I do approve of all the additional security built into Vista, so my question is 'How great is the need for Anti Virus software?' at the moment I am getting a bad mark under 'Malware protection' in the Windows Security Centre.
There was a early post that referred to anti virus software as a 'ball and chain' - I would add that the additional insult is that you also have to pay for it - though there are some free ones for home use. I have taken a dislike (which could be overcome) to McAfee as their concept of a Lifetime product has not lasted as long as a normal human life. My PC is connected to the internet by my NAT router which attaches to an ADSL phone line.
So, what do others do?
Michael Chare

The others run an antivirus program. I wouldn't even participate in email with my children if I didn't have one installed.

Regards,
Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User
"Michael Chare"

Michael
AVG 7.5 free version anti-virus is an excellent product that will cost you nothing, and is not anything like as invasive as McAfee or Norton.. it updates daily, and users of it report back only good things..
A firewall and NAT router will stop unsolicited stuff getting to your computer.. what neither of them will stop is a user unwittingly letting bad stuff in.. an anti-virus solution is just one line of defense..
You should also run (and update regularly) SpywareBlaster, a utility that immunizes IE against attack, requiring no user dependency other than updating..
These two can't do it all by themselves, so you may also want to run either Ewido or Trend Housecall on line scans now and again...
Links:
AVG.. free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/
SpywareBlsater.. javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
Ewido.. ewido.net/en/ (look to the left side of the page for the online scan)
Trend Housecall.. housecall.trendmicro.com/
"Michael Chare"

Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Michael Chare"

according to Jim Allchin, Vista is so secure it doesn't even NEED antivirus. Vista needs no anti-virus, says Allchin
Secure enough on its own
By John Sherwin: Friday 10 November 2006, 16:07
JIM ALLCHIN, outgoing co-President of the Platform Products and Services Group at Microsoft, has suggested that Windows Vista is so secure it may not need an antivirus system. The claim, which is sure to please antivirus vendors worldwide, was made on Wednesday as part of a telephone conversation with reporters to discuss the merits of the new operating system's security measures.
Citing such features as Patchguard and ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomisation, which loads the system kernel differently on each Vista machine) he said, "My son, seven years old, runs Windows Vista, and, honestly, he doesn't have an antivirus system on his machine.
"His machine is locked down with parental controls, he can't download things unless it's to the places that I've said that he could do, and I'm feeling totally confident about that,"
He added: "Vista is something that will have issues in security, because the bar is being raised over time. But in my opinion, it is the most secure system that's available".
He neglected to mention if he was referring to the 32-bit or 64-bit version of Vista.
======================================= "If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." - Bill Gates =======================================

if you are running the 32 bit version, you should for sure run a virus program. Avast is one that is most often recommended. FREE with regular updates.

mikeyhsd comcast.net

"Michael Chare" I do approve of all the additional security built into Vista, so my question is 'How great is the need for Anti Virus software?' at the moment I am getting a bad mark under 'Malware protection' in the Windows Security Centre.
There was a early post that referred to anti virus software as a 'ball and chain' - I would add that the additional insult is that you also have to pay for it - though there are some free ones for home use. I have taken a dislike (which could be overcome) to McAfee as their concept of a Lifetime product has not lasted as long as a normal human life. My PC is connected to the internet by my NAT router which attaches to an ADSL phone line.
So, what do others do?
Michael Chare

Interesting, but then why does Microsoft sell an anitvirus program for Vista if it dosen't need one? :-) Actually, MS One Care is fairly inexpensive ($40 a year for 3 PCs), and not too intrusive. It's not the world's greatest antivirus software, but for someone computer savy its probably sufficient.
Larry Maturo
"john"

John
Compare your wording of what JA said with the original.. he used the word 'may' which puts a different tone on..
"john"

Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Mike Hall - MS MVP"

Agreed 100% - I used Norton for many years, but the last couple of versions have been so awful that I finally had no choice but to abandon it...
I use AVG on all my PCs (real and virtual) now...

AVG also have a free anti-spyware package, but it's probably a bit too crippled for serious consideration: free.grisoft.com/doc/avg-anti-spyware-free/lng/us/tpl/v5

MS One Care is not specifically for Vista.. and JA did not say that Vista categorically didn't require a av program..
"Larry Maturo"

Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Not using AV software? Unthinkable, you could inadvertently let a virus on your pc and then you would be in trouble. I would say you absolutely need an AV program. I would recommend AVG, it is stable, updated daily, and free. Get an AV application. G
"Michael Chare"

Mike Hall - MS MVP wrote:

OOOHHHH! Does MS make a linux version? ;)

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group: protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks): "You can get dog shi* for free also!"
"Good poets borrow; great poets steal." - T. S. Eliot

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:48:32 -0500, Nina DiBoy wrote:

You want Linux to start crashing? <giggle>

I rarely have AV on my home PC and have never regretted it, however to be fair I'm far from the average home user. I use it for the occasional web browse, I don't accept attachments from anyone but myself via email (they all know better than to even send me any), and just about the only applications I run are World of Warcraft occasionally, RDP all the time and iTunes.
Having said that, I would never go without having AV on my PC at work. When I did use AV at home it was the same product I use at work: Symantec Enterprise. I can't stand Norton, but I love Symantec's enterprise solution to death. The only reason I typically don't put it on my machine at home is A) I'm lazy, and B) I usually prefer not to use one of my licenses for it.
I agree with what most folks say though: get AVG if nothing else. It's free, it's well-supported, and it does quite a nice job from everyone I know that has used it.
Joe
"Michael Chare"

"Larry Maturo" wrote in news:Oi72CqHcHHA.5044 TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

I'm pretty sure in the tests I've read of One Care, not only was it not the best, it IS actually the worst of the AV packages tested.

"Richard Urban" wrote in news:upU56tGcHHA.4012 TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

Do your children send you viruses often ? I guess they do it purposely.
Have you not instilled the fear of viruses in them ?
Have you ever considered stopping using MS e-mail products that are prone to exploits ?
In 12 years of using Eudora, HTML e-mail has never triggered anything, because it's set to use plain text anyway.

I wouldn't accept an email from you either if I were not protected.. I have no idea of the state of your computer. I have no idea if you sent it or it was sent by a malicious program you don't even know resides on your machine.
The fact remains that the majority of people do not even know that their computer has been taken over and is spewing out malware to others.
I have worked on a heck of a lot of computers where the owners told me they were having no problems - it just runs slow. Were they surprised when I turned up a ton of s**t.

Regards,
Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User
"DanS"

"Joe Grover"
Thanks for all the replies, I will try AVG, I see that the claim that it is Vista compatible - Something that I have learnt to look for. I do/did have AVG on another PC>
Michael Chare

"Mark Rae"

Vista's own Windows Defender is probably good enough. Gary VanderMolen

redtape.msnbc.com/ redtape.msnbc.com/2007/03/bots_story.html
Bob Sulivan / MSNBC.com Your home computer may be committing a crime at this very moment. It might be sending out spam. It might be buying stock as part of a pump-and-dump scheme. Or it might be helping attack the Internet itself, silently and invisibly, as you read this story. And the odds your computer is a criminal are quickly rising.
The Web, some say, has been turned into an operating system for criminals. Computer viruses that hijack PCs and turn them into electronic robots, or "bots," have become the killer app. The operation of networks of hijacked computers is so lucrative that hackers are actually fighting electronic wars over them, a story we will explore next week in part two of this series.
New hacker techniques make these virus attacks so subtle that there is no way you would know your computer is a criminal. And there is a growing sense among security experts that hackers have gained the upper hand in what was once a neck-and-neck arms race.
Bots can squirm their way onto home computers in myriad ways: a virus-laden e-mail or a booby-trapped Web site are the most common. But some viruses can attack your computer in the background, silently worming their way through networks via unprotected ports and porous firewalls, using vulnerabilities that software companies don't know about.
Earlier this year, Internet founding father Vint Cerf dramatically suggested that 150 million computers worldwide may have been hijacked by criminals. Most experts think that his estimate is high, but they still count infected computers in the millions, or tens of millions. And there is general consensus that the Internet is under assault from virus writers like never before.
Listen carefully to the words of those who are trying to help us keep our computers safe from Net criminals and you'll get a creeping sense that the boat is leaking faster than they can bail out the water. There were two-and-a-half times as many viruses released in 2006 as in 2005, and the growth rate has continued through the first quarter of 2007, said Eugene Kaspersky, chief researcher for Kaspersky Labs.
Antivirus firms "may not be able to withstand the onslaught," he said at a recent computer security conference. "This is a competition where the antivirus companies, I fear, are not in a good position."
Another antivirus executive put it more bluntly in a private conversation. "I think we've failed," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Computer security firms often use hyperbole to help get attention for their products, but expressing helplessness is something new.
Serious crimes for serious money
The security firms' helplessness means more home computers than ever are being hijacked by organized criminals. Those who control the computers, known as "bot herders," have little interest in the kinds of pranks that hackers typically played with their viruses five or 10 years ago. They commit serious crimes for serious money.
How serious? Earlier this year, a bot army sent a torrent of Internet traffic at two of the Web's 13 critical domain name servers, directing the equivalent of millions of e-mails at them within a few minutes. The mysterious onslaught would have rendered the Web useless if it had succeeded in taking the domain name servers down, but after a few hours it stopped as quickly as it started.
continued.....
redtape.msnbc.com/2007/03/bots_story.html
"Richard Urban"

"Richard Urban" wrote in news:#6UuvsLcHHA.3632 TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

Thanks, I wouldn't send you an e-mail anyway.
But back to the matter at hand, simple common sense says not to open e- mail attachments. Period. End of story. That should be enough.
And besides, how often have you sent a valid e-mail with an exe file attached, or attached a .vbs or .com or .bat ?

You would think, wouldn't you. But most of the computers I work on were infected by people doing just that - opening email attachments. They usually came from friends computers.
So, anyone who runs without antivirus and anti spyware programs are asking for problems.

Regards,
Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User
"DanS"

"DanS"

I did once get caught by a .scr file which cam (inadvertently) from some I had asked to provide some information. The virus was quite clever as it scanned an inbox and sent emails to all opened mail!
Running AVG has identified two magistr.a (or similar) viruses which were in an old inbox that I trasnferred from my old PC.
Running AVG on my new PC has not made a noticeable increase to the boot time I am pleased to say.
Michael Chare

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:12:34 -0400, "Mike Hall - MS MVP"

Yep; that's what I use, too. Caveat: If... - you are on dial-up - your email disconnects when "done" ....then UNselect the email scanner component on install.
Also, by default, AVG scans "the system" at 8 am daily, which is often when folks start their working day. That would cause "AVG slows down my PC" complaints, so I always turn it off.

Yup. Firewall, NAT, and getting rid of WiFi if you don't use it, are your first barriers, or your "forward strikers", to use a soccer analogy. Your single resident av is your "goalie of last resort".
In between that, one can do many other things... - safer system and UI settings - kill admin shares - stop autorunning newly-inserted drives - choose safer edge-facing apps - keep the OS updated - passive "vaccination" a la Spyware Blaster - apply data hygiene, i.e. keep riskware out of data backups - route riskware into a common subtree - aim a tier of on-demand scanners at that subtree - build your own "safe hex" skills - prepare for when you have to formally manage malware

Yep, I like that one, too ;-)

Er, no - I'm not a fan of picking a fight with running malware (e.g. "scan the whole system every night from within ?infected Windows, in case your av missed something") and I'm even less a fan of: - reaching an "online scanning site" via ?malware-poisoned DNS - allowing that site to drop and run active content on the PC - staying online while that dropped code gropes all my files
The only use I'd make of on-line scanners is to upload files to be tested, *before* groping or "opening" those files.

Ewido is now AVG AntiSpyware 7.5, and acquiring it was a very shrewd move for AVG... vastly boosts their cred ;-)

Still needed, IMO. As long as it's compitent, it doesn't matter which one you use; free AVG updated daily would likely be better protection than Kaspersky that the user updates only once a week.
The important thing to remember is that various anti-malware tactics mesh in ways that compliment each other, whereas applying the same tactic multiple times (e.g. running multiple av scanners and doing nothing else) meshes far more poorly.
Some barriers are narrow, but absolute.
For example, if malware relies on admin shares to enter via clickless attack, and you don't have admin shares exposed, your are absolutely protected against that attack.
To any number of attacks that use a different method, you're just as wide open as before - so it is a narrow protection.
Other barriers are broad, but leaky.
For example, a resident av should "catch" malware as it tries to be created as a file, or is loaded into memory, before it can run - so the protection is broad, because it works no matter what methods the malware used to get into the system.
But all mugshot-recognition scanners will fail to detect malware that is any one or more of... - too "new" to be recognised - seldom exposed in the wild, so unknown to the av vendor - legitimate software dropped and run for malware purposes ....and will also fail if other active malware has disabled it.
Even "safe hex" has its limits.
Yes, you'd apply the "Turing Test" even when getting mail "from someone you know", because you know very well that malware is most often from infected PCs that have your email address visible on it (i.e. "someone you know").
So if you aren't convinced an actual human user chose to send that message and those specific attached files, you'd not "open" them, no matter how clean the av thinks they are.
But what if "someone you know" is infected with a malware that infects the "data" files the user really does intend to send? Your "safe hex" doesn't get traction in that context, so you'd hope the av scanner would catch the ball. It is likely to do so, as n-generation spread by infecting "real" files is usually slow enough for the av to update itself with an awareness of that malware before it reaches you.

We look beyond what dumb retail tries to sell us (as an OEM, I discard buldleware Norton AV "starter" CDs that fall out of the box when I assemble PCs) and use either free stuff like AVG, Avast and what used to be called AntiVir, or if we do buy feeware, it's something best-of-breed like Kaspersky (thourough) or NOD32 (light on performance impact and pretty good) or F-Secure (multiple scanning engines including Kaspersky; may impact performance).
But we do a lot more than "in av we trust" ;-)

Be easier to use! >- - - - - -

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:24:00 +0100, "Mark Rae"

On the contrary, it's a very good scanner (Ewido) that's perfect for on-demand use. The only "crippling" is that resident features dry up after the trial period, but with av and Defender already resident, that suits me just fine.
I'd use a number of on-demand-only scanners, such as AdAware, Spybot, AVG AntiSpyware and A-Squared.
You can also add on-demand av scanners such as Trend SysClean, BitDefender etc. but I'd use them differently; instead of scanning "the whole system", I'd level them at incoming material that hasn't yet been "opened", before "opening" it.

Be easier to use! >- - - - - -

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:05:11 +0100, "Michael Chare"

Nasty bug, Magistr... actually, one of the most fascinating set of malware strategies I've ever seen. A payload worth avoiding, too

in medicine is the Retrospectoscope > - - - - - -

I felt the same about vista but installed an anti-virus and spyware scanner just to be sure, today i downloaded a game patch from a respected site with certificates on site about adware ect.
Well there was adware in the download Vista missed it, never even sneezed but avast caught it rightaway alarms of warning and what to do about it.
Avast is free for home use and i am thankfull i had it running!! i look at this way when i lock the door i also lock the deadbolt
"john" wrote:

In his book "Windows Vista-The Book that should have been in the box" David Pogue says that you do need anti virus in addition to the security built into Vista. I use Avast-a free software download-and am very pleased with it. Hope this is helpful. brassplate577
"Michael Chare" wrote:

OK, so what product would you recommend for a Vista Ultimate 64-bit system for security protection? I had been a McAfee customer for years using my previous Win 98 PC, but sadly they don't offer a program for 64-bit systems. I am also getting a warning on the lower right part of my desktop that says I am unprotected. Please help.
"MICHAEL" wrote:

There will most likely always be a need for it, at least until people stop making virus and other "problem" programs anyway.
The thing about this debate is, it's really not a Microsoft vs. Mac vs. Linux issue as some say it is. Sure, no one's writing virus programs for Linux, but the Linux kernal *is* wide open to anyone who wants to maninpulate it. That to me says that at any given time, Redhad can code in "phone home" features to track what I'm doing a shrewdly as they want to be, for example. (I'm in no way saying Red Hat does this - I'm sure they don't.)
And all I'm really going to say about Mac is if there's no virus like the ads say, then why do they sell Norton Antivirus for Mac? Is it like a placebo then? :)
I'm all for just using what works best for you. If Linux is what you need then go for it, don't let me stop you. Same with Mac. I don't think Microsoft Products are any better or worse, but it's what I *need* so I'm genuinly happy about any upgrades and enhancements.
The place I'm going with this is why have to stop laying blame for spyware, malware and virus programs on the feet of the vendors - if Mac gets hit with a million viruses tomorrow it's no more their fault than it would be if it was Linux - it's the people who create these programs (or let them lose on the world) that we should instead be turning our anger to.
Think about it, when was the last time we all bad mouthed a lock maker because someone's house got robbed?
I mean, to me, I think we're looking at some great options for our operating systems these days. Mac OS X is awesome, and Linux has really come far too, and Vista is really neat if you use it. We shouldn't let some cyber-space criminals ruin our experiances on the Internet.
I'll close with a remark about the "email program" banter that is seen here - I've used Microsoft Outlook since Office '97, and I have never ever been infected by a virus. (And I use HTML email). I simply have a proactive stance against it. I have my firewall, my antivirus (I don't even use a spam filter), and I get something that looks fishy, I simply delete it.
So, if something other than Outlook is working awesome for you, then that's great, good to hear it, but we shouldn't be blaming the vendors for making a product that their customers want to use. To each his own I guess, but in the end, we have to stand up as a community on the 'Net and say enough is enough.
My 2 Cents... More like 1/2 a cent... ;)
Mark
"Michael Chare" wrote:

=?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= wrote in news:A04C14AC-5ECE-45D5-9DD5-19A2096D2A14 microsoft.com: