From:
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Anti Virus Protection?
Date:
2007-09-30
09:21:39
On
Sat, 29 Sep 2007
21:22:37
-0700, munchie wrote:
> On Sep 29,
11:43 am, "Ken Blake,
MVP"
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007
09:32:42
-0400, "William F. Welner"
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Does one have to purchase a separate anti Virus
program for Windows Vista?
> >
> > > The Computer Shop that sold me my new PC told me
that Virus protection is
> > > provided as part of Windows Vista.
> >
> > > Immediately turned the PC on I received a message
recommending that I
> > > purchase an anti Virus program.
> >
> > > I am confused. Please provided me advice on the
Anti Virus issue.
> >
> > You got bad information from the computer shop. No
version of Windows
> > has ever come with Virus protection.
> >
> > Unfortunately, getting misinformation from clerks in
stores selling
> > computers is common, especially if the stores are of
the big chain
> > variety--BestBuy,
Circuit
City,
CompUSA, etc. Most of these places
> > choose the people they hire based on their
willingness to accept
> > something close to minimum wage, not based on their
skills. If these
> > people knew anything, almost certainly they could get
a better
> > job.
> >
> > However, you can download and install excellent
freeware antivirus
> > software. I recommend Avast! athttp://www.avast.com/
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
> As someone who works at one of those "big computer
shops", I'd like to
> say that some of us do the job because we genuinely
like talking-to
> and education people.
I certainly don't suggest that no employee of such a
store knows
anything. My point is rather that few of them do, and
therefore
relying on what you are told there is foolhardy. If you
are an
exception, I'm glad to hear it.
> You can run many antispyware programs if you desire,
but stay away
> from running multiple antivirus programs. They'll eat
eachother
> alive!
No, there's nothing wrong with installing and even
running multiple
anti-virus programs. What you should not do is run them
*simultaneously*.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Top
From:
Mike Hall - MVP <mikehall@mvps.com>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Anti Virus Protection?
Date:
2007-09-30
07:39:27
William
Find another computer store.
Windows has NO native av protection. Use AVG or Avast
free versions, or if
you don't mind paying, NOD32 is good.
Avoid any solution from Symantec or McAfee..
"William F. Welner" wrote in message
news:ukH592pAIHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Does one have to purchase a separate anti Virus program
for Windows Vista?
>
> The Computer Shop that sold me my new PC told me that
Virus protection is
> provided as part of Windows Vista.
>
> Immediately turned the PC on I received a message
recommending that I
> purchase an anti Virus program.
>
> I am confused. Please provided me advice on the Anti
Virus issue.
>
> Bill Welner
Top
From:
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Anti Virus Protection?
Date:
2007-09-29
17:31:13
On
Sat, 29 Sep 2007
20:33:34 GMT,
"Dave T." wrote:
> William F. Welner wrote:
> > Does one have to purchase a separate anti Virus
program for Windows Vista?
> >
> > The Computer Shop that sold me my new PC told me that
Virus protection
> > is provided as part of Windows Vista.
> >
> > Immediately turned the PC on I received a message
recommending that I
> > purchase an anti Virus program.
> >
> > I am confused. Please provided me advice on the Anti
Virus issue.
> >
> > Bill Welner
>
> Is it possible that what they meant was that an AV
program has been
> installed to the hard drive from the OEM, but the OP
must buy a license?
> My machine came with Norton, but it was only good for a
couple of months
> and then they wanted money. I dumped it for Avast.
It is often true that software (of various types) is
bundled with a
computer when it is sold. It doesn't have to be a trial
version, as it
was in your case. For example, some computers come with
Microsoft
Office, some with Microsoft Works, and some with Corel
WordPerfect.
However, software's coming with the *computer* is very
different from
such software coming with Windows. The OP was told that
it came with
Windows, and that is simply false. He was either lied to
or sold a
computer by an ignorant salesperson.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Top
From:
John Barnett MVP <freelanceit@mvps.org.NOSPAM>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Anti Virus Protection?
Date:
2007-09-29
13:43:04
I think the staff in the Computer shop where you
purchased your PC need
re-educating. Vista
doesn't contain any anti virus software and neither has
any other version of Windows, for that matter. It
contains a firewall and
anti spyware software, but that is all.
I suggest you download the 'free' versions of either AVG
anti virus
(http://free.grisoft.com) or Avast anti virus
(http://www.avast.com)
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No
warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to
the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author
shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages
arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions
expressed in this
mail/post..
"William F. Welner" wrote in message
news:ukH592pAIHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Does one have to purchase a separate anti Virus program
for Windows Vista?
>
> The Computer Shop that sold me my new PC told me that
Virus protection is
> provided as part of Windows Vista.
>
> Immediately turned the PC on I received a message
recommending that I
> purchase an anti Virus program.
>
> I am confused. Please provided me advice on the Anti
Virus issue.
>
> Bill Welner
Top
From:
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Anti Virus Protection?
Date:
2007-09-29
10:43:19
On
Sat, 29 Sep 2007
09:32:42
-0400, "William F. Welner"
wrote:
> Does one have to purchase a separate anti Virus program
for Windows Vista?
>
> The Computer Shop that sold me my new PC told me that
Virus protection is
> provided as part of Windows Vista.
>
> Immediately turned the PC on I received a message
recommending that I
> purchase an anti Virus program.
>
> I am confused. Please provided me advice on the Anti
Virus issue.
You got bad information from the computer shop. No
version of Windows
has ever come with Virus protection.
Unfortunately, getting misinformation from clerks in
stores selling
computers is common, especially if the stores are of the
big chain
variety--BestBuy,
Circuit
City,
CompUSA, etc. Most of these places
choose the people they hire based on their willingness to
accept
something close to minimum wage, not based on their
skills. If these
people knew anything, almost certainly they could get a
better
job.
However, you can download and install excellent freeware
antivirus
software. I recommend Avast! at http://www.avast.com/
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Top
From:
Maurice N ~ MVP <maurice@mvps.org>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Anti Virus Protection?
Date:
2007-09-29
09:58:13
The shop may have confused MS Windows Defender (which
comes standard with Vista)
as being an anti-virus. It's not.
IF ?
If money is an issue (and it truly is self-defeating to
scrimp money for AV), a strong recommendation is Avira AntiVir PE Classic (only
for personal use) at http://www.free-av.com/ as a free AV
May I personnaly suggest you NOT get AVG antivirus (the
free edition). Other AV products are much better.
You also truly need an anti-malware (though some products
are now including both anti-malware ?
My personal favorite is CounterSpy from Sunbelt Software.
The AVG Anti-Spyware is also good.
iirc, companies like Panda ?
--
Maurice N
MS-MVP (Windows Client) , Aumha.net VSOP , DTS-L
-----
"William F. Welner" wrote in message
news:ukH592pAIHA.4836@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Does one have to purchase a separate anti Virus program
for Windows Vista?
>
> The Computer Shop that sold me my new PC told me that
Virus protection is
> provided as part of Windows Vista.
>
> Immediately turned the PC on I received a message
recommending that I
> purchase an anti Virus program.
>
> I am confused. Please provided me advice on the Anti
Virus issue.
>
> Bill Welner
>
Top
From:
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Security
Date:
2007-09-27
16:01:13
On
Wed, 26 Sep 2007
18:22:00
-0700, jc
wrote:
> I have the latest Norton anti virus with firewall,
spyware protection, and
> everything else. My question is, should I and how do I
turn off all of the
> Vista
security. I know how to disable the firewall(I don't need 2 running),
It's not a question of not *needing* two running. You
*shouldn't* have
two running, for two reasons:
1. You incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,
2. You run the risk of conflicts between them.
> but what about the rest of the stuff like defender etc?
There really is no etc. Defender is the only other
security program. I
recommend that you do *not* turn it off. A single
anti-spyware
product--even the best one--is *not* good enough. Note
what Eric
Howes, who has done extensive testing on Anti-Spyware
products,
states:
"No single anti-spyware scanner removes everything. Even
the
best-performing anti-spyware scanner in these tests
missed fully one
quarter of the "critical" files and Registry entries" See
http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm
By the way, in my view, Norton is the poorest security
software on the
market, and there are lots of better choices, many of
them free.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Top
From:
Alex K. Angelopoulos \(MVP\) <aka@mvps.org>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Bypass RunAs
Date:
2007-09-23
10:58:23
Sorry about the response lag. ;)
I had originally just noted that it was possible to do
this while installing
SUA on Vista;
it has options for allowing setuid (and also sutoroot) during
install phase. I went back this morning and tried
allowing setuid to work,
even reinstalling SUA, but I can't even find the binary -
just the man page.
I think this is going to take someone who knows more
about SUA to answer,
which kind of drives home the point that it isn't a
practical solution for
most people. :)
"Jesper" wrote in message
news:625CF4E0-012B-486F-9967-F777BF5F6B66@microsoft.com...
> Good point Alex. I didn't think of that. Does it
actually do what setuid
> does
> on Unix though? Does it let limited Windows users run
administrative
> applications?
> ---
> Your question may already be answered in Windows Vista
Security:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470101555?ie=UTF8?
>
>
> "Alex K. Angelopoulos (MVP)" wrote:
>
>> A minor caveat - there actually _is_ a setuid included
in the free SUA
>> add-on from Microsoft:
>>
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=93ff2201-325e-487f-a398-efde5758c47f
>>
>> Security implications of enabling setuid aside (you're
warned in setup),
>> from a practical standpoint you're still right. Using
setuid isn't
>> something
>> that most users will want to get into.
>>
>> "Jesper" wrote in message
>>
news:D3C43215-F198-45E5-B98E-124A4A3DF852@microsoft.com...
>> > Not if you want the executable to run as an
administrator. There is no
>> > setuid
>> > equivalent on Windows.
>> >
>> > If you control the executable, the proper way to do
that is to refactor
>> > the
>> > executable into a service portion, which runs
elevated and performs the
>> > administrative tasks, and a user-mode portion that
runs as the user.
>> > ---
>> > Your question may already be answered in Windows
Vista Security:
>> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470101555?ie=UTF8?
>> >
>> >
>> > "pjw lignon" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear All,
>> >>
>> >> When a non-administrator wants to run an
executable, Vista
asks for an
>> >> adminstrator password.
>> >>
>> >> If I want to allow an executable to run under a
user without having to
>> >> provide an administrator password, is it
possible/allowed in Vista?
>>
Top
From:
Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Opening Screen
Date:
2007-09-23
01:24:06
Well it didn't just appear all by itself? Did you install
anything?
And what are you opening from the net? Because XP also
prompts you when
items are downloading? I'm not sure exactly what you are
describing can
you do a screen shot?
I do not mean in any way to pick on you but this "It's my
computer"
attitude that you say you agree with. Every week there
are adult classes
on computer training, perhaps that might be a way to make
it even more
of your computer?
It's only when we understand something that it's truly
ours.
TJenkins wrote:
> From out of the blue, one day last week, when I turned
on my computer
> the opening screen had a Circle with an X and "the user
name or
> password is incorrect" and below that was a box with OK
in it. I click
> on the ok and a second screen appears with three user
icons. Two are
> identical with same name, the other is the
Administrator. The newer of
> the user icons wants a password which I have never
installed and can't
> open, the other user icon I just click on and it opens.
Curious where
> this new opening page came from, where did the "user
name or password is
> incorrect" come from and how to get rid of it and the
other icon on the
> second page. Whew! Thanks in advance.
>
> I also agree with others that this is my computer, I'm
the only one that
> uses it and I am tired of the UAC coming up each time I
try to open
> something from the net. I turn it off in control panel
and it keeps
> coming back on.
>
> tjenkins
Top
From:
Alex K. Angelopoulos \(MVP\) <aka@mvps.org>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Bypass RunAs
Date:
2007-09-22
18:47:04
A minor caveat - there actually _is_ a setuid included in
the free SUA
add-on from Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=93ff2201-325e-487f-a398-efde5758c47f
Security implications of enabling setuid aside (you're
warned in setup),
from a practical standpoint you're still right. Using
setuid isn't something
that most users will want to get into.
"Jesper" wrote in message
news:D3C43215-F198-45E5-B98E-124A4A3DF852@microsoft.com...
> Not if you want the executable to run as an
administrator. There is no
> setuid
> equivalent on Windows.
>
> If you control the executable, the proper way to do
that is to refactor
> the
> executable into a service portion, which runs elevated
and performs the
> administrative tasks, and a user-mode portion that runs
as the user.
> ---
> Your question may already be answered in Windows Vista
Security:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470101555?ie=UTF8?
>
>
> "pjw lignon" wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> When a non-administrator wants to run an executable,
Vista
asks for an
>> adminstrator password.
>>
>> If I want to allow an executable to run under a user
without having to
>> provide an administrator password, is it
possible/allowed in Vista?
Top
From:
PA Bear <PABearMVP@gmail.com>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Outlook and web access fails when updates are added
Date:
2007-09-22
11:47:30
I'd say it's time for you to...
Start a free Windows Update support incident request:
https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=6527
Support for Windows Update:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/wusupport
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP ?
DTS-L http://dts-l.org/
Mano10000 wrote:
> Sorry - thought I was clear. SP3 is in my list of
available updates, but I
> haven't installed. There are 5 other important updates
that I feel I
> should
> try to install, but I have 3 or 4 times and when I have
that slows my Web
> connection a hundred-fold giving terrible probs for
Outlook and Live
> Messenger (so I've used system restore to remove them).
They are:
> Security update for CAPICOM KB931906
> Update for Outlook 2003 Junk email filter KB936677
> Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool Sept 2007
KB890830
> Definition update for Windows Defender KB915597
(definition 1.21.2942.12)
> Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express edition service pack
2 KB921896
>
> According to the update history the only recent change
was:
> Definition update for Windows Defender KB915597
(definition 1.21.2940.3)
>
> But as I have said I've restored since then (and am OK
again) and if I
> look
> at "Last Updated" in my Windows updated history the
date for last changes
> is
> long before this change.
>
> Thanks again for any assistance - I'm kind of resigned
to the problems,
> but
> I know I shouldn't be!
>
> Best wishes
> "PA Bear" wrote:
>
>> Crossposted to Vista Security newsgroup.
>>
>> I was asking about Office 2003 SP3, not SP2 (SP3 was
only released 2 days
>> ago): Is SP3 listed in windowsupdate.log or in Update
History at Windows
>> Update website? What other updates are listed that
were recently
>> installed, other than Defender definitions updates?
>>
>> I very much doubt that a Defender definitions update
caused the problem.
>> --
>> ~PA Bear
>>
>> Mano10000 wrote:
>>> Thanks for such a fast response. Answer is no.
Windows update history
>>> claims
>>> it installed Office 2003 SP2 a week or so ago, but I
system restored
>>> since
>>> then so I don't know if that means that it has since
been removed.
>>>
>>> Since making the original post I have successfully
restored the system
>>> to
>>> immediately before the last Windows update (the
defender change) and it
>>> all
>>> works fine again.
>>>
>>> I have 6 important updates available one of which is
Office 2003 SP3. I
>>> suppose the only 2 options for me are to install each
individually and
>>> see
>>> how they affect my machine, or simply ignore them.
Unless you have a
>>> better
>>> idea. I have spent days trying to put the machine
right after automatic
>>> updates have fouled it up. I run absolutely nothing
odd or dodgy that
>>> should
>>> make my system act strangely...
>>>
>>> Is it just because
Vista is new?
>>>
>>> "PA Bear" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did Automatic Updates install Office 2003 SP3 this
week?
>>>> --
>>>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>>>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>>>> AumHa VSOP ?
>>>> DTS-L http://dts-l.org/
>>>>
>>>> Mano10000 wrote:
>>>>> I'm running Vista Home premium (which includes
Windows Defender). I
>>>>> also
>>>>> have Office 2003. I've found that when I had
automatic updates
>>>>> installed
>>>>> I
>>>>> lost the ability for Outlook to connect to my
hotmail account and
>>>>> Messenger
>>>>> to sign in, and my web connection speed dropped
from lightning quick
>>>>> to
>>>>> something out of the mid-1980s.
>>>>>
>>>>> I kept having to system restore, so now I have
updates set for me to
>>>>> choose
>>>>> when to install them (and sadly I can't take the
risk to ever do it).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, today Windows Defender was flashing at me
so I did a "check
>>>>> for
>>>>> updates" and monitoring my Windows update manager
it tells me KB915597
>>>>> was
>>>>> installed today and cannot be uninstalled.
>>>>>
>>>>> You guessed it. Now Outlook cannot connect and my
Web builds up line
>>>>> by
>>>>> line
>>>>> despite my ultrafast broadband.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's going on and how can I put it right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks anyone for their help.
Top
From:
Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: User Account Blues
Date:
2007-09-22
03:42:19
When you turn off UAC you also turn off IE's protected
mode
What if you change it so that UAC will silently elevate?
and what things are you doing that you get the UAC
prompt. I am as we
speak on a Vista
machine that has not had a UAC prompt in about a month now.
Paul Smith wrote:
> "SL Mourning" wrote in message
>
news:F9A6D7C4-FA08-4A81-9324-A95058C64E80@microsoft.com...
>> I know that many people will disagree, but it is my
computer and I have
>> turned off User Account Control.
>
> Yes I disagree, UAC should be enabled. People have been
fighting for
> years to get people off administrator accounts.
>
>> Is
>> there a way to convince
Vista that I paid for
that software and ought
>> to be
>> able to not suffer the constant reminder that I'm not
going along with
>> something that is unnecessary for me in this
application? Thank you.
>> SLM
>
> Yes, you can turn off all
Security
Center
warnings, in the Security
> Center, under Change the way
Security
Center
alerts me.
>
Top
From:
PA Bear <PABearMVP@gmail.com>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Outlook and web access fails when updates are added
Date:
2007-09-20
18:02:11
Crossposted to Vista Security newsgroup.
I was asking about Office 2003 SP3, not SP2 (SP3 was only
released 2 days
ago): Is SP3 listed in windowsupdate.log or in Update
History at Windows
Update website? What other updates are listed that were
recently installed,
other than Defender definitions updates?
I very much doubt that a Defender definitions update
caused the problem.
--
~PA Bear
Mano10000 wrote:
> Thanks for such a fast response. Answer is no. Windows
update history
> claims
> it installed Office 2003 SP2 a week or so ago, but I
system restored since
> then so I don't know if that means that it has since
been removed.
>
> Since making the original post I have successfully
restored the system to
> immediately before the last Windows update (the
defender change) and it
> all
> works fine again.
>
> I have 6 important updates available one of which is
Office 2003 SP3. I
> suppose the only 2 options for me are to install each
individually and see
> how they affect my machine, or simply ignore them.
Unless you have a
> better
> idea. I have spent days trying to put the machine right
after automatic
> updates have fouled it up. I run absolutely nothing odd
or dodgy that
> should
> make my system act strangely...
>
> Is it just because
Vista is new?
>
> "PA Bear" wrote:
>
>> Did Automatic Updates install Office 2003 SP3 this
week?
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>> AumHa VSOP ?
>> DTS-L http://dts-l.org/
>>
>> Mano10000 wrote:
>>> I'm running Vista Home premium (which includes
Windows Defender). I also
>>> have Office 2003. I've found that when I had
automatic updates installed
>>> I
>>> lost the ability for Outlook to connect to my hotmail
account and
>>> Messenger
>>> to sign in, and my web connection speed dropped from
lightning quick to
>>> something out of the mid-1980s.
>>>
>>> I kept having to system restore, so now I have
updates set for me to
>>> choose
>>> when to install them (and sadly I can't take the risk
to ever do it).
>>>
>>> However, today Windows Defender was flashing at me so
I did a "check for
>>> updates" and monitoring my Windows update manager it
tells me KB915597
>>> was
>>> installed today and cannot be uninstalled.
>>>
>>> You guessed it. Now Outlook cannot connect and my Web
builds up line by
>>> line
>>> despite my ultrafast broadband.
>>>
>>> What's going on and how can I put it right?
>>>
>>> Thanks anyone for their help.
Top
From:
StephenB <sboots@mvps.org>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Security Setting to allow activex
Date:
2007-09-19
18:29:38
Windows Live OneCare does not block ActiveX downloaded
via the browser unless
they are found to be infected as they load. And then,
hopefully, the infection
would be blocked.
-steve
"PA Bear" wrote:
>Forwarded to Vista Security and OneCare General
newsgroups via crosspost for
>best assistance.
>--
>~PA Bear
>
>jayjay@jps wrote:
>> My Windows version is Vista Business and antivirus is
Windows Live OneCare
>>
>>> Windows version? What's your anti-virus?
>>> --
>>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>>> AumHa VSOP ?
>>> DTS-L http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>> jayjay@jps wrote:
>>>> I was installing adobe flash player I clicked
install activex and the
>>>> message came up "your security setting do not allow
websites to use
>>>> activex
>>>> controls installed on your computer" I click on it
for more information
>>>> and it takes me to help and support with information
about the
>>>> information
>>>> bar. I enabled the security settings to accept
activex but still get
>>>> the
>>>> same message. Help is needed. Thanks
--
Stephen Boots
MVP Windows Live
Windows Live OneCare Forum Moderator
sboots@mvps.org
Top
From:
PA Bear <PABearMVP@gmail.com>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Security Setting to allow activex
Date:
2007-09-19
14:56:48
Forwarded to Vista Security and OneCare General
newsgroups via crosspost for
best assistance.
--
~PA Bear
jayjay@jps wrote:
> My Windows version is Vista Business and antivirus is
Windows Live OneCare
>
>> Windows version? What's your anti-virus?
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
>> AumHa VSOP ?
>> DTS-L http://dts-l.org/
>>
>> jayjay@jps wrote:
>>> I was installing adobe flash player I clicked install
activex and the
>>> message came up "your security setting do not allow
websites to use
>>> activex
>>> controls installed on your computer" I click on it
for more information
>>> and it takes me to help and support with information
about the
>>> information
>>> bar. I enabled the security settings to accept
activex but still get
>>> the
>>> same message. Help is needed. Thanks
Top
From:
PA Bear <PABearMVP@gmail.com>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Help...IE7 and Windows
Vista
Date:
2007-09-17
18:49:41
Forwarded to Vista Security newsgroup via crosspost.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User) since 2002
AumHa VSOP ? DTS-L http://dts-l.org/
Allison wrote:
> I just bought a new laptop with Windows Vista. It has
IE 7 which I did
> have
> on my older computer. My problem is that I have been
trying to access a
> website so that I can check my work email at home from
time to time and
> the
> page won't load. When I put in the address it opens a
new window and
> sometimes gives me a message saying that the website
needs a different
> level
> of security than the one I am currently on and then
says it is connecting.
> However, the little bar at the bottom that shows
progress never gets past
> about half way and it sticks there. I've not gotten any
error messages
> saying the page cannot be loaded it just doesn't do
anything. I have a
> feeling this is a security issue with
Vista but I'm not
sure how to fix
> it.
> I have tried adjusting the security settings and I have
added the site to
> my
> trusted sites but have not gotten any different
results.
>
> Any ideas on what I should do? I know that the site is
a good one and
> that
> the link works since I got it from my older laptop
where it works fine.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!
>
> Allison
Top
From:
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Windows Defender?
Date:
2007-09-16
19:40:53
On
Sun, 16 Sep 2007
10:06:03
-0700, djkrus
wrote:
> My Acer with Windows Home Premium came with Windows
Defender. I loaded a 90
> free trial of
Norton
Protection
Center
at the suggestion of the Geek Squad.
> The free part is ending soon. I have not had any
problems. Do I really need
> any protection other than Defender?
Definitely!
For adequate protection, you need three all types of
software:
1. An anti-virus program. Windows Defender does nothing
to protect you
against viruses, and no anti-virus program is included
with Windows.
2. Anti-spyware programs (note the plural "programs."
Windows Defender
is an example of this, but a single anti-spyware
product--even the
best one--is *not* good enough. Note what Eric Howes, who
has done
extensive testing on Anti-Spyware products, states:
"No single anti-spyware scanner removes everything. Even
the
best-performing anti-spyware scanner in these tests
missed fully one
quarter of the "critical" files and Registry entries" See
http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm
3. A firewall program. You can use the built-in Windows
one, or choose
a third-party one instead.
My view, by the way, is that anything Norton is the
*worst* possible
software you can get. There are many better alternatives.
My view of the Geek Squad is similar to my view of Norton
products.
They are not a company I would recommend using.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Top
From:
John Barnett MVP <freelanceit@mvps.org.NOSPAM>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Norton Internet Security 2007
Date:
2007-09-16
15:27:18
As a Journalist I am regularly sent copies of Norton
products. I am not
biased neither have I had a bad experience. Norton is
simply a system hogger
and I will repeat what I said in my original post 'Norton
causes more
problems than it solves.' With Windows 95/98/ME Norton
products were great.
Since XP they have, sadly, gone down hill.
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No
warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to
the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author
shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages
arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions
expressed in this
mail/post..
"David" wrote in message
news:6oidndl_gtVzqXHbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> John Barnett MVP wrote:
>> My advice to anyone running any Norton product is to
remove it. Norton
>> causes more problems than it solves; I won't have it
anywhere near my PC.
>>
> total BS. You are biased, for whatever reason, perhaps
a bad experience
> with a norton product. NIS2007 works fine.
Top
From:
John Barnett MVP <freelanceit@mvps.org.NOSPAM>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Norton Internet Security 2007
Date:
2007-09-15
09:10:47
My advice to anyone running any Norton product is to
remove it. Norton
causes more problems than it solves; I won't have it
anywhere near my PC.
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No
warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to
the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author
shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages
arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions
expressed in this
mail/post..
"Kubilay" wrote in message
news:CA2CB878-E46E-4503-A154-3C304CA4277F@microsoft.com...
>I use also NIS 2007 on my notebook with vista home
premium OS, but windows
> security center does not recognize it. How to solve
this?
> Thanks
>
> "Daniel Côté" wrote:
>
>> NIS
2007 works perfectly for me. Does not slow down my system, and has
>> caught a few things that Onecare didn't.
>>
>> I have removed my trial onecare and defender and work
with Norton
>> Internet
>> Security 2007 only.
>>
>> Dan
>>
Sudbury,
Canada
>>
Top
From:
Hank Arnold (MVP) <rasilon@aol.com>
To:
none
Subject:
Re: Norton Internet Security 2007
Date:
2007-09-15
07:55:28
Hertz_Donut wrote:
> Completely wrong information. There are literally
millions of users
> using Norton Internet Security with no issues,
including
> myself running on 4 computers.
>
While there are certainly millions of computers running
NIS,
that can be
said for any software, good *OR* bad. Having been active
in newsgroups
for a lot of years, I can tell you that Norton (and
Symantec) software
has in recent years clearly become a leader in complaints
about
"bloatware" and performance. My personal experience with
NAV goes back
about 10+ years and I can say from personal experience
that over the
past 6 years, it has become more and more of a resource
drain. One year,
an attempt at an upgrade actually trashed my entire setup
and I had to
rebuild from scratch.
I suspect that Norton/Symantec software runs great if you
have the
latest and greatest hardware and lots of memory. However,
what happens
to the typical user is that every year's upgrade
significantly increases
the resources demanded by the applications and
dramatically slows down
the overall performance.
--
Regards,
Hank
Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services
Top
