Anti-spyware recommendation

[pixi]

I thank everyone for replying to my post.

Ad-aware says I have a cookie with the following info about it.

Vendor-tracking
Type-IE cache
Category-data miner
object-cookie ( and then it gives my real name)
"shplink" <shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.04.13.16.27.552738@removeme.shplink.com ...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:01:25 -0400, pixi said nicely:
>
> > Can someone recommend an anti-spyware program. I have been using
adaware
> > but there is one spy that saves itself and puts it back in and I can't
get
> > rid of it.
>
> Hi pixi,
> Your post is rather general, normally we'd need some more specific
> information so we can figure out what the "spy program" you've been
> infected with *is.*
> You might take a moment and check out
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/tips.html
> and
> http://shplink.com/clean/clean.htm
> for some tips and other programs. Make sure and look through our FAQ as
> well, (see my signature) especially the Appendix.
>
> Good luck!
>
> --
> shplink
>
> the alt.privacy.spyware FAQ:
> http://shplink.com/misc/FAQ.htm
>

[cmsix]

"Ian JP Kenefick" <ian_kenefick@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:gc33515mcg0mi6ghge029a24s5chgdnk6h@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:48:13 GMT, "cmsix" <cmsix@cmsix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1112634643.333626.188600@f14g2000cwb.google groups.com...
>>>
>>> ted s. wrote:
>>>> AvianFlux wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > No resident, real time, active AV/AT scanner needs to be
>>>> > installed/running on a the machine with a correctly configured
>>>> > firewall and safe hex operation.
>>>> >
>>>> A lot of bad advice floats through this group but this one may
>>>> win
>>> the
>>>> trophy.
>>>
>>> As do a lot of subjective, misinformed, erroneous opinions.
>>
>>A post that's beautiful for its simplicity.
>>
>>I don't necessarily see the purpose for eschewing a resident
>>anti-spyware program, since there are many free choices. I agree
>>that
>>they aren't completely necessary, but feel that they're (avast
>>atleast) worth the bother to avoid the larger bother of checking
>>attachments via an online scanner.
>>
>>I'd like to hear more about your reason for avoiding one.
>>
>>cmsix
>>
>>>
>
> He wasn't referring just to resident antispyware. He also referred
> to
> antivirus. This is grossly misleading and a lot of bs.

That's your opinion and it's shared by many, if not most.

I did make a mistake in my reply though. I intended to ask to say
anti-virus instead of anti-spyware and I would like to hear the
reasons for avoiding it.

Email virus scans are handy even if they aren't completely necessary
for some very experienced users who don't allow html email. I use one
because I often make mistakes, but I don't assume it is infallible
either.

I do think the advice to leave it off is a little hasty when I
consider how many people drop in here to get a quick fix for something
that's bothering them right now and ignore most of the things they
could be learning about protecting themselves.

Maybe AvianFlux things they get what they deserve. I don't know, but I
would like to.

cmsix

> --
>
> Regards,
> Ian Kenefick
> http://antivirus.ik-cs.com

[cmsix]

"Ian JP Kenefick" <ian_kenefick@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:cvt251l1ukamr0rlbsma8bafep2a7fdjgu@4ax.com...
> On 4 Apr 2005 10:18:37 -0700, "AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>'Average user'? That's a loaded, arbitrary term that could be
>>applied
>>to just about anyone, depending on who's doing the interpretating.
>
> The every day home user who is more interested in downloading music,
> browsing any website that seems attractive or pornorgaphy. Everyone
> who doesn't practise safe-hex. Need I explain anymore?

I think that probably covers at least eighty-five percent of them and
that you're probably right.

cmsix

> --
>
> Regards,
> Ian Kenefick
> http://antivirus.ik-cs.com

[Ian JP Kenefick]

On 4 Apr 2005 12:10:12 -0700, "AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>For myself,

But you weren't referring to yourself. You were making a
recommendation.

> it's because I don't really need a resident, active
>anti-virus scanner for email attachments. I receive very few emails
>with attachments from known, trusted, sources; as for unknown emails
>w/attachments, which I receive plenty of, they just get chucked
>(deleted).

You may be able to distinguish between legit and illegit email but the
average user who receive an email from an address that he/she
recognises will open it.

>The unknown emails w/attachments I receive are, without exception,
>loaded with malware installers.

what do you mean by unknown mails?

--

Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://antivirus.ik-cs.com

[AvianFlux]

pixi wrote:
> I thank everyone for replying to my post.
>
> Ad-aware says I have a cookie with the following info about it.
>
> Vendor-tracking
> Type-IE cache
> Category-data miner
> object-cookie ( and then it gives my real name)
> "shplink" <shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.04.04.13.16.27.552738@removeme.shplink.com ...

Recommend deleting or quarantining it. Run TIFF, etc., cleaner app such
as 'CleanUP!' or 'CCleaner', w/cookie cleaning option disabled (both
are freeware). Set Internet Explorer's Internet Options > Privacy >
Advanced (cookies) settings to block ALL cookies, including session
cookies.

Get 'Cookies Manager' (freeware) to save/store useful/wanted cookies,
and automatically delete unwanted cookies.

[AvianFlux]

Ian JP Kenefick wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2005 12:10:12 -0700, "AvianFlux" <neomoniker@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >For myself,
>
> But you weren't referring to yourself. You were making a
> recommendation.
>
> > it's because I don't really need a resident, active
> >anti-virus scanner for email attachments. I receive very few emails
> >with attachments from known, trusted, sources; as for unknown emails
> >w/attachments, which I receive plenty of, they just get chucked
> >(deleted).
>
> You may be able to distinguish between legit and illegit email but
the
> average user who receive an email from an address that he/she
> recognises will open it.
>
> >The unknown emails w/attachments I receive are, without exception,
> >loaded with malware installers.
>
> what do you mean by unknown mails?
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Ian Kenefick
> http://antivirus.ik-cs.com

"But you weren't referring to yourself. You were making a
recommendation."

What better recommendation to give than what I know works for myself?
In any case, I can't possibly recommend what works for others when,
first, I don't know what works for others, and, second, have no way of
confirming that it works as others claim it does.

"You may be able to distinguish between legit and illegit email but the
average user who receive an email from an address that he/she
recognises will open it."

Legit email is easy to distinguish for anyone.

One) Legitimate email comes from known/legitimate sources, generally,
without attachments, e.g., family, friends, business associates, etc.

Two) Illegitimate email comes from unknown, unrecognized sources,
generally, with an attachment, or with a phished/scam link page
requesting private information, e.g., bank account, social security
numbers, mother's maiden name, etc.

"what do you mean by unknown mails?"

Unknown emails are emails from people/sources you're unfamiliar with.
Duh.

If a user does exchange large numbers of emails w/attachments, as a
work function for example, than it's advisable to either have an email
service that automatically scrubs them for malware, or have an on board
scanner launched when opening the attachments.

[ted s.]

Far Canal wrote:
> AvianFlux wrote
>
>
>> Legit email is easy to distinguish for anyone.
>>
>> One) Legitimate email comes from known/legitimate sources, generally,
>> without attachments, e.g., family, friends, business associates, etc.
>
>
> A stupid and basic error. Many viruses and trojans are spread to
> people who receive an infected mail from someone they know.
> often someone who frequently sends them attachments. Not having
> an AVP running opens the door to it's fullest width.
>
> Not having an AVP running means mr & mrs average won't even know
> if they have a virus or whether they are spreading them around.
>
>
Neither will the original poster. It's hard to understand the resistance to
a free, effective AV, that runs just about invisibly. Avast, AVG, and
others all do the job.

[cmsix]

"Far Canal" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbbd9f86958cd6a98cef4@news.readfreenews. net...
> AvianFlux wrote
>
>
>> Legit email is easy to distinguish for anyone.
>>
>> One) Legitimate email comes from known/legitimate sources,
>> generally,
>> without attachments, e.g., family, friends, business associates,
>> etc.
>
>
> A stupid and basic error. Many viruses and trojans are spread to
> people who receive an infected mail from someone they know.
> often someone who frequently sends them attachments. Not having
> an AVP running opens the door to it's fullest width.

Most often the email only looks like it comes from someone you know.
Addresses are easily spoofed and it requires knowledge that most users
don't have to find that out.

It isn't hard to see the whole header or the message source but most
users don't know hoe.

cmsix

>
> Not having an AVP running means mr & mrs average won't even know
> if they have a virus or whether they are spreading them around.
>

[cmsix]

"ted s." <ted@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:qZj4e.2754$sx6.2404@fe06.lga...
> Far Canal wrote:
>> AvianFlux wrote
>>
>>
>>> Legit email is easy to distinguish for anyone.
>>>
>>> One) Legitimate email comes from known/legitimate sources,
>>> generally,
>>> without attachments, e.g., family, friends, business associates,
>>> etc.
>>
>>
>> A stupid and basic error. Many viruses and trojans are spread to
>> people who receive an infected mail from someone they know.
>> often someone who frequently sends them attachments. Not having
>> an AVP running opens the door to it's fullest width.
>>
>> Not having an AVP running means mr & mrs average won't even know
>> if they have a virus or whether they are spreading them around.
>>
>>
> Neither will the original poster. It's hard to understand the
> resistance to a free, effective AV, that runs just about invisibly.
> Avast, AVG, and others all do the job.

Avast does, it's the one I use and I can't speak about AVG. I know
that Avast is getting Nortonish in its desire to spawn multiple
"services" that must run all the time.

cmsix

>
>

[AvianFlux]

Far Canal wrote:
> AvianFlux wrote
>
>
> > Legit email is easy to distinguish for anyone.
> >
> > One) Legitimate email comes from known/legitimate sources,
generally,
> > without attachments, e.g., family, friends, business associates,
etc.
>
>
> A stupid and basic error. Many viruses and trojans are spread to
> people who receive an infected mail from someone they know.
> often someone who frequently sends them attachments. Not having
> an AVP running opens the door to it's fullest width.
>
> Not having an AVP running means mr & mrs average won't even know
> if they have a virus or whether they are spreading them around.

I've already addressed the fact that malware can come from both known
and unknown sources via attachments earlier in this thread, and
provided a remedial action for it.

"Not having an AVP running means mr & mrs average won't even know if
they have a virus or whether they are spreading them around."

pixi never identified him/herself as 'Mr & Mrs average'. Further more,
the sooner people learn how to identify spoofed, scam, phished emails
the better off they'll be.

Everyone can't just continue functioning on the net, year in year out,
relying entirely upon active virus/trogan scanning protection, and
other measures, without learning a little bit about how to navigate
through it with some degree of awareness.

The advise I dispense to pixi, or anyone else on this topic, is to pass
on what I've verified to work for myself; I have any direct knowledge
of what works for everyone else on the matter. That's all hearsay until
I can confirm those findings, personally.