Oakes

Spybot

41 posts in this topic

I've had a Trojan Horse on my computer for weeks. With random names like "esttuv.exe" or "kgwahal.exe," it lurked around my computer freely. Neither Norton nor AdAware could so much as quarantine it. Then I downloaded SpyBot: Search & Destroy.

I want to thank whoever made this excellent piece of software; I only ran it once and the trojan was quarantined. I suggest anyone with virus problems try it (download is free in the link above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to second that!

I use AdAware and Spybot together (each catches something that the other doesn't), and my computer is always in tip-top shape. In fact, I rarely catch anything because: 1.) I run them so often, and 2.) They work so well!

The only other thing I did to help was download Firefox. Together, these three products have made me a very happy customer-I haven't seen a pop-up in a very long time :D (there were even times that I wouldn't have IE open...or anything for that matter, and a popup would appear :D ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second the recommendation for those two software (SB and AA). I also recommend the Google Toolbar which, besides having a lot of nice search features, has a very good pop-up blocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the other solution to contracting viruses: convert to Mac. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used Spybot and Adaware previously, but now I've switched to a really good program that Microsoft offers free of charge to licensed Windows users, Microsoft Anti-Spyware.. You can download it off of Microsoft.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will second The General on MS Antispyware, it is fantastic at finding and eliminating spyware, really I would expect nothing less, MS obviously have direct access to the source of the Windows operating system, so should be most effective in combating spyware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe ... I use all three, but love Microsoft's best. It offers real-time protection and does a nice job scanning.

I'm a PC technician, so I have all three (and a bunch of other free utilities) on a CD to use on customer computers. The best find of all is Opera - a great way to avoid viruses that exploit Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, especially if you don't want to move to Mac. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer the other solution to contracting viruses: convert to Mac.  :)

Very funny indeed. The only reason there aren't than many virus' on the Mac is none of the idiots who write viruses care about it because there aren't enough people who use it. If there ever comes a time when there's a decent portion of the market that uses Macs, you'll see viruses springing up for them too

:):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best find of all is Opera - a great way to avoid viruses that exploit Internet Explorer and Outlook Express

I second that. Opera is the best browser I know of. IMO, better even then Firefox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best find of all is Opera - a great way to avoid viruses that exploit Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, especially if you don't want to move to Mac. :)

I wonder, given your specialty, whether you have an opinion of Firefox?

If there ever comes a time when there's a decent portion of the market that uses Macs, you'll see viruses springing up for them too

How about: convert to Linux! Okay, it's unpopular too, at least in the desktop market...but I think I heard that it actually has a larger market share than microsoft in the server market, and yet no linux viruses are popping up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The server market is a great deal smaller than the desktop market. The server market also has a lot more IT savvy people in it which reduces the spread of an infection so it is not a good comparison.

That said, Linux does get hacked as a percentage of installed Linux systems more than what Windows does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, Linux does get hacked as a percentage of installed Linux systems more than what Windows does.

Is that really true? I was actually thinking about switching to linux, but that makes me hesitant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends largely on the Linux compilation, some are more secure than others but it is true for virtually all of them.

A lot of them have so many services running at the same time by default that you don't even realise what is vulnerable and keep it patched up. Half of the default settings are absolutely terrible as well so you got to make sure you check all of those.

Most of the problems with Windows & viruses fall into user error.

Some viruses are released a month after Microsoft have released a patch on auto update to fix the problem, but a lot of people don't check for updates so wham, half a million computers are taken out in a single day creating those alarming media reports. But half a million in a world of billions of desktops is not too bad of a statistic when kept in perspective.

The other half of the problem is social engineering which all operating systems are vulnerable to. There is no real technical solution to it other than user education. An example of such is that a virus writer might make an e-mail virus that runs if a person opens a file. They then make the virus e-mail everybody with an e-mail that says "Open the attached file to see this celebrity naked!!!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, Linux does get hacked as a percentage of installed Linux systems more than what Windows does.

Is that really true? I was actually thinking about switching to linux, but that makes me hesitant.

I'd really like to see that backed up. I've been using SuSe Linux from Novell for three years now (it is, without a doubt, the best Linux disto out there). I have never had a single, solitary problem, and I do everything on it. If you are into PC games though, Linux is not for you, unless you want to keep a dual boot system and use Windows for your gaming.

I always had a problem with Windows (which I still sometimes use) Adaware this, Spybot that, anti-virus scan this, defrag that. I spend absolutely zero time on "maintainence", it is all use. And I don't find anymore services running than on Win2k (of course it depends on what you install from your Linux distribution, they usually come with everything but the kitchen sink).

The e-mail programs won't even open pictures by default unless you go into preferences and ask it to.

The problem with Windows is also one of its greatest strengths. It is the ease of the .exe files in Windows. That makes it real easy to get active trojan programs into your system. Whereas in Linux they are mostly dead in the water.

A simple way to see this is to download and install Open Office on your Windows. Then download and install Open Office on your Linux machine. Kernel compilation, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oakes,

I saw your thread about Linux on OO, and you said you didn't want recommendations on particular Linux distros. But, I can't recommend SuSe enough if you do choose to go with Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there ever comes a time when there's a decent portion of the market that uses Macs, you'll see viruses springing up for them too

It's already starting to happen. Since iPods got so popular, Apple computer sales have gone way up as well. We got a Mac virus a couple of months ago at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends largely on the Linux compilation, some are more secure than others but it is true for virtually all of them.

A lot of them have so many services running at the same time by default that you don't even realise what is vulnerable and keep it patched up. Half of the default settings are absolutely terrible as well so you got to make sure you check all of those.

Thank you for the heads up. If/when I decide to go linux, I'll keep an eye out for these.

I saw your thread about Linux on OO, and you said you didn't want recommendations on particular Linux distros. But, I can't recommend SuSe enough if you do choose to go with Linux.

I've been thinking of getting SUSE but I wanted to buy a PC pre-packaged with linux, and Dell only does that with redhat.

It's already starting to happen. Since iPods got so popular, Apple computer sales have gone way up as well. We got a Mac virus a couple of months ago at work.

Well, I think we have to be more scientific on this to fully know whether macs have fewer viruses because their more secure or less popular. I'm not a big mac user, but apple is an extremely innovative company that I happen to like; I love their streamlined, simple style, a preference that google also shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fond of Firefox myself. Mind you, it has less problems with spyware than IE. But the reason that is is the same reason there are very few Mac viruses - there are proportionately fewer viruses to users ratio. Another thing about Firefox that irks me is the fact that it eats resources up on my system. I work a lot on older computers that are not capable of handling resource-heavy applications. To run it on a computer without much memory is a chore, not a pleasure. In contrast, I can install Opera on ten year old computers with no hassle.

As a side note, I can't stand Linux at all. I tried Slackware and Ubuntu Live. Slackware hated half of my generic white-box PC hardware and refused to install itself despite my hours at the command prompt trying to solve each sequential problem. Ubuntu Live wanted a gig minimum of memory (my system = 512 megs) or else repartition my hard drive to give it a swap partition. I tried it without either and it didn't turn out pretty. As a result, I don't work on Linux computers at all.

As far as the third party OS goes, I am fond of the late BeOS for my charity computers. (Old computers people dump on me that I fix up for charity.) :D

Oh, and I love my iPod! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not fond of Firefox myself.  Mind you, it has less problems with spyware than IE.  But the reason that is is the same reason there are very few Mac viruses - there are proportionately fewer viruses to users ratio.  <snip>

As a side note, I can't stand Linux at all. <snip>

Blast! So all that stuff about open-source being superior was all just hype! :D

I haven't made any final decisions about which OS I'll be switching to, but for me the single criterion is that the OS is good -- it is secure, compatible, and reflects the future of software. If this is best reached through the commercial liscensing model, that's the route I'll go. Otherwise, linux is staring me in the face...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my observations of open source projects, they will never be as good as commercial for profit projects given the same number of people of approximately the same talent.

The reason being that the time donated is not truly valued at all whereas in a commercial project, it is valued because it is the owners/designers money being spent on it.

Looking at Linux for example, I have seen Torvalds throw out some perfectly good code architectures (including major ones such as driver models) which involve many many man-years work, for some other one which is supposedly more efficient. He has done that for several releases in a row, not happy with the prior one. The result might be marginally more efficient in terms of CPU cycles used(I have not noticed much difference from my own tests), but it is not a very efficient use of programmer time.

That donated programmer time could be used to innovate entirely new software, add new features or so on.

As a result, I think that if the entire IT industry followed the open source model like the Linux kernel, I can quite easily see no innovation happening.

I have also observed some other economic reasons why open source is a disaster.

Whenever I have the money to purchase it, I always choose the commercial solution. They are the ones with all the innovation since the people involved have a big stake in the software that they make. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From my observations of open source projects, they will never be as good as commercial for profit projects given the same number of people of approximately the same talent.

The reason being that the time donated is not truly valued at all whereas in a commercial project, it is valued because it is the owners/designers money being spent on it.

Looking at Linux for example, I have seen Torvalds throw out some perfectly good code architectures (including major ones such as driver models) which involve many many man-years work, for some other one which is supposedly more efficient. He has done that for several releases in a row, not happy with the prior one. The result might be marginally more efficient in terms of CPU cycles used(I have not noticed much difference from my own tests), but it is not a very efficient use of programmer time.

That donated programmer time could be used to innovate entirely new software, add new features or so on.

As a result, I think that if the entire IT industry followed the open source model like the Linux kernel, I can quite easily see no innovation happening.

I have also observed some other economic reasons why open source is a disaster.

Whenever I have the money to purchase it, I always choose the commercial solution. They are the ones with all the innovation since the people involved have a big stake in the software that they make. :D

This is a whole list of assertions with no shred of support. Also, it is a fallacy to state that because one works for a company in an open sourse product that one is not paid. They are not ALL volunteers.

Besides, why is there all this worship of MS? They are the undertakers for the collectivist regimes. And the hired manhunters of the innocents. Everybody was all up in arms about MS's China "deal" a month ago. Now, like there is no tomorrow, nor yesterday, we sing the praises of Fueher Gates. What is this? Principles? Or no? People die (yes, DIE) for your Microsoft product. They should have been sacked like Rome, just like Rome. Adaware? Give me a break. Spybot? Please! Why not a horse and buggy?!

I am about to blow my cookies right here, so take what I gave you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been thinking of getting SUSE but I wanted to buy a PC pre-packaged with linux, and Dell...

Take a look at HP. If not Dell or HP, put your own together, I did. I have no technical experience, and it was easy. Although, if you want compatibility, make sure most of your periphials are HP. Some companies write their hardware to be compatible with Windows and only Windows and even then only certain versions of Windows. You do not have to be tied to this as there are certain basic standards for hardware that can fit any system. For example, there is no reason why a Canon printer has to be configured to run on only Windows machines. Whereas a HP printer will run on a Windows, Linux, or an Apple machine. I tried Red Hat a couple of years ago, and I hated them. I liked SuSe from the beginning, and you only have to look at the press releases to know why SuSe has earned this honor.

Also, I think it is still possible to get a computer with no operating system installed, and that would give you ultimate control. But, do not get FreeBSD, it is NOT a viable system, unless you are a computer scientist.

Do your homework though. Because in the end Linux is no picnic compared to the docile sheepland of WinWorld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoyd, I was not singing the praises of Microsoft. I was simply stating in that second post of mine in this thread why the technical side of Windows is not as bad as what people make out.

There is a strict difference between evaluating the technical side of a product which is what this thread was discussing and evaluating the moral character of the people in a company.

In post #13, I was talking about the kernel development of Linux as a good example of non-profit open source. Another example would be Firefox. To the best of my knowledge, those projects are driven by a group of non-profit volunteers. Is that not true?

I then proceeded to state some of the economic reasons why that form of open source is not as good as commercial software.

I then stated that I will always buy commercial software if I had the money. There are 2 other major commercial operating systems other than Windows. BeOS(which the development company is now unfortunately bankrupt) and Apple.

Both times, you are throwing up a straw man as my argument. I find it very intriguing how quickly you reacted with what appeared to my eyes to be anger to my posts before thoroughly reading them to see what they were about. I have noted that reaction of yours for my future reference.

It is also extremely interesting to note how you reverted to calling people who use Windows, sheep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thoyd, I was not singing the praises of Microsoft. I was simply stating in that second post of mine in this thread why the technical side of Windows is not as bad as what people make out.

There is a strict difference between evaluating the technical side of a product which is what this thread was discussing and evaluating the moral character of the people in a company.

In post #13, I was talking about the kernel development of Linux as a good example of non-profit open source. Another example would be Firefox. To the best of my knowledge, those projects are driven by a group of non-profit volunteers. Is that not true?

I then proceeded to state some of the economic reasons why that form of open source is not as good as commercial software.

I then stated that I will always buy commercial software if I had the money. There are 2 other major commercial operating systems other than Windows. BeOS(which the development company is now unfortunately bankrupt) and Apple.

Both times, you are throwing up a straw man as my argument. I find it very intriguing how quickly you reacted with what appeared to my eyes to be anger to my posts before thoroughly reading them to see what they were about. I have noted that reaction of yours for my future reference.

It is also extremely interesting to note how you reverted to calling people who use Windows, sheep.

Yes, you do have my apologies for being a little overheated. But, only a little. To know what MS has done for China and then hearing (of all people) Objectivists praising them for something they should have taken care of years ago is a little distressing. To hear anything less than a boycott is VERY distressing, let alone these accolades for Billy Boy.

Mind though that I never had anything against Bill Gates or MS before I found out about the China deal even though I was using Linux (which I have indicated is not a picnic to use) all along. My wife and I dashed our XBox against the side of our dumpster the day we found out about the China deal. We have been deligently been making plans for either a complete switch to Linux or to Mac. Although, thanks for certain connections, I have never paid MS for any of the 5 versions of their operating systems that I possess, so we do not have to hurry and can make a completely compatible switch.

I do not care what the economical relationship is of the people that make my software. I care whether or not it works, and what the price is relative to my income and purposes. Somebody is making money somewhere, else economics would have put Linux in the pine box long ago. But, it is actually a growing problem, isn't it? I smell money. If you read the bylines, I smell a lot of money. I smell it growing for companies like Novell, HP, IBM, Mozilla.

As far as the purely open-source part of the market, take a look at the OpenOffice project. They are only on a stable build of 1.5. But, Novell was able to take their beta of 1.9.###, and tweak it into a viable 2.0 version for their newest 9.3 Professional version and use that (as the only distro to offer that) as a selling point. And let me tell youi OO2.0 is great!

You make the assumption that open source is the same as non-commercial. The company that I have been championing contradicts that, Novell is a commercial company, so the straw man is actually yours, not mine.

And, I have to ask what is your psychologizing threats and innuendo in the last part of your thread? How do you know how quickly I read your post? The post times do not give any evidence of this "quickness". How do you how thoroughly I read them?

I will note these assumptions for future reference. Booya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites