Rob,
I believe you have a few misconceptions. For example, a firewall is the first line of defense against becoming part of a "botnet", for example--where your computer is used without your knowledge to infect other computers, to produce denial of service attacks, and to increase the computational power for doing brute force attacks on passwords of other machines. It should not be optional, nor is the possibility of a system hack as mild as you imagine--there are many out there who seek things like your personal bank account information and who would be delighted to get even relatively small amounts from you.
Kaspersky is fine, but no single product is perfect by any means. As I said, so far MSE seems at least as good as anything else out there from what I have seen.
I would not want two signature-based antivirus programs running in real time simultaneously--that can be a huge hit on performance and yes, they could conflict in various ways.
As for people trying to use your Internet bandwidth--that is a matter for securing your router rather than your computer.
I disagree about no anti-virus needed for the Mac. With its rise in popularity, it has become a much bigger target and various kinds of malware have begun showing up in larger numbers. A recent MacOS patch that addressed over sixty security holes was proof that Apple takes this rather seriously, too.
David
--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <sun408b@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "dbneeley" <dbneeley@> wrote:
> >
> > The answer is actually quite simple: most antivirus programs look for characteristic signatures of viruses. Until the signature of a new virus is included in the updated database, the scanner simply does not "see" the new one.
> >
>
>
>
> Well what happan is my Kaspersky blocks 90% of the malware the other 10% of the malware gets on the system but what is strange is the other 10% on the system Kaspersky picks it up but did not pick it up the first time to block it!!!
>
> So I have to do the Kaspersky scan to remove it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Today, for Windows, the Microsoft Security Essentials product is one I believe has both kinds of scanning and has been well rated by those who have tested it.
>
>
>
>
> I have Kaspersky so if I turn on Microsoft Security Essentials would there be a conflict.
>
>
>
> >
> > Of course, a firewall is also an extremely important part of your security setup--and the one Microsoft includes in various Windows iterations isn't too good. I have not reviewed Windows firewall software in some time; for years I used Comodo.
> >
>
>
>
> I have no firewall on my computers .Long time ago I used zone-alarm on other windows XP computer.
>
>
>
> > In Linux, the situation is somewhat simpler. A Linux firewall is simply the proper settings for the kernel, and there are various GUI tools for making that setup easier. One that springs to mind is Guarddog. There is also a great script called Bastille that walks you through the various security choices, teaching you why and how along the way.
> >
>
> Some people like a firewall do to they can close all open ports and log all incoming and outgoing traffic .And lock the computer when gone to bathroom or gone on a lunch break.
>
> In the 10 years of using a computer I had 5 hacked attempts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have not been seriously bothered with the idea of an antivirus product for Linux. There are a few out there, but so far at least I see little reason for employing them. One reason to consider it might be if you must deal with many downloaded files that will later be sent on to Windows users--then, being able to scan those files for malware is a very good practice.
> >
>
>
> If you a home user it really is not a problem to be worked up over hackers they go after the money the big business .
>
> The only time a hacker will go after you is people on the street where you live looking for free internet or some one from chat room ,myspace,facebook or message board you got into fight and got your IP address.
>
> All 5 hacked attempts I had was do to this.
>
> There is no need for a anti-virus on Linux,Unix or Mac computer has there is hardly any malware for it.
>
> And most anti-virus programs are for windows and would do no protection on a system not windows .
>
>
>
>
> > David
> >
> >
> > --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <sun408b@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But why does the malware get past the sanbox and some malware get past anti-virus program when later on the anti-virus program finds it.That so strange later on it finds it!!
> > >
> > > Some malware it blocks and other malware it does not but what strange is it finds it later!!
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the anti-virus program.
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment