's only irrelevant if the user always deploys Safe Hex and opens an
email from a known/trusted, which then in turn runs the newly propogating
Trojans code. In this case the user would not be the first to be
compromised by a new virus running rampant.
It would also only be irrelevant if the new rampant virus compromised
machines via the internet, no matter the security guidelines set by any
admin or user.

My mention of the matter on hand was/is: Simply by replying to an email
that you recieved and having their addy automatically added to your address
book does not compromise the machine, all it does is add the sender to the
book. It doesn't run/execute any Trojans code, simply opening an email
can/does run code for some Trojans while others have a link or executable
attachment that must be clicked/opened in order for the code to execute.

Any virus that spreads via email is either propogated with their own
mass mailing engine or the unknowing user, whether or not they are in
the address book.

So, when AV publishers say that a virus re-sends itself to everyone in
the infected computer's address book, this is......a fairy tale?

No it is not a fairy tail. Many viruse have their own mass mailing
engine which procure the compromised machines addys from the book, which in
turn is then sent to every addy procured. If the virus does not have it's
own engine, then the unknowing user can propogate the virus via email,
internet or disk without ever using an addy from the book.

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

"Brian A." gonefish'n@afarawaylake wrote in message
...


So, when AV publishers say that a virus re-sends itself to everyone in
the infected computer's address book, this is......a fairy tale?

No it is not a fairy tail. Many viruse have their own mass mailing
engine which procure the compromised machines addys from the book, which
in turn is then sent to every addy procured. If the virus does not have
it's own engine, then the unknowing user can propogate the virus via
email, internet or disk without ever using an addy from the book.

Right! That's the point. You can say that you only reply to trusted
individuals, but even nice, honest people who *think* they're protected can
still NOT have safe machines. There are people whose address books contain
dozens of names they haven't corresponded with in years.

Oh never mind. You know what I mean.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Right! That's the point. You can say that you only reply to trusted
individuals, but even nice, honest people who *think* they're protected
can still NOT have safe machines. There are people whose address books
contain dozens of names they haven't corresponded with in years.

Oh never mind. You know what I mean.

Yup, sure do. I understood your point in every response. Their purely
never was or is any reason to keep that sucker checked, it can/does set up
a mine field. My intent was only to point out that leaving it checked does
not set users up to be compromised. Simply another take on the way others
may read into the translation.

I'll 86 from this thread as well.

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

"Brian A." gonefish'n@afarawaylake wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Right! That's the point. You can say that you only reply to trusted
individuals, but even nice, honest people who *think* they're protected
can still NOT have safe machines. There are people whose address books
contain dozens of names they haven't corresponded with in years.

Oh never mind. You know what I mean.

Yup, sure do. I understood your point in every response. Their purely
never was or is any reason to keep that sucker checked, it can/does set up
a mine field. My intent was only to point out that leaving it checked
does not set users up to be compromised. Simply another take on the way
others may read into the translation.

I'll 86 from this thread as well.

Time out! Don't you know anyone who you love dearly, but who is a complete
dolt when it comes to keeping their computer disease-free? I estimate that
75% of home users are just like that. So, checking that option definitely
does put not only the dolts, but all their acquaintances at risk.

Speaking of being cynical, I think every CPU cabinet should have a huge
day-glo orange bulletin packed with it, saying "Your AV software was up to
date on the day this thing was put in its box. It's not up to date any more.
Read your instructions".

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Time out! Don't you know anyone who you love dearly, but who is a
complete dolt when it comes to keeping their computer disease-free? I
estimate that 75% of home users are just like that. So, checking that
option definitely does put not only the dolts, but all their
acquaintances at risk.

Hey, I 86'd!! Well then, since you ask and mention:
I definitely won't dispute it where Li_ _ gets a headline, um I mean
dolts. A sis in law I love so dearly who is on my blocked list so that I
may continue to keep peace amongst us. She is many times over more
educated on proper security and keeping it up to date now, yet far from
truley grasping the full conceptual meaning. Many times over many years I
have recieved chain, hoax, very few infected, etc. mail from her, and many
times over many years I have sent back a proper response advising her of
each emails intention along with links to help her understand their
contents. It got to a point where I asked her politely time and again to
please not send me any mail relating to these, those and the other things.
Needless to say it fell on deaf ears each time and she stomped on the last
nerve I had left.

I sent an email to every recipient in TO: with the original content
explaining the nature and purpose of it. I also added in with a not so
very pleasant tone that anyone, and I mean anyone who ventures as far as
even thinking about continuing the propogation, then they and everyone else
who follows suit was a (this is where the really nasty dragon shot flames),
you get the picture I'm sure.

The next email recieved from her was mean questions on why she was
getting emails from friends asking who the he_ _ is this Brian, how did he
get their addy, why did he send this to us and the kicker Q from the SIL:
What gives me the right to do what I did and say the things I did?
I wrote back and explained the past/present situation which was
meaningless to a woman scorn. She wrote back with the ever so annoying
I'll do what I yada yada, I hit the foxhole and blocked/bounced her email
right back. The next time I see her I get to hear, so your blocking me now
yada yada. I explained once again why, waited for the atmosphere to cool
some, called a truce and had a pow-wow. Not at any time since to date,
have I at least, recieved another single particle of those email types from
her or any other related family member.

I'll give it to you in a wide spectrum of analysis that leaving it
checked can/does put many at risk. In my on the other side of the rainbow
analysis, it's more of an annoyance than a security threat. What's more of
a security threat is the damned Preview Pane set as default enabled.


Speaking of being cynical, I think every CPU cabinet should have a huge
day-glo orange bulletin packed with it, saying "Your AV software was up
to date on the day this thing was put in its box. It's not up to date any
more. Read your instructions".

Pffffft! That type of reading is dangerous to most everything in my
immediate area. Now I gotta clean up the barley-pop.
--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Mike Williams wrote in
:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Thank you kindly.

I get the impression Symantec is unwilling to share code and
confidences with Microsoft -- hence the very poor integration of XP
and Norton on the computer of the user.

It just has to use the existing interfaces reliably - which other
AV-makers manage to do without inflicting the pain that NAV has
managed for years.

I do use NAV but version 2002. My _Guess_ is that Symantec went the stupid
route of (what appears to be) the trend for the larger s/w companies and
jumped right on the .Net bandwagon and started using that for all
development, no matter if it was the best tool for the job or not.

My first instinct....NOT .NET in this case ! Generally, AV is a _desktop_
application, adding another layer of software to go through, let alone, an
un-proven (in my eyes) one at that.

What a waste.