Author |
Message |
sgopu #1 / 11
|
 ping for layla
Please explain your comment (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you are wide open to receiving infections) I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. Please explain, I would like to be more informed.
|
Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:11:32 GMT |
|
 |
Layl #2 / 11
|
 ping for layla
99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean are stocked with McAfee with up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple computers being sent the same email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to catch the virus, Norton fails at a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's come in consistantly well. (AVG, E-Trust, FProt etc) McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be packaged with new systems,,,, Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to bring their prices down Your computing habits are most likely better than the average user who fails to use their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and email so I would chalk your non virus status more to you than to your AV.
: Please explain your comment : (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you : are wide open to receiving : infections) : : : I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a : virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. : Please explain, I would like to be more informed.
|
Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:23:27 GMT |
|
 |
x y #3 / 11
|
 ping for layla
I've just about never had virus problems with computers running NAV over the past seven years or so. Also, I'd say that at least 90% of the posts here where the computers are infected are infected because of no antivirus or no updates. I wonder if some of those McAfee problems are false alarms due to corrupted signature files.
Quote: > 99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean are stocked with McAfee with > up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple computers being sent the same > email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to catch the virus, Norton fails at > a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's come in consistantly well. (AVG, > E-Trust, FProt etc) > McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be packaged with new systems,,,, > Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to bring their prices down > Your computing habits are most likely better than the average user who fails to use > their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and email so I would chalk your non > virus status more to you than to your AV.
> : Please explain your comment > : (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you > : are wide open to receiving > : infections) > : > : > : I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a > : virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. > : Please explain, I would like to be more informed.
|
Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:06:29 GMT |
|
 |
sgopu #4 / 11
|
 ping for layla
Could this be due to how they have things configured, within Mcafee? I know at face value, Mcafee is not default configured to catch most virii when they come in via e-mail...It needs to be altered by the user. The main reason I'm asking this is my yearly license for Mcafee is close to expiring, and I'm not real happy with Version 7 of Mcafee, but then I've read of some real problems with Norton and W2k, is this your experience as well?? Quote: >-----Original Message----- >99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean
are stocked with McAfee with Quote: >up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple
computers being sent the same Quote: >email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to
catch the virus, Norton fails at Quote: >a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's
come in consistantly well. (AVG, Quote: >E-Trust, FProt etc) >McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be
packaged with new systems,,,, Quote: >Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to
bring their prices down Quote: >Your computing habits are most likely better than the
average user who fails to use Quote: >their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and
email so I would chalk your non Quote: >virus status more to you than to your AV.
>: Please explain your comment >: (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you >: are wide open to receiving >: infections) >: >: >: I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a >: virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. >: Please explain, I would like to be more informed. >.
|
Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:50:44 GMT |
|
 |
dcdo #5 / 11
|
 ping for layla
It just plain boils down to what a person does adn how they run their machine. I agree that the line up of AVP should put McAfee on bottom for more than one reason, and that Norton is a bit overrated. But when you practice good sense with an understanding of most of the vulnerabilities adn also stop SPAM before it gets to you with a mail washer and also use a file washer, plus keeping the computer clean, it far less likely to get virii. don ==============
99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean are stocked with McAfee with up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple computers being sent the same email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to catch the virus, Norton fails at a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's come in consistantly well. (AVG, E-Trust, FProt etc) McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be packaged with new systems,,,, Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to bring their prices down Your computing habits are most likely better than the average user who fails to use their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and email so I would chalk your non virus status more to you than to your AV.
: Please explain your comment : (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you : are wide open to receiving : infections) : : : I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a : virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. : Please explain, I would like to be more informed.
|
Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:10:46 GMT |
|
 |
sgopu #6 / 11
|
 ping for layla
So, what is a file washer? I've not heard of that! I'm normally paranoid about the pc getting a virii and do regular maintance getting rid of the cookies and other spying software, I use the mailwasher, I love that program, much better than setting up a bunch of filters that sometimes don't work, and still get loads of spam, I got my spam down from 40 a day to 18 a day, with the exception of the holidays it blooms large then, or just after. Quote: >-----Original Message----- >It just plain boils down to what a person does adn how
they run their machine. I Quote: >agree that the line up of AVP should put McAfee on bottom for more than one >reason, and that Norton is a bit overrated. But when you
practice good sense with Quote: >an understanding of most of the vulnerabilities adn also
stop SPAM before it gets Quote: >to you with a mail washer and also use a file washer,
plus keeping the computer Quote: >clean, it far less likely to get virii. >don >==============
Quote: >99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean
are stocked with McAfee Quote: >with >up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple
computers being sent the Quote: >same >email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to
catch the virus, Norton Quote: >fails at >a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's
come in consistantly well. Quote: >(AVG, >E-Trust, FProt etc) >McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be
packaged with new systems,,,, Quote: >Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to
bring their prices down Quote: >Your computing habits are most likely better than the
average user who fails to Quote: >use >their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and
email so I would chalk Quote: >your non >virus status more to you than to your AV.
>: Please explain your comment >: (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you >: are wide open to receiving >: infections) >: >: >: I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a >: virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. >: Please explain, I would like to be more informed. >.
|
Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:07:34 GMT |
|
 |
Dmitry Kulshitsk #7 / 11
|
 ping for layla
Well, any respectable antivirus company keeps an eye on their concurents. And I am sure there are special collection of viruses which are not being caught by those antiviruses (including NAV). Of course all well-known viruses would be caught, but who knows what will you next e-mail letter bring to you? Your knowledge of viruses, Karl, is much higher then average users have. So I think this is the key to your life without problems with viruses.
Quote: > I've just about never had virus problems with computers running NAV over the > past seven years or so. Also, I'd say that at least 90% of the posts here > where the computers are infected are infected because of no antivirus or no > updates. > I wonder if some of those McAfee problems are false alarms due to corrupted > signature files.
|
Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:39:45 GMT |
|
 |
Layl #8 / 11
|
 ping for layla
HAve had problems with Norton as welll -- though not as much as with McAfee. I would seriously look at AVG, E-Trust, F-prot as a possibility for replacement. We have had great results with AVG and E-Trust catching everything on a real time basis without being systme hogs.
: Could this be due to how they have things configured, : within Mcafee? I know at face value, Mcafee is not default : configured to catch most virii when they come in : via e-mail...It needs to be altered by the user. : : The main reason I'm asking this is my yearly license for : Mcafee is close to expiring, and I'm not real happy with : Version 7 of Mcafee, but then I've read of some real : problems with Norton and W2k, is this your experience as : well?? : : : : Quote: : >-----Original Message----- : >99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean : are stocked with McAfee with : >up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple : computers being sent the same : >email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to : catch the virus, Norton fails at : >a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's : come in consistantly well. (AVG, : >E-Trust, FProt etc) : > : >McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be : packaged with new systems,,,, : >Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to : bring their prices down : > : >Your computing habits are most likely better than the : average user who fails to use : >their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and : email so I would chalk your non : >virus status more to you than to your AV. : > : > : >
: >: Please explain your comment : >: (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you : >: are wide open to receiving : >: infections) : >: : >: : >: I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with : getting a : >: virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. : >: Please explain, I would like to be more informed. : > : >. : >
|
Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:39:21 GMT |
|
 |
Talon #9 / 11
|
 ping for layla
Quote:
> So, what is a file washer? I've not heard of that! > I'm normally paranoid about the pc getting a virii > and do regular maintance getting rid of the cookies > and other spying software, I use the mailwasher, I love > that program, much better than setting up a bunch of > filters that sometimes don't work, and still get loads of > spam, I got my spam down from 40 a day to 18 a day, with > the exception of the holidays it blooms large then, or > just after.
A good file washing is kinda like washing your hands so you don't catch a cold. A good alternative to a software file washer is removing your computer from all the cords in the back and placing the entire unit into your kitchen dish washer for a complete cycle, on hot. The computer will be returned to it's original shine and luster. (Please, noone try this, it is an attempt at humor.) TALON
|
Wed, 06 Jul 2005 01:34:27 GMT |
|
 |
Karl Levinson [x y] mv #10 / 11
|
 ping for layla
True enough, but I'm also thinking of work environments where I was not the administrator of every computer out there, and also my home computer where my wife opens all our email without taking any special precaution. [I also use Outlook for email, with *gasp* the preview pane turned on, and I click on emails with suspicious attachments all the time to see what they are... so I can't really argue that I'm using any special care or knowledge to avoid viruses.] I'm also thinking of the hundreds of posts I've read here and on the Norton support group and in alt.comp.virus newsgroup. I will admit our network did get infected with the Melissa / Iloveyou worm despite having Norton, and maybe we're just lucky that we've never received any other new zero-day virus before Norton delivered a signature update, and it was a small network where NAV CE was able to deliver updates every day to every client without any clients slipping through the cracks. Still, a lucky streak that lasts over 2.5 years starts seeming not like a lucky streak but good policy.
Quote: > Well, any respectable antivirus company keeps an eye on their concurents. > And I am sure there are special collection of viruses which are not being > caught by those antiviruses (including NAV). Of course all well-known > viruses would be caught, but who knows what will you next e-mail letter > bring to you? > Your knowledge of viruses, Karl, is much higher then average users have. So > I think this is the key to your life without problems with viruses.
> > I've just about never had virus problems with computers running NAV over > the > > past seven years or so. Also, I'd say that at least 90% of the posts here > > where the computers are infected are infected because of no antivirus or > no > > updates. > > I wonder if some of those McAfee problems are false alarms due to > corrupted > > signature files.
|
Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:45:27 GMT |
|
 |
dcdo #11 / 11
|
 ping for layla
Talon, tsssk tsssk You know that some can't take a good joke. <LOL> Anyway Go get a good AVP Go get a good Firewall Go get Mail Washer Go get a file washer (I actually know one person who is in prison for child {*filter*}graphy, because he stayed at a large regional corporation past retirement time, and left his passwords in his desk drawer. Someone worse than a hacker wanted to move up in the company. This guy is straight arrow as you can get, and got caught up with that and a bad lawyer). You also can go get TweakUI 1.33 and use the paranoia tab, but I don't. but I do have TweakUI. I don't like the "shortcut to" in front of all sc's. Even changed teh "arrow" icon at the lower left of shortcut icons. I't soooo much better. Got a pretty decent pooter and like to keep it that way. It's all a matter of learning, and using good judgement. Filter through posts while lurking, and good luck. don ====================
It just plain boils down to what a person does adn how they run their machine. I agree that the line up of AVP should put McAfee on bottom for more than one reason, and that Norton is a bit overrated. But when you practice good sense with an understanding of most of the vulnerabilities adn also stop SPAM before it gets to you with a mail washer and also use a file washer, plus keeping the computer clean, it far less likely to get virii. don ==============
99% of computers with virii problems that I have to clean are stocked with McAfee with up to date defs. We have tried experiments with multiple computers being sent the same email with different AV's, McAfee fails repeatedly to catch the virus, Norton fails at a substantially lower rate, then the free /cheap AV's come in consistantly well. (AVG, E-Trust, FProt etc) McAfee is well known because it allows itself to be packaged with new systems,,,, Norton is the same way .,... and by running "deals" to bring their prices down Your computing habits are most likely better than the average user who fails to use their common sense in dealing with Internet traffic and email so I would chalk your non virus status more to you than to your AV.
: Please explain your comment : (Keep this in mind -- even with updated McAfee defs you : are wide open to receiving : infections) : : : I have Mcafee I've not experienced problems with getting a : virus with it, in fact it's caught a few. : Please explain, I would like to be more informed.
|
Thu, 07 Jul 2005 05:56:47 GMT |
|
|
|