ComputerBB

Which do you use?
I use Mcafee as my solution.. What about you?

I Use Symantec Anti Virus Corp. Edtion v8.1. Stays Pretty Well Hidden And Needs Little Management.

I use Norton AntiVirus 2004

Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Edition for me as well.
No silly activation like the Norton 2004 has.

I use AVG. Free, and has always worked well for me and people I know.

AVG, I've heard of it, but I don't quite know what it is, can you provide a link?

ccb056 wrote:AVG, I've heard of it, but I don't quite know what it is, can you provide a link?

No problem. You can download a copy at:

http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php

Completely free for home users.

It uses a lot less system resources than Norton, that's one of the things I like about it the most. No firewall though, so you need to either be behind a hardware firewall or have other firewall software installed on the PC to be safe.

Just switch to Linux and this thread woudl not be required.

Smartweb wrote:Just switch to Linux and this thread woudl not be required.

Until Linux gets real popular and the virus authors start targeting it instead of microsoft...

The firewall shouldn't be a problem as I am behind a Linksys NAT with SPI

ForumJunkie wrote:

Smartweb wrote:Just switch to Linux and this thread woudl not be required.

Until Linux gets real popular and the virus authors start targeting it instead of microsoft...

Except Linux is more secure. Are you familiar with Linux's user account system with the super user, etc.?

Smartweb wrote:

ForumJunkie wrote:

Smartweb wrote:Just switch to Linux and this thread woudl not be required.

Until Linux gets real popular and the virus authors start targeting it instead of microsoft...

Except Linux is more secure. Are you familiar with Linux's user account system with the super user, etc.?

Not nearly as well as I could be so I won't argue with someone that obviously is

Well, basically, there is one super user account, called root. This is like the Administrator account in Windows, but it is the only administrator accounts. All of the other user accounts are like limited accounts. It is highly recommended that you use the other user accounts for day to day use. It is much harder for viruses to infect a computer from a limited account.

When using a limited account, you can still do everything that you can in the super user account; but you have to enter the root password each time. I've been using this system for quite some time, and believe me, it is not an inconvenience at all. It's a much safer system.

A solution in XP is the Run As feature which would allow limited users to run programs in administrative mode. This takes a bit longer, however; and it is less secure.

Kaspersky Labs has an anti-virus package for Linux Workstations.

It supports Red Hat Linux (versions 7.3, 8.0, 9.0), SuSE Linux (versions 8.1, 8.2) or Debian Linux (version 3.0).

They also have an anti-virus solution for Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD mail servers.

Your RedHat boxes were, at one time, vulnerable to threats like the "Ramen" worm, which exploited three buffer overflows: "in.ftpd", "rpc.statd" and "LPRng".

It's a nasty Internet out there.

Will.Spencer wrote:Kaspersky Labs has an anti-virus package for Linux Workstations.

It supports Red Hat Linux (versions 7.3, 8.0, 9.0), SuSE Linux (versions 8.1, 8.2) or Debian Linux (version 3.0).

They also have an anti-virus solution for Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD mail servers.

Your RedHat boxes were, at one time, vulnerable to threats like the "Ramen" worm, which exploited three buffer overflows: "in.ftpd", "rpc.statd" and "LPRng".

It's a nasty Internet out there.

Would this "ramen" worm have infected Linux comptures even if it came up on a normal user account?

Since it is only a worm, don't you just need a firewall/router to protect yourself?

Smartweb wrote:Would this "ramen" worm have infected Linux comptures even if it came up on a normal user account?

To the best of my memory, Ramen used remote-root exploits, so the local user account used by the system owner is irrelevant.

ccb056 wrote:Since it is only a worm, don't you just need a firewall/router to protect yourself?

Yes, or you could shut off the dangerous services.

Im using eTrus EZ Armour. Its been effective so far. Doesnt use much system resources (Did have Norton, it was a joke). Its user friendly. PLus, you get a years updates for free, not sure when the offer expires.

Yes, Norton is a joke

I disagree, since I have had Norton installed, I havent had any viruses, I have been warned of viruses, but never infected. I switched to Norton back in 97ish because McAffe, even updated, was not able to keep viruses from infecting my system.

Well, like I posted before, the same thing happend to me in Norton.. I guess there is nothing perfect out there

Every users milage varies. I never had a problem with getting a virus with norton, just the amount of system resources it took. Made the computer operate slower and boot-up time took a bit longer as well.

Try one of the older versions that are still kept upto date

I was using Norton 2002 Profesional w/ Internet Security.

Also, PC-Cillin is horrible, it came with my motherboard (utilityCD) and it deleted an important windows file that I cannot remember what it is now, since it has been almost a year ago.

I don't use a firewall.. I am behind my linksys router with NAT

I have ran many secuirty tests and I have passed all of them

routers with nat only protect from inbound attacks, if you are already infected, a router wont help much

MCafee although Norton is now more popular and widely used by far.

Never heard of "PC Cillin"

I guess Ill be back here to ask for help configuring my wireless LAN (when it arrives in a week)!