What Security do you use?

superscaper

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Is it not better to block them from even TRYING to get in rather than having to continually scan for them?

Ummm they are blocked from entering by my AV. Not sure how allowing individual sites permission would be more effective and surely would take up more time. Been warned plenty of times about threats from websites but so far with my current security I've never had one actually get onto my pc. Seems like more effort to me to have to give individual permission to sites (and even then only find out afterwards in the same way as not having it whether each site you give permission to is dangerous or not). The reason I dumped Comodo as a firewall was because of how intrusive and resource hungry it had become. Same with AVG. For me I think it would be regressing to have to again start having an increase in interactions for doing the same thing. Some may be happy with it's use, it just seems like a rather superfluous sledgehammer to me where the benefits are outweighted by interaction time by the user. Maybe others find its' benefits worth it but it's not that far off analogously, in principle, to blocking access to all websites and then adding the ones manually you want to access.

iviv

I'm with super on this. I've been recommended noscript several times, but its just too much hassle. As far as I can tell, I'd have to go around all the websites I regularly visit, telling them to allow everything. But since I don't visit strange websites anyway, I'm not sure if its worth the hassle. Plus, nod would pick up any nasties that do appear.

Also, would noscript counter this? As far as I can tell, the attack would come from a website you've already whitelisted, meaning noscript would ignore it. And since noscript lulled you into a false sense of security, you're more likely to download it?

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

Ummm they are blocked from entering by my AV. Not sure how allowing individual sites permission would be more effective and surely would take up more time. Been warned plenty of times about threats from websites but so far with my current security I've never had one actually get onto my pc. Seems like more effort to me to have to give individual permission to sites (and even then only find out afterwards in the same way as not having it whether each site you give permission to is dangerous or not). The reason I dumped Comodo as a firewall was because of how intrusive and resource hungry it had become. Same with AVG. For me I think it would be regressing to have to again start having an increase in interactions for doing the same thing. Some may be happy with it's use, it just seems like a rather superfluous sledgehammer to me where the benefits are outweighted by interaction time by the user. Maybe others find its' benefits worth it but it's not that far off analogously, in principle, to blocking access to all websites and then adding the ones manually you want to access.

Oh I hear ya

Its down to the individual user really. Do they ONLY go on 'safe' sites? In which case NOSCRIPT isnt really needed.
On the other hand (And this has happened to a LOT of my friends now) if say they have a teenager who like to....shall we say.....browse on unsuitable sites then it becomes invaluable.
Makes me laugh that EVERYone of my friends told me theres NO WAY their little angel would go on any such site and EVERY one has ~ haha
Its really not all that intrusive though. You unblock the site that needs unblocking and it STAYS unblocked (Untill told otherwise). Or you can temporarily unblock a site if your unsure. Its down to common sense really but anyone who uses MYSPACE for example, (thats a LOT of people) will find it very useful as its notorious for sending you to a dodgy page with a virus on!

I also use SPYBOT to block certain popups and comodo, avg and adaware with no problems or conflicts with any other software. Of course comodo also has DEFENSE properties (which can be hard work to use but does make the computer safer to use). The defense CAN be turned of though and the firewall is easy to use by itself.

aliEnRIK

iviv wrote: »

I'm with super on this. I've been recommended noscript several times, but its just too much hassle. As far as I can tell, I'd have to go around all the websites I regularly visit, telling them to allow everything. But since I don't visit strange websites anyway, I'm not sure if its worth the hassle. Plus, nod would pick up any nasties that do appear.

Also, would noscript counter this? As far as I can tell, the attack would come from a website you've already whitelisted, meaning noscript would ignore it. And since noscript lulled you into a false sense of security, you're more likely to download it?

Well you sound like the type of person that wouldnt need it. However ~ just as a thought........is it not better to stop the virus AT ITS SOURCE reather than HOPE the anti virus is up to date enough to know its a virus? It doesnt matter what anti virus you use theres NO anti virus in the world (and never will be) that knows ALL nasties that are unleashed.

As for that particular nasty you sent I couldnt say without looking into it but I can tell you that NOSCRIPT updates itself a LOT (like every other day or so) to counter known nasties and generally work better.

superscaper

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Well you sound like the type of person that wouldnt need it. However ~ just as a thought........is it not better to stop the virus AT ITS SOURCE reather than HOPE the anti virus is up to date enough to know its a virus? It doesnt matter what anti virus you use theres NO anti virus in the world (and never will be) that knows ALL nasties that are unleashed.

As for that particular nasty you sent I couldnt say without looking into it but I can tell you that NOSCRIPT updates itself a LOT (like every other day or so) to counter known nasties and generally work better.

Still don't see how that's any better since if you trust a website then you're bypassing noscript anyway. And don't a lot of AVs update more often than every other day? Mine updates every other hour.

espresso

superscaper wrote: »

Still don't see how that's any better since if you trust a website then you're bypassing noscript anyway.

It's not as simple as that. Many websites have embedded links to various other sites/ads etc. There was a case recently where I think it was an Irish TV broadcasters website, had a link to a nasty trojan if I remember correctly.

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

Still don't see how that's any better since if you trust a website then you're bypassing noscript anyway. And don't a lot of AVs update more often than every other day? Mine updates every other hour.

its not an anti virus

And its use is down to common sense. Say you click a link by accident and it takes you to some DODGY site. NOSCRIPT automatically blocks that site and your COMMON SENSE tells you to leave it blocked (For common sense read '!!!!!!' or whatever). No harm done
'Your' method takes you to the site and your HOPING that the anti virus you use KNOWS its a virus and blocks it before doing any harm.

Ill put it another way. I have been known to go on quite a few dodgy sites (cracks, serials blah blah). Until I installed noscript into firefox MY anti virus used to light up like a a christmas tree (as would yours I assure you). In all the time ive had it installed ive not yet had ONE alert from my anti virus. nuff said

Lakshmi7

I use Zone Alarm free and the free version of AntiVir. I also use Ad-Aware.

I would just like to ask a quick question about Ad-Aware. I downloaded the 2008 version and for some strange reason I never seem to have anything to delete. It says that all my cookies are a threat 3 or less. Is anyone else getting this?

Art_2

Lakshmi7 wrote: »

I use Zone Alarm free and the free version of AntiVir. I also use Ad-Aware.

I would just like to ask a quick question about Ad-Aware. I downloaded the 2008 version and for some strange reason I never seem to have anything to delete. It says that all my cookies are a threat 3 or less. Is anyone else getting this?

Same here. All I do is clear the 'warnings' that AdAware show.

I also use Spybot and since downloading the latest version it never seems to find any problems like the earlier version did.

AVG V8 checks for spyware and I wonder if it's all removed before AdAware and Spybot get involved.

Regards,
Art.

Lakshmi7

I was wondering whether that might be it, but as I wasn't sure it was making feel a bit nervous. Now that I know it is happening to someone else, I feel a lot better.

Thanks!