is my comp secure enough

bigjonnyauk

bigjonnyauk

bigjonnyauk

Associate
Joined
5 May 2004
Posts
2,389
hi guys been a while since i did a format so did one yesterday and put the following on.

thing is the wife uses it now aswell so trying to protect as much as poss for when shes on it.


behind a router

windows firewall on

avg antivirus running

spyware blaster

ad aware 2008

then crap cleaner and regseeker for reg and left overs


also uses firefox with adblock plus and no script
 
I think you've covered all the bases there and are well protected.

You could always change windows firewall for comodo, but seeing as though your behind a router it shouldn't really matter.
 
Seems fine to me, I always found adware pretty useless tbh but thats just my personal opinion.

My config is....

Router

Windows Firewall

Avast Anti-Virus

CCleaner

Spybot search and destroy, with spybot I just scan once every week or so.
 
You've managed to cover all the technological bases, but a careful user is more important then any of those; someone who is complacent and oblivious to security negates the need for a lot of that software and is the only chink in your armour :)

Burnsy
 
MarcLister said:
I wouldn't know. :p Only ever used Comodo on a hardwired LAN connection. :)
Click to expand...

I have used it on both and have only had issues with Wireless LAN, it seems to block internet access for around 10seconds. I don't know what causes it, but will investigate at some point.
 
dagwoood, AVG Free v8 includes real-time antispyware as well as antivirus. Still, my own personal preference is:

Router (NAT/hardware SPI firewall)
NOD32 v3 antivirus and anti-spyware
SuperAntiSpyware (real-time checker)
Windows XP firewall
Ccleaner for junk
Defraggler
 
Windows firewall is pretty basic and pants tbh, and most routers will allow all established connections, so if something nasty lurks on a machine and connects to irc for some instructions for your a botnet, the router isn't going to stop it . Neither on their own or singularly do they provide complete protection. I would suggest a complete stateful software/hardware firewall that runs rules against ALL packets for those wanting to be totally secure.

last time i used spyware blaster it ran and protected against known vulnerabilities, but could nto scan and remove infected files, not sure if that's stil lthe case but if so i'd suggest using spybot search and destroy too, it's good to run atleast 2 different detection methods since none are 100% and it helps to identify false positives.
 
I toyed with a script that would, upon three failed logins to my linux, send a signal to a relay that would connect 240V to the case and advise the user to do something or other invloving touching the case with wet hands ;)

Harder to do something like that in windows because it's boot process is not predictable. Imagine a bat file running on startup which erased your drives (non of this formatting crap, just stream 0's into it), unless you type a pin number inside 20seconds. Now imagine a slightly wonky "new hardware found" wizard getting involved in the boot process......ooooooops.


External router is really all you need, keep all the ports closed unless you use them, and you'll be fine. Relying solely on the windows "firewall" or indeed any software "firewall" (call it what you like, but a firewall cannot be on the machine it's protecting), is intensely dangerous as any malware you like can access it and open ports.
 
thegoonden said:
I toyed with a script that would, upon three failed logins to my linux, send a signal to a relay that would connect 240V to the case and advise the user to do something or other invloving touching the case with wet hands ;)
Click to expand...

Shame the law wouldn't be sympathetic, thieves have more rights than the victim, be good to upload a video of it too!

A hardware firewall is fine, a home router acting as a firewall with NAT isn't. It'll disrupt and block incoming connections ok, but any established connections (by the malware that you mentioned) isn't going to be blocked. Home router firewalls are unintelligent, designed for the unintelligent (must be clocking upto about 94% of users now!). Also the reason you get routers with un-secured wireless enabled out of the box, or with WEP.

never having had an issue is hardly a winning arguement either, it's completely different from "I will never have an issue"
 
Ethics said:
A hardware firewall is fine, a home router acting as a firewall with NAT isn't. It'll disrupt and block incoming connections ok, but any established connections (by the malware that you mentioned) isn't going to be blocked.
Click to expand...

Thats why decent AV is useful, then you don't have the problems of open sessions, and then NAT is fine.

Burnsy
 
My bro's all certified this and that, he made horrified noises when he looked in out modem/router's config, switched the thing to pass thru (DMZ is that what you call it?) muttered something about "damned thing was running close enough to that way anyway", and set up a little Linux machine (some hideous Compaq p75 thing that weighs 4 tons) running a floppy firewall he wrote. I feel fairly safe. Doubly so because I do very little internet in windows at all, and only do "important" stuff in penguinland.
 
thegoonden said:
My bro's all certified this and that, he made horrified noises when he looked in out modem/router's config, switched the thing to pass thru (DMZ is that what you call it?) muttered something about "damned thing was running close enough to that way anyway", and set up a little Linux machine (some hideous Compaq p75 thing that weighs 4 tons) running a floppy firewall he wrote. I feel fairly safe. Doubly so because I do very little internet in windows at all, and only do "important" stuff in penguinland.
Click to expand...

There's no need to do any of that for most home users. And doing security by obscurity is one of the best ways of opening yourself up for attack (referring to your linux comment)

Burnsy
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Thats why decent AV is useful, then you don't have the problems of open sessions, and then NAT is fine.

Burnsy
Click to expand...

Agree totally. Never really seen the need for a software firewall.

All it takes is for the malware/virus/spyware to identify itself as some common app and people click "Always allow for this app" completely negating the usefullness of it.

IMO, it's much better letting your AV/Anti-Spyware identify the harmful software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom