Re: Browser Problem - Repost



Gert B. Frob
07-10-2005, 12:31 AM
"Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
news:eExqJ7$UFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Snip

1) Scan in Safe Mode with current version (not earlier than 2004)
antivirus using updated definitions.

Snip

What is your basis for this? Are you suggesting that, say, Norton AV 2003,
properly updated, is no longer adequate? I think Symantec would disagree as
they have an update subscription service available for NAV 2003.

Have you seen test results indicating that a properly updated older version
of one of the major AV programs fails to detect something that a latter
version detects?

Please elaborate.

Gert

Malke
07-10-2005, 12:31 AM
Gert B. Frob wrote:

> "Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
> news:eExqJ7$UFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> Snip
>
> 1) Scan in Safe Mode with current version (not earlier than 2004)
> antivirus using updated definitions.
>
> Snip
>
> What is your basis for this? Are you suggesting that, say, Norton AV
> 2003,
> properly updated, is no longer adequate? I think Symantec would
> disagree as they have an update subscription service available for NAV
> 2003.
>
> Have you seen test results indicating that a properly updated older
> version of one of the major AV programs fails to detect something that
> a latter version detects?
>
> Please elaborate.
>
> Gert

I answered you already in the other post. Search on your name.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Gert B. Frob
07-10-2005, 12:31 AM
"Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
news:e4wD6noWFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Gert B. Frob wrote:
>
> > "Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
> > news:eExqJ7$UFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > 1) Scan in Safe Mode with current version (not earlier than 2004)
> > antivirus using updated definitions.
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > What is your basis for this? Are you suggesting that, say, Norton AV
> > 2003,
> > properly updated, is no longer adequate? I think Symantec would
> > disagree as they have an update subscription service available for NAV
> > 2003.
> >
> > Have you seen test results indicating that a properly updated older
> > version of one of the major AV programs fails to detect something that
> > a latter version detects?
> >
> > Please elaborate.
> >
> > Gert
>
> I answered you already in the other post. Search on your name.
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I have reposted your reply here as Comcast's server did not post it for some
reason:

Newer versions of antivirus software detect more than just classic
viruses and are more efficient in their scanning than older av engines.
This is not limited to Symantec products. Virus defs for NAV 2003 may
be available now, but I would expect Symantec to cut that off some time
in the near future, just as they did for NAV 2002. Hence the suggestion
that anyone with a current subscription to NAV 2003 not simply renew
NAV 2003 but instead should replace the older av with a current
version.

It doesn't have to be with a Symantec product - in fact, you will have a
hard time finding a professional computer tech who will recommend
Symantec products any more (including me).

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

My reply:

Whatever are you talking about? Updated NAV 2003 detects only "classic"
viruses? You must be joking.

Regardless of your "professional" opinion of Symantec products, this
assertion is ridiculous. The same applies to any of the major security
software companies. If a version of their product is still supported and it
is properly updated, it will detect any virus in their database. "Classic"
or not. Period.

As I requested before, please provide some documentation for your assertion.

Gert

felicia
07-10-2005, 12:32 AM
Please bend over and let the bees out of your behind.

Gert B. Frob wrote:
> "Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
> news:e4wD6noWFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Gert B. Frob wrote:
>>
>>> "Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eExqJ7$UFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Snip
>>>
>>> 1) Scan in Safe Mode with current version (not earlier than 2004)
>>> antivirus using updated definitions.
>>>
>>> Snip
>>>
>>> What is your basis for this? Are you suggesting that, say, Norton
>>> AV 2003,
>>> properly updated, is no longer adequate? I think Symantec would
>>> disagree as they have an update subscription service available for
>>> NAV 2003.
>>>
>>> Have you seen test results indicating that a properly updated older
>>> version of one of the major AV programs fails to detect something
>>> that a latter version detects?
>>>
>>> Please elaborate.
>>>
>>> Gert
>>
>> I answered you already in the other post. Search on your name.
>>
>> Malke
>> --
>> Elephant Boy Computers
>> www.elephantboycomputers.com
>> "Don't Panic!"
>> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>
> I have reposted your reply here as Comcast's server did not post it
> for some reason:
>
> Newer versions of antivirus software detect more than just classic
> viruses and are more efficient in their scanning than older av
> engines. This is not limited to Symantec products. Virus defs for NAV
> 2003 may
> be available now, but I would expect Symantec to cut that off some
> time
> in the near future, just as they did for NAV 2002. Hence the
> suggestion that anyone with a current subscription to NAV 2003 not
> simply renew
> NAV 2003 but instead should replace the older av with a current
> version.
>
> It doesn't have to be with a Symantec product - in fact, you will
> have a hard time finding a professional computer tech who will
> recommend
> Symantec products any more (including me).
>
> Malke

Gert B. Frob
07-10-2005, 12:32 AM
"felicia" <ksdjjdg@ljlkgs.net> wrote in message
news:eVLVWxpWFHA.2912@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Please bend over and let the bees out of your behind.

Pardon me, what are you talking about?

NotMe
07-10-2005, 12:32 AM
I got Norton with my new machine. I did keep it up to date.
When it expired, I installed AVG 7 (Free Edition). It found 3 virus on the
system Norton had missed repeatedly.
I usually do an online scan once a month an http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
just to be sure.

--
For evil to prosper requires only that good men remain silent!
"Gert B. Frob" <sbrentcarter@spaminator.net> wrote in message
news:Ho-dnVWJnrghzRTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> "Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
> news:eExqJ7$UFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> Snip
>
> 1) Scan in Safe Mode with current version (not earlier than 2004)
> antivirus using updated definitions.
>
> Snip
>
> What is your basis for this? Are you suggesting that, say, Norton AV
> 2003,
> properly updated, is no longer adequate? I think Symantec would disagree
> as
> they have an update subscription service available for NAV 2003.
>
> Have you seen test results indicating that a properly updated older
> version
> of one of the major AV programs fails to detect something that a latter
> version detects?
>
> Please elaborate.
>
> Gert
>
>

NotMe
07-10-2005, 12:32 AM
A newer AV engine will generally be more efficent.
It may also be that some viruses are written to disable AV Software.
The new version of the AV engine may have been written to be resistant to
that type of tampering.
I personally won't allow any Symantec/Norton product near any of the 250
machine I maintain anymore...
--
For evil to prosper requires only that good men remain silent!

<snip>?
> It doesn't have to be with a Symantec product - in fact, you will have a
> hard time finding a professional computer tech who will recommend
> Symantec products any more (including me).
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

> My reply:
> Whatever are you talking about? Updated NAV 2003 detects only "classic"
> viruses? You must be joking.
> Regardless of your "professional" opinion of Symantec products, this
> assertion is ridiculous. The same applies to any of the major security
> software companies. If a version of their product is still supported and
> it
> is properly updated, it will detect any virus in their database. "Classic"
> or not. Period.
> As I requested before, please provide some documentation for your
> assertion.
> Gert

Malke
07-10-2005, 12:32 AM
Gert B. Frob wrote:

(snippage)
>
> I have reposted your reply here as Comcast's server did not post it
> for some reason:

No need for that. Try using Microsoft's servers for their newsgroups
instead of Comcast's. The MS server is msnews.microsoft.com and no
username or password is required.

You would add a new server to your OE newsgroup settings. If you are
unsure how to do that, here are some links about using OE as a
newsreader:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/news/howto/default.asp
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
http://rickrogers.org/setupoe.htm

http://aumha.org/nntp.htm - list of MS newsgroups

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Gert B. Frob
07-10-2005, 12:33 AM
"Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
news:%23O6ZImvWFHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Gert B. Frob wrote:
>
> (snippage)
> >
> > I have reposted your reply here as Comcast's server did not post it
> > for some reason:
>
> No need for that. Try using Microsoft's servers for their newsgroups
> instead of Comcast's. The MS server is msnews.microsoft.com and no
> username or password is required.
>
> You would add a new server to your OE newsgroup settings. If you are
> unsure how to do that, here are some links about using OE as a
> newsreader:
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/news/howto/default.asp
> http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
> http://rickrogers.org/setupoe.htm
>
> http://aumha.org/nntp.htm - list of MS newsgroups
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Gee, thanks.

Why not just answer the question?

Do you have any empirical evidence that a properly maintained, still
supported older version of a major security company's AV application will
fail to detect a virus that would be detected by their newer versions? That
simple. Yes or no?

Gert

felicia
07-10-2005, 12:34 AM
Gert B. Frob wrote:
> "Malke" <invalid@not-real.com> wrote in message
> news:%23O6ZImvWFHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Gert B. Frob wrote:
>>
>> (snippage)
>>>
>>> I have reposted your reply here as Comcast's server did not post it
>>> for some reason:
>>
>> No need for that. Try using Microsoft's servers for their newsgroups
>> instead of Comcast's. The MS server is msnews.microsoft.com and no
>> username or password is required.
>>
>> You would add a new server to your OE newsgroup settings. If you are
>> unsure how to do that, here are some links about using OE as a
>> newsreader:
>>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/news/howto/default.a
sp
>> http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
>> http://rickrogers.org/setupoe.htm
>>
>> http://aumha.org/nntp.htm - list of MS newsgroups
>>
>> Malke
>> --
>> Elephant Boy Computers
>> www.elephantboycomputers.com
>> "Don't Panic!"
>> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>
> Gee, thanks.
>
> Why not just answer the question?
>
> Do you have any empirical evidence that a properly maintained, still
> supported older version of a major security company's AV application
> will fail to detect a virus that would be detected by their newer
> versions? That simple. Yes or no?
>
> Gert

Stop harassing a very helpful MVP.
Get a life. Bzzzzzzzzzzz off.


Re: Browser Problem - Repost