AVG Free A Question please

Tom McCune wrote:

> monet DeleteThis @ptd.net (Michelle) wrote in news:40db9c41.8224390@usenet.ptd.net:
>
>
>>Hi I am using AVG Free version. I have the update manager set for
>>every 14 days. Until about two weeks ago I was using windows 98
>>without much virus problems. Now I have Windows XP Professional and
>>have been having quite a bit of problems. In your opinion how should I
>>set up update manager. Every 7 days or should it be less than that.
>
>
> Even if you really practice safe computing, I can't imagine updating less
> than daily in today's environment.

actually, if you really practice safe computing that's not necessary...

my most notable practices are:
1) stay behind a firewall...
2) use a browser that isn't a big target and turn off unnecessary
active content handling...
3) use an email reader that isn't a big target and doesn't launch
attackments automagically... ant turn off unnecessary active content
handling in that too...
4) don't expose myself to potential vectors (iow, i choose not to
download every bloody thing i find)...

pretty much the only executable content i download anymore are mozilla
updates and open office updates... oh, and f-prot updates... the
frequency at which i encounter any threat (nevermind new threats that
would require daily updating to catch) is very, very low...

--
"maxwell can tell he's in hell
just wants you to visit him there
same old game that he's playin'
his rules are never fair"
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:15:09 GMT, null DeleteThis @zilch.com wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:44:15 GMT, Tom McCune
><news DeleteThis @DELETE_THISmccune.cc> wrote:
>
>>monet@ptd.net (Michelle) wrote in news:40db9c41.8224390@usenet.ptd.net:
>>
>>> Hi I am using AVG Free version. I have the update manager set for
>>> every 14 days. Until about two weeks ago I was using windows 98
>>> without much virus problems. Now I have Windows XP Professional and
>>> have been having quite a bit of problems. In your opinion how should I
>>> set up update manager. Every 7 days or should it be less than that.
>>
>>Even if you really practice safe computing, I can't imagine updating less
>>than daily in today's environment.
>
>I disagree. If you _really_ practice safe computing you won't be
>dependent on realtime av. In which case, you update whenever the
>occasion might call for on-demand scanning ... which may not be very
>often at all.

sorry .. but in a realtime, professional environment, this statement
is utter nonsense ...
you are not providing the computing community with a service by
posting this "false feeling of security" .. especially as probably
millions of users out there may not have the same working experience
as you may have ..
I manage an 150+ networked computer node and it is not all too
difficult to predict what would happen without a realtime AV, AS & FW
... and I consider my users as pretty well educated in those matters ..
FWIW
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

imbsysop wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:15:09 GMT, null RemoveThis @zilch.com wrote:
[snip]
>>I disagree. If you _really_ practice safe computing you won't be
>>dependent on realtime av. In which case, you update whenever the
>>occasion might call for on-demand scanning ... which may not be very
>>often at all.
>
>
> sorry .. but in a realtime, professional environment, this statement
> is utter nonsense ...

if, in a realtime professional environment, users are allowed to
download/execute any old content they like then they aren't really
practicing safe computing...

> you are not providing the computing community with a service by
> posting this "false feeling of security" .. especially as probably
> millions of users out there may not have the same working experience
> as you may have ..

it's not a false feeling of security... what it is is a practice that
few users actually adopt and few administrators bother to mandate...

> I manage an 150+ networked computer node and it is not all too
> difficult to predict what would happen without a realtime AV, AS & FW
> ... and I consider my users as pretty well educated in those matters ..

if real infections are common then obviously your opinion of them
doesn't count for much...

--
"maxwell can tell he's in hell
just wants you to visit him there
same old game that he's playin'
his rules are never fair"
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:36:05 GMT, monet DeleteThis @ptd.net (Michelle) wrote:

>Hi I am using AVG Free version. I have the update manager set for
>every 14 days. Until about two weeks ago I was using windows 98
>without much virus problems. Now I have Windows XP Professional and
>have been having quite a bit of problems. In your opinion how should I
>set up update manager. Every 7 days or should it be less than that.
>
>Thanks
>Michelle

I would update more often than every 7 days. Daily would be *safer*.
--
Avenger©
webweaver DeleteThis @CATihug.com.au
"Put the CAT out to reply"
*I DETEST Spam - A Spam Hater since 1951*
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

Tom McCune wrote:
> kurt wismer <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in news:Q_VCc.34680$Nz.2056416
> @news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>>actually, if you really practice safe computing that's not necessary...
>>
>>my most notable practices are:
>>1) stay behind a firewall...
>>2) use a browser that isn't a big target and turn off unnecessary
>>active content handling...
>>3) use an email reader that isn't a big target and doesn't launch
>>attackments automagically... ant turn off unnecessary active content
>>handling in that too...
>>4) don't expose myself to potential vectors (iow, i choose not to
>>download every bloody thing i find)...
>>
>>pretty much the only executable content i download anymore are mozilla
>>updates and open office updates... oh, and f-prot updates... the
>>frequency at which i encounter any threat (nevermind new threats that
>>would require daily updating to catch) is very, very low...
>
> The reason I think good AV is necessary, with daily updating, is that
> despite using safe computing, we are all human, humans make mistakes, and
> it only takes one mistake. Since humans are not capable of ongoing
> perfection, that is not part of my definition of safe computing.

well, i'm not saying that people have to be perfect, or that they
shouldn't need anti-virus software... only that daily updating is
unnecessary if they're practicing safe hex.. i'm not perfect, and i use
anti-virus software - i even let it update itself on a weekly basis
(the default for f-prot for windows, i think)...

if someone is serious about practicing safe-hex, though, i don't expect
there would be frequent accidents... occasional ones that hopefully
aren't serious and have no real consequences is what i would expect
from most slip-ups... probably you shouldn't need to update daily
unless you expect to make mistakes daily, and that doesn't really sound
like the serious practice of safe-hex to me...

--
"maxwell can tell he's in hell
just wants you to visit him there
same old game that he's playin'
his rules are never fair"
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

"kurt wismer" <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9M3Dc.47035$MU4.1278925@news20.bellglobal.com...
Tom McCune wrote:
> kurt wismer <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in news:Q_VCc.34680$Nz.2056416
> @news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>>actually, if you really practice safe computing that's not necessary...
>>
>>my most notable practices are:
>>1) stay behind a firewall...
>>2) use a browser that isn't a big target and turn off unnecessary
>>active content handling...
>>3) use an email reader that isn't a big target and doesn't launch
>>attackments automagically... ant turn off unnecessary active content
>>handling in that too...
>>4) don't expose myself to potential vectors (iow, i choose not to
>>download every bloody thing i find)...
>>
>>pretty much the only executable content i download anymore are mozilla
>>updates and open office updates... oh, and f-prot updates... the
>>frequency at which i encounter any threat (nevermind new threats that
>>would require daily updating to catch) is very, very low...
>
> The reason I think good AV is necessary, with daily updating, is that
> despite using safe computing, we are all human, humans make mistakes, and
> it only takes one mistake. Since humans are not capable of ongoing
> perfection, that is not part of my definition of safe computing.

well, i'm not saying that people have to be perfect, or that they
shouldn't need anti-virus software... only that daily updating is
unnecessary if they're practicing safe hex.. i'm not perfect, and i use
anti-virus software - i even let it update itself on a weekly basis
(the default for f-prot for windows, i think)...

if someone is serious about practicing safe-hex, though, i don't expect
there would be frequent accidents... occasional ones that hopefully
aren't serious and have no real consequences is what i would expect
from most slip-ups... probably you shouldn't need to update daily
unless you expect to make mistakes daily, and that doesn't really sound
like the serious practice of safe-hex to me...

With that line of reasoning, I don't EXPECT to make any mistakes at all,
therefore I don't need to update at all. k35454.

--
"maxwell can tell he's in hell
just wants you to visit him there
same old game that he's playin'
his rules are never fair"
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:36:05 +0000, Michelle wrote:

> Hi I am using AVG Free version. I have the update manager set for
> every 14 days.


Do it daily. When using Windows you need to work on it daily to TRY to
be safe.



>Until about two weeks ago I was using windows 98
> without much virus problems. Now I have Windows XP Professional and
> have been having quite a bit of problems. In your opinion how should I
> set up update manager. Every 7 days or should it be less than that.
>
> Thanks
> Michelle


Daily.


I switched to Linux, I got tired of busting my ass to attempt to stay
clean....
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

Tom McCune wrote:
> kurt wismer <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in news:9M3Dc.47035$MU4.1278925
>
>>well, i'm not saying that people have to be perfect, or that they
>>shouldn't need anti-virus software... only that daily updating is
>>unnecessary if they're practicing safe hex.. i'm not perfect, and i use
>>anti-virus software - i even let it update itself on a weekly basis
>>(the default for f-prot for windows, i think)...
>>
>>if someone is serious about practicing safe-hex, though, i don't expect
>>there would be frequent accidents... occasional ones that hopefully
>>aren't serious and have no real consequences is what i would expect
>>from most slip-ups... probably you shouldn't need to update daily
>>unless you expect to make mistakes daily, and that doesn't really sound
>>like the serious practice of safe-hex to me...
>
>
> Until recently when all these new viruses/worms started coming so
> frequently, and being so widely distributed before AV updates are
> available, I may have agreed. But, with this environment, and with there
> being no good reason to avoid daily updates, I just think the daily update
> is prudent.

well in that case you might as well be doing a full system scan daily
as well... each time you update your av you gain the ability to detect
viruses that may have gone undetected previously... except doing a full
system scan daily is onerous, and quite frankly so is daily updating...

viruses are getting as widely distributed as fast as they are these
days precisely because there are so many pc's connected to the internet
by people who know nothing about safe-hex... if everyone used firewalls
then things like sasser and blaster would have been non-issues... if
people used sane email apps and didn't click on everything that came
their way then just about every email worm in existence would have been
a non-issue... using a non-ie browser mostly eliminates browser
hijackers and a variety of other web born malware... then we'd be left
with classical file infecting viruses, which frankly do not become
widespread all that quickly and aren't a big threat if we aren't trying
out new programs from god knows where at the drop of a hat...

and for those of us who are practicing safe hex, most of these threats
still are non-issues regardless of what the rest of the world is
doing... by all means use an anti-virus product and keep it up to date,
but don't treat it like your first and only line of defense - it should
be the last line of defense, it should be there to catch you when all
other measures fail...

--
"maxwell can tell he's in hell
just wants you to visit him there
same old game that he's playin'
his rules are never fair"
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

"Tom McCune" <news.TakeThisOut@DELETE_THISmccune.cc> wrote in message news:WNdDc.393839$M3.225387@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote in news:p0jqd013or69vd2bjcm9be3ejd9l23jssr@4ax.com:
>
> > However, your scanner, even if it's top notch with updates even more
> > frequent than daily, may not save your butt.
> <snip>
>
> Very true! Being on line is placing oneself at risk. We can only take
> reasonable measures to contain the risk, and I believe that daily virus
> defs updating is part of this. Some software even allows much more
> frequent auto updating than daily, but it still may be a day or two (or
> more) after your receive the new virus/worm before updated virus
> definitions are available for you to download.

It is only necessary that the AV updates are more frequent than the
risky behavior is. A weekly update is fine if you can allow all content
to cool its heels in wait until a couple of update cycles have passed.
If for some reason it is not possible to have this cooling off period,
you are doomed to failure anyway. A worm may pop up on the AV
community's radar fairly quickly if it is prevalent enough, but a trojan
distributed by KaZaA or newsgroup postings may remain undetected
for quite some time.

....as for exploit based malware, that shouldn't be addressed by AV
anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

"k35454" <k35454.RemoveThis@direct.ca> wrote in message news:7oudnZLCPcfDaUHdRVn-tw@look.ca...

> With that line of reasoning, I don't EXPECT to make any mistakes at all,
> therefore I don't need to update at all. k35454.

That sounds like a joke, but if you are running in isolation and don't
take in any executable programs - updates are not needed at all. It
is when you decide to adopt some risk, that you must make updates
a part of the scenario. Even then, one update, a week after the suspect
executable was obtained should be good enough to mitigate any day
zero problems.
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:51:25 -0400, kurt wismer <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca>
>Tom McCune wrote:
>> kurt wismer <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote

>>>actually, if you really practice safe computing that's not necessary...

For ALL values of %you% - including your software.

>>>my most notable practices are:
>>>1) stay behind a firewall...
>>>2) use a browser that isn't a big target and turn off unnecessary
>>>active content handling...
>>>3) use an email reader that isn't a big target and doesn't launch
>>>attackments automagically... ant turn off unnecessary active content
>>>handling in that too...
>>>4) don't expose myself to potential vectors (iow, i choose not to
>>>download every bloody thing i find)...

At this moment, it seems as if only MSware is targeted for direct
auto-running attack (i.e. bypassing the user's "safe hex" control by
exploiting stupid sware design or code defects).

Once upon a time, it was true that only program code files could
infect you with viruses. Times change.

>> The reason I think good AV is necessary, with daily updating, is that
>> despite using safe computing, we are all human, humans make mistakes, and
>> it only takes one mistake. Since humans are not capable of ongoing
>> perfection, that is not part of my definition of safe computing.

Consider too the humans who created the programs that handle this
stuff *before* you say "yes, go ahead and run that".

>well, i'm not saying that people have to be perfect, or that they
>shouldn't need anti-virus software... only that daily updating is
>unnecessary if they're practicing safe hex..

Bollox - if they need av (as you say) then they need up-to-date av.

Under what circs would they need av, but out-of-date av is OK?



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
No, perfection is not an entrance requirement.
We'll settle for integrity and humility
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews RemoveThis @nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message news:akmrd0demrtjn6ci2dk46s06uipagu481m@4ax.com...

> At this moment, it seems as if only MSware is targeted for direct
> auto-running attack (i.e. bypassing the user's "safe hex" control by
> exploiting stupid sware design or code defects).

Safe computing practices include choosing your software carefully
and keeping up with any discovered flaws therein.

> Once upon a time, it was true that only program code files could
> infect you with viruses. Times change.

Kurt said:

"well, i'm not saying that people have to be perfect, or that they
shouldn't need anti-virus software... only that daily updating is
unnecessary if they're practicing safe hex..

> Bollox - if they need av (as you say) then they need up-to-date av.

They only need up-to-date AV when they decide to scan what they
have collected since the last time they scanned. I can hit the newsgroups
and download all the sexy screensavers I want to - for weeks and weeks
- it is only when I decide to check them out that I need to update the
AV and scan the ones that have cooled off.

You wouldn't need AV at all if it weren't for the fact that a hitherto
known good and trusted program could have been infected. All
other *new* programs are suspect anyway and shouldn't be run
until they are checked out somehow to ensure that they do only
what they are supposed to do.

> Under what circs would they need av, but out-of-date av is OK?

If I had collected program files and placed them in folders called Jan,
Feb, Mar, April, ...and now decided to scan the files in the Jan folder
with AV last updated in March.

If I have no such procedure instated, *no* AV will *ever* be up-to-date
enough to be of any use whatsoever.

...if you are happy with being a day behind, or with hourly updates perhaps
only hours behind, then that is your acceptable risk assessment. For real
safe practice - day zero is not really a problem (except when it is a day
zero exploit).
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please 

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:45:04 -0400, kurt wismer <kurtw.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca>
>> kurt wismer <kurtw.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote

>>>if someone is serious about practicing safe-hex, though, i don't expect
>>>there would be frequent accidents... occasional ones that hopefully
>>>aren't serious and have no real consequences

IOW, let malware take an occaisional stab and hope the malware coder
is not so mean as to really mean you harm.

>> Until recently when all these new viruses/worms started coming so
>> frequently, and being so widely distributed before AV updates are
>> available, I may have agreed. But, with this environment, and with there
>> being no good reason to avoid daily updates, I just think the daily update
>> is prudent.

Yep. Also, with the prevelance of ISP av scanning, most malware loads
get de-bulked within a day or few. So what you get, is more likely to
be Day-Few, if not Day-Zero, and an old av is likely to miss it.

>well in that case you might as well be doing a full system scan daily

No, especially if by that you mean an informal (Windows-based) "full
system" av scan - that's not only pissing in the wind, but pissing in
the wind while standing on live wires in bare feet.

If your idea of "safe hex" is "allow whatever wants to run, then scan
the whole system every now and then - from within the infected OS - to
clean it up" then you have some hard lessons on the way.

>as well... each time you update your av you gain the ability to detect
>viruses that may have gone undetected previously...

If malware's got past the av, the nice and convienient Windows-based
av has FAILED, and it's credible role has ended. The idea is to NOT
allow malware to go active on the system, ever.

You can no more do without "safe hex" and rely on av, any more than
you can use a standard off-the-peg PC with no av and rely on "safe
hex" to save your ass <g> These days, code defects get patched more
often than DOS-era av used to get updated. Join the dots.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: AVG Free A Question please