AVG Free Antispyware

[Andy Walker]

Nick Skrepetos wrote:

>If I was worried about a "tough audience", I would be in the wrong
>business I appreciate all the comments and feedback - all it does it
>keep helping refine our product into a better solutuion to combat
>spyware and work smoothing for the user - everyone wins

In that case, my suggestion is that you disable the [Next] button
during a scan, because it duplicates the [Cancel] button.

Thanks!

[Andy]

"Andy Walker" <awalker@nspank.invalid> wrote in message
news:l8s1m2t15ngc09kl298u15vjjanf3lmhu8@news.webtv .com...
> Andy wrote:
>
>>if I download and use another spyware
>>cleaner is that gonna find even more spyware left???
>
> Probably. Malware applications, which includes spyware and adware,
> are increasing at an extremely fast pace, it's unlikely that any
> anti-malware vendor could ever have all the necessary information to
> remove them all. Even those that claim to remove malware "completely"
> leave tell-tale signs that some other vendor might find.

So all very OK'ish with free spyware removers but what about the well known
ones you have to pay for? - I don't think that's right that you would have
to pay for a product and think its going to remove all traces of spyware
just to find out it has left some traces of spyware behind. - or could it be
gospel that the ones you pay for remove all traces?

[Nick Skrepetos]

Andy Walker wrote:
> Nick Skrepetos wrote:
>
> >If I was worried about a "tough audience", I would be in the wrong
> >business I appreciate all the comments and feedback - all it does it
> >keep helping refine our product into a better solutuion to combat
> >spyware and work smoothing for the user - everyone wins
>
> In that case, my suggestion is that you disable the [Next] button
> during a scan, because it duplicates the [Cancel] button.
>
> Thanks!

Andy - the Cancel button actually just Cancels the scan, the Next
buttton allows you to proceed to the removal process before the scan is
complete, or cancel - so the buttons to serve a different purpose.

Nick Skrepetos
SUPERAntiSpyware.com
http://www.superantispyware.com

[cmsix]

"Andy" <andy@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:ejqsk9$hmd$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Andy Walker" <awalker@nspank.invalid> wrote in message
> news:l8s1m2t15ngc09kl298u15vjjanf3lmhu8@news.webtv .com...
>> Andy wrote:
>>
>>>if I download and use another spyware
>>>cleaner is that gonna find even more spyware left???
>>
>> Probably. Malware applications, which includes spyware and adware,
>> are increasing at an extremely fast pace, it's unlikely that any
>> anti-malware vendor could ever have all the necessary information
>> to
>> remove them all. Even those that claim to remove malware
>> "completely"
>> leave tell-tale signs that some other vendor might find.
>
> So all very OK'ish with free spyware removers but what about the
> well known ones you have to pay for? - I don't think that's right
> that you would have to pay for a product and think its going to
> remove all traces of spyware just to find out it has left some
> traces of spyware behind. - or could it be gospel that the ones you
> pay for remove all traces?

What "pay product" product are you referring to? Would it happen to be
one that doesn't allow a trial download so you can check it out. Does
"A pig in a poke" have any meaning to you?

cmsix

>
>
>

[cmsix]

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:ar%7h.338203$5R2.182657@pd7urf3no...
> The single best thing you can do to stop malware from causing a
> problem with your computer is to run as a standard user. Using a
> different browser or different email program may help because the
> alternate programs you use may not be targeted as much as OE or IE.
> All programs have bugs. Most programs now access the Internet in
> some way. This gives malware many vectors to attack your computer.
> Even anti-malware programs can be targeted and used as a vector to
> install malware. Running as a standard user mitigates the attacks by
> not allowing the malware access to system files or system registry
> hives. It can still install but only in the context of the current
> user. Most malware expects administrator access and fails when it
> isn't available.
>
> Unfortunately running as a standard user is not really an option
> with XP because Microsoft has encouraged sloppy programming since
> Windows 95. Many programs expect administrator privileges and fail
> without them. This is where Vista is exciting. It allows, actually
> enforces via uac, programs to run in the context of a standard user
> even if the user is logged on as an administrator. This will help
> enormously in the fight against malware. If you have ever worked in
> an environment where everyone runs as a standard user you would know
> how easy it is to clean most malware infections in this environment
> if they even succeed in installing at all.

Could you give me a hint how malware can be installed from email read
as text only? I'm just wondering, since I can't imagine any way that
can happen. No html email, no spyware, malware, or crapware from the
mail. Unless I'm wrong.

cmsix

>
> --
> Kerry Brown
>
> Charani wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:18:24 GMT, cmsix wrote:
>>
>>> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
>>> protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
>>> that doesn't say Internet Explorer?
>>>
>>> Inquiring cmsix wants everyone's opinion.
>>
>> Yes, probably, but not those alone. I don't use OE for mail
>> either.
>
>

[cmsix]

"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:i848h.2581$mM1.1582@trndny08...
> "cmsix" <cmsix@storiesonline.org> wrote in message
> news:AjV7h.16805$B31.14487@newssvr27.news.prodigy. net...
>>
>> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
>> protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
>> that doesn't say Internet Explorer?
>>
>>
>
> Move to an email provider that scans attachments for viruses before
> depositing the emails into your inbox. My particular email provider
> scans each item with two separate antivirus systems. My own
> computer then scans all items in my inbox with AVG Anti-Virus,
> making three separate scans of all inbox attachments before I can
> open them.
>
> While no solution is bullet-proof, I have not had an email virus in
> two years. Before I changed to my current email provider, AVG was
> neutralizing email-borne viruses at a rate of at least one per week,
> sometimes more.
>
> These days, email providers offer anti-virus scanning so routinely
> that one should not even bother to consider using any email provider
> that doesn't offer that protection.

Since I have a virus checker, if I consider opening an attachment, I
can scan it myself. Changing ISP is not an option for me since I live
in a small town and the only broadband available is from SBC, now
calling itself AT&T, and I wouldn't trust their scanning in the first
place.

I still haven't heard anything about how I could possibly get infected
from a plain text email.

cmsix

>
>

[Andy]

"cmsix" <cmsix@storiesonline.org> wrote in message
news:qCc8h.12968$9v5.9566@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> "Andy" <andy@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:ejqsk9$hmd$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> "Andy Walker" <awalker@nspank.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:l8s1m2t15ngc09kl298u15vjjanf3lmhu8@news.webtv .com...
>>> Andy wrote:
>>>
>>>>if I download and use another spyware
>>>>cleaner is that gonna find even more spyware left???
>>>
>>> Probably. Malware applications, which includes spyware and adware,
>>> are increasing at an extremely fast pace, it's unlikely that any
>>> anti-malware vendor could ever have all the necessary information to
>>> remove them all. Even those that claim to remove malware "completely"
>>> leave tell-tale signs that some other vendor might find.
>>
>> So all very OK'ish with free spyware removers but what about the well
>> known ones you have to pay for? - I don't think that's right that you
>> would have to pay for a product and think its going to remove all traces
>> of spyware just to find out it has left some traces of spyware behind. -
>> or could it be gospel that the ones you pay for remove all traces?
>
> What "pay product" product are you referring to? Would it happen to be one
> that doesn't allow a trial download so you can check it out. Does "A pig
> in a poke" have any meaning to you?
>
> cmsix

Well say if I were to say a product you buy like Mc*fee or N*rton
antispyware products and you have found that you have paid for them and they
don't get rid of all your spyware - and especially if you tried another
spyware program and it came up with some more spyware found after you ran
the one you bought! - in other words if you have bought an anti syware
program but free versions had found more or updated their definitions
quicker you would quite rightly be angry that the one you paid for didn't
remove all spyware.

[Andy]

"Far Canal" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcbcf9fbd6ffc57989e87@news.readfreenews. net...
> Andy wrote
>
>
>> > Probably. Malware applications, which includes spyware and adware,
>> > are increasing at an extremely fast pace, it's unlikely that any
>> > anti-malware vendor could ever have all the necessary information to
>> > remove them all. Even those that claim to remove malware "completely"
>> > leave tell-tale signs that some other vendor might find.
>>
>> So all very OK'ish with free spyware removers but what about the well
>> known
>> ones you have to pay for? - I don't think that's right that you would
>> have
>> to pay for a product and think its going to remove all traces of spyware
>> just to find out it has left some traces of spyware behind. - or could it
>> be
>> gospel that the ones you pay for remove all traces?
>>
>
> More 'what if' bollocks. You're not using any 'paid for' malware
> removal programs, piss off with your trolling.
>
>

Nice person!

[Kerry Brown]

cmsix wrote:
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:ar%7h.338203$5R2.182657@pd7urf3no...
>> The single best thing you can do to stop malware from causing a
>> problem with your computer is to run as a standard user. Using a
>> different browser or different email program may help because the
>> alternate programs you use may not be targeted as much as OE or IE.
>> All programs have bugs. Most programs now access the Internet in
>> some way. This gives malware many vectors to attack your computer.
>> Even anti-malware programs can be targeted and used as a vector to
>> install malware. Running as a standard user mitigates the attacks by
>> not allowing the malware access to system files or system registry
>> hives. It can still install but only in the context of the current
>> user. Most malware expects administrator access and fails when it
>> isn't available.
>>
>> Unfortunately running as a standard user is not really an option
>> with XP because Microsoft has encouraged sloppy programming since
>> Windows 95. Many programs expect administrator privileges and fail
>> without them. This is where Vista is exciting. It allows, actually
>> enforces via uac, programs to run in the context of a standard user
>> even if the user is logged on as an administrator. This will help
>> enormously in the fight against malware. If you have ever worked in
>> an environment where everyone runs as a standard user you would know
>> how easy it is to clean most malware infections in this environment
>> if they even succeed in installing at all.
>
> Could you give me a hint how malware can be installed from email read
> as text only? I'm just wondering, since I can't imagine any way that
> can happen. No html email, no spyware, malware, or crapware from the
> mail. Unless I'm wrong.
>
> cmsix
>

If would depend on your email client. All email clients that I am familiar
with don't execute any scripts when set to read plain text so you would be
safe from an email attack. That wasn't the original question. The question
was:

"Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
protected yourself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
that doesn't say Internet Explorer?"

My opinion is they are both good methods to protect yourself but not the
best method as they only protect against specific attack vectors. Running as
a standard user would protect against many attack vectors. Running as a
standard user and reading email in text mode and possibly using a browser
other than IE would give you better protection. I say possibly on the
browser because as Firefox is gaining in popularity with users it is also
gaining in popularity with malware authors. It is hard to say at this point
if IE7 or Firefox is less exploitable. Neither of the current versions have
been out long enough and IE still has the lion's share of the market so is
targeted more.

If you want to totally protect yourself then do all Internet access from a
virtual machine environment. This is what I do when testing different
anti-malware programs. So far I don't know of any malware that can escape
from a virtual environment. It has been theorised that malware could exploit
some of the hardware virtualization methods that both AMD and Intel use but
I don't know of any exploits that have been proven yet.

--
Kerry Brown

[infidel]

I know that.
I use Ad-Aware SE, SAS, SpyBot S&D, SpywareBlaster for the obvious malware
they were designed for, and AVG for viruses.
I manually update daily each morning before I do anything else.
r


"Woody" <TheDuck@pond.net> wrote in message
newsm38h.8392$Sw1.3500@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> AVG is an antivirus program, not an antispyware program. You have to run
> both. While antispyware will detect some viruses and antivirus will detect
> some spyware they are different products.
>
>
> "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com> wrote in message
> news:6R28h.68540$rP1.34035@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >I love SAS, so far.
> > It hasn't found anything as yet as I use other protection as well
> > Maybe more speed for SAS\?!!!!
> > r
> >
> > "Nick Skrepetos" <nskrepetos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163960368.451886.140000@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >>
> >> Gaz wrote:
> >> > "Andy" <andy@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> >> > news:ejokde$hui$1@news.datemas.de...
> >> > >I downloaded and update AVG Free Anti-Spyware and done a full disk
> >> > >scan
> >> > >(Scan all files) and it found spyware and I chose to delete all.
> >> > >Immediately afterwards I downloaded SpyBot Search & Destroy 1.4 and
> > updated
> >> > >it and done a full scan and it came up with another load of spyware
> > ones
> >> > >that weren't found on AVG anti spyware. they were Jupilites,
Microsoft
> >> > >windows.activedesktop, Microsoft.Windows.Explorer,
> >> > >Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter.taskManager and SpySheriff.
> >> > >
> >> > > Now why can you not seem to entrust one anti spyware program to get
> > rid of
> >> > > ALL spyware without having to check with another spyware program? -
> > and
> >> > > why were these spyware not picked up by AVG anti spyware program in
> > the
> >> > > first place?
> >> > >
> >> > > Does anyone know?
> >> >
> >> > I dont know if it picks up everything, but it seems more aggressive
> >> > then
> >> > spybot and adaware, superantispyware.....
> >> >
> >> > Gaz
> >>
> >> Gaz, I am curious as to how you can assess the aggressiveness of the
> >> various anti-spyware products, can you elaborate? We often detect and
> >> remove infections that AVG and others don't even see, and they find
> >> things we don't find - I am not sure if you can say one product is more
> >> "aggressive" than another. I believe some of the products are falling
> >> behind a little on the "new" infections, but with the rate they are
> >> coming out, I don't think anyone can stay "on top" of all the
> >> infections.
> >>
> >> Nick Skrepetos
> >> SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> >> http://www.superantispyware.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
>