User Account Control, Security

"Sasha" <Sasha DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:349003D0-8DF6-4B03-9AEA-8FE528BF6445@microsoft.com...
> AVast picks up on a few trojans that Norton doesn't and a few other
> viruses
> that norton doesn't until you perform a complete system scan in norton
> that
> is. AVast warns me before the file even opens up. Don't ask me, just every
> so
> often when I was using XP, AVast caught websites that contained a trojan
> on
> it or had at least some code that was of questionable origin.


And Avast doesn't screw up the computer and Windows Mail like Norton and
McAfee do.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
http://www.fjsmjs.com

At least a virus can be completely removed; unlike Norton, which wants to let
Symantec keep their hand in your wallet

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> Symantec/Norton and McAfee act very much like a virus in that they can never
> be completely removed. Same goes for AOHell.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> "LoneStar" <ewyatt_del_me RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote in message
> news:4623f2fa$0$97247$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> >
> > "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23FHtb$lfHHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> <grin>
> >>
> >> Did you know that even Microsoft pushed out an update a few years back
> >> that contained a virus.
> >>
> >> How about the Symantec antivirus update that contained a trojan (about a
> >> year ago).
> >>
> >> You just "think" you are safe.
> >>
> >
> > You're correct, and I should probably talk myself into installing AVAST,
> > or something like it. However, I've read many times that none of the AV
> > programs can catch ALL "in the field" viruses and only a minority of
> > zero-day types, heuristics used or not. But the odds are better with an
> > AV app running -- and slowing the system down, etc. However, in any case,
> > I will NEVER use anything made by Symantec (Norton)!!! Ever. I once did
> > and it still haunts my XP registry despite many attempts to uninstall it,
> > even with Symantec's own cleaning tools.
> >
> > EW
> >
> >
>
>

"Sasha" <Sasha DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799FB7E8-C916-4E4A-8584-A44C0EE3FB6B@microsoft.com...
> Just recently, after I got my system set up and running stable. I was
> surfing
> on the net and some website tried to install some kind of ActiveX control
> that I didn't need or want.

i doubt ou'd have known about that bad ax if you were usig ff or opera or
mac browser,etc.

if ou search the web, you might find a bookmarklet that allows you to [with
a click] report suspected nasty websites.



siteadvisor? (a mcaffee effort)
http://www.google.com/search?&q=report++bookmarklet+siteadvisor+

http://informationgift.com/2006/04/reputation_management_siteadvi.html

javascript:(function(){win=open('','','resizable,scrollbars');with(win.document.location='http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/'+self.location.hostname);})()

[but it's unresponsive in bonecho 2004pre]



further up this thread someone said avast found a trojan, but ime there's a
good chance that was a false positive.



>UAC picked up on it and warned me to either
> accept it or deny it access and I denied it and when I had a friend go to
> the
> same site, it was a virus. So it does help.
>
> "CJ Rom" wrote:
>
>> I am the only user of my computer - do I really need UAC enabled?
>> With Windows Defender and firewall protection do I really need
>> third-party
>> antivirus and firewall?

going to post UAC post soon, maybe, aaaAAAARRRRGGGGgggg. it and similar
popups are blocking *too many* deliberate actions. [such as pasting a
no-install app, either in zip or in extracted state.]

I don't think UAC will help that, most programs will still run the same way
they always did, with the same privileges, except for some secure areas. I
think the real advantage (as well as the real pain) is how it prompts for
everything. With UAC on, it prompts before doing anything it considers
important. This can be a real pain when it prompts 4 times "are you really
sure?" just to delete a folder, but when you are on a website and it pops up
and prompts you if its ok to install a keylogger, I think you will be happy.

Of course its functionality is limited right now because it gives such
limited information, 95% of the time it just says "unknown program", even
many Microsoft apps pup up with "unknown program"

"Alun Harford" wrote:

> Jesper wrote:
> >> I am the only user of my computer - do I really need UAC enabled?
> >
> > Yes. It has nothing to do with protecting you from other users on your
> > computer. It is about ensuring that you do not have to be an administrator
> > all the time. When you run as an admin the slightest misclick can spell
> > disaster.
>
> Or no misclick.
> Your software might contain a vulnerability which can be attacked. If
> it's not running as an administrator, you don't have serious problems.
>
> Alun Harford
>

my first 2 trojans (when i was more of a newbie than i am now) came from
downloading from the ms portal called "marketplace," which listed cnet as the
sponsor. i learned later - www.spywarewarrior.com -- that cnet is a sewer of
rogue antispyware.

"Robert Moir" wrote:

>
> "LoneStar" <ewyatt_del_me.RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:461fee66$0$97253$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> > I may be committing a "mortal sin" according to many other users, but I
> > haven't used any antivirus product on my XP and Vista PCs since I got
> > them!
>
> To be honest, I have often run without antivirus and been problem-free
> myself, however that would be very poor advice to give out to others who
> from the fact they're asking about basic things are clearly not going to be
> in the same position of awareness to judge risks for themselves properly.
>
> > I don't click on email attachments, I only download files from known,
> > reputable web sites (CNet, MS, etc), and I don't go to web sites that
> > might be problematic.
>
> It's worth pointing out that the thing about trusted sites is that you trust
> them not to *intentionally* send you infected downloads. Same with email
> attatchments from friends (I assume you'll concede that while you don't have
> to open these apparently, you are not the entire world and some of us *do*
> have to open some sometimes).
>
> You can trust someone not to hurt you intentionally, and that trust might be
> very well placed, but even the best have accidents and bad days. Microsoft
> have offered virus infected documents for download before now, for example.
>
> --
> Robert Moir
> http://www.rhymeswithgeek.com
>
>
>

I'm no expert, but IMHO as with all things this depends on your individual
situation. My experience has been that as a general rule, if you limit and
filter the types of programs and files you use/store (as in getting them from
a trusted source) and if you use common sense when running and managing your
computer (that is if you are blessed with much common sense) then you should
be fine without it. As for the latter, if you think you are lacking common
sense, I'm not sure where to purchase that. If that's you then good luck.

"CJ Rom" wrote:

> I am the only user of my computer - do I really need UAC enabled?
> With Windows Defender and firewall protection do I really need third-party
> antivirus and firewall?

I have a web application, a file viewer, that won't work if I have UAC on.
What do you think the problem is?... By the way I have this file viewer
installed on another vista machine and it work ok with UAC on... I don't know
what the differences are between the two systems....

"Mark" wrote:

> I don't think UAC will help that, most programs will still run the same way
> they always did, with the same privileges, except for some secure areas. I
> think the real advantage (as well as the real pain) is how it prompts for
> everything. With UAC on, it prompts before doing anything it considers
> important. This can be a real pain when it prompts 4 times "are you really
> sure?" just to delete a folder, but when you are on a website and it pops up
> and prompts you if its ok to install a keylogger, I think you will be happy.
>
> Of course its functionality is limited right now because it gives such
> limited information, 95% of the time it just says "unknown program", even
> many Microsoft apps pup up with "unknown program"
>
> "Alun Harford" wrote:
>
> > Jesper wrote:
> > >> I am the only user of my computer - do I really need UAC enabled?
> > >
> > > Yes. It has nothing to do with protecting you from other users on your
> > > computer. It is about ensuring that you do not have to be an administrator
> > > all the time. When you run as an admin the slightest misclick can spell
> > > disaster.
> >
> > Or no misclick.
> > Your software might contain a vulnerability which can be attacked. If
> > it's not running as an administrator, you don't have serious problems.
> >
> > Alun Harford
> >

Hi. I got a problem with my Windows Vista Home Basic. When I disable my user
account control and then i reboot my pc, my internet browser just go crazy,
it seems that it doesn't recognize sites and redirect always on google
homepage. Does anyone know what's the problem? Thank you for helping me.