Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Let's try to create our own suite for internet security.

<< < (8/13) > >>

nosh:
The only possible reason I could think of for running a 3rd party inbound/outbound firewall is if you were interested in seeing what your apps were quietly getting up to internet-wise. Most will be checking for and fetching updates. But some programs will also try to do quite a bit more 'behind your back' than you'd expect.

If you're suspicious or concerned about any of that, you'll need something that monitors and reports on both directions.
--- End quote ---

+1 on monitoring (standard, API based) outbound connections using a 3rd party firewall. I have been alerted on more than one occasion by (the rather dated, but still serves its purpose) SPF about malicious activity. Another long abandoned utility that serves a similar purpose is Mike Lin's Startup Monitor.

Bamse:
Oh yeah forgot about the only firewall anyone can use, Windows 7 firewall control which also works on Vista and now apparently also XP http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/order.html Free version has some limitations like it does not protect or monitor system files but if that is a realistic worry there are other problems than finding a firewall which does include everything. Checks and inform about application activity or what most are interested in. Windows Firewall can also do that but painful to set up. Should be perfect for MSE users if that means less is better and no desire getting to know strange buzzwords and interfaces.

Pro version on the other hand is not for everyone from what I can tell. Complicated or advanced ;)

f0dder:
I'm under the impression that the Windows firewall was extensively improved for Windows 7 (or perhaps Vista, I'm not sure), but that it's not so good for Windows XP.  Am I mistaken?
-cyberdiva (January 12, 2011, 12:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
It was introduced with XP SP2, and it was just fine back then - what you really need is incoming stuff blocked, and the XP firewall does that just fine.
-f0dder (January 12, 2011, 01:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
Since I rarely have any malware, perhaps I shouldn't be so concerned, but I don't like the idea that a malware program that managed to get on my computer could send out information without my knowing it.  Thus, a firewall that works in both directions seems to me a good idea.
-cyberdiva (January 12, 2011, 03:49 PM)
--- End quote ---
Once you have malware on your system, it's pretty much game over - if it's been able to run, it's very likely able to circumvent the firewall.

Bamse:
Should that happen it will be comforting to know that all sensitive info is not in readable format but encrypted by ? Locking down info should be part of security "suite" ?

I do have a license to Ad Muncher but not used it since long. Pricing is not difficult to figure out - it is expensive, overpriced per computer deal https://www.admuncher.com/register.shtml?Partner=www.admuncher.com Considering they have done a Roboform action, without too much public blame, and does not yet support GZip I feel like complaining a little ;) I just read that right now he "think" Gzip will be supported within 1 year. In August 2005 he said "The gzip engine is actually done, we just have to integrate it into the code the base of Ad Muncher." I can think of some other areas where Ad Muncher is easily a "winner" ;)

app103:
The on-demand scanning issue is a good one, but if something got past your defenses without triggering your antivirus the first time, it's likely to get past it again when you scan on-demand. This is why you'd want a second product just for on-demand scanning and not for real-time scanning.

So, if it gets past AntiVirus A's real-time, it would be more likely to be caught by on-demand scanning with AntiVirus B.

Yes, you can have 2 different anti-virus products installed on the same system without causing a clash, if only one if them is running in the background at all times doing real-time scanning. The 2nd one would have to have real-time deactivated, and  just leave its updater running.

I am using MSE for real-time and Avira for on-demand, but I am open to the idea of switching to something other than Avira if anyone has anything better to suggest.

I am also using Spybot Search & Destroy for it's vaccination feature and the Tea Timer, as well as something quite old called DiamondCS RegProt (original developer's site is gone but Softpedia has a copy)

There are also some essential browser plugins, depending on what browser you are using, but the most essential is some sort of NoScript, which is available for both Firefox and K-Meleon. Links to versions for other browsers will have to be supplied by someone else.

I love Ad Muncher and would never consider being on the internet without it, but it has some issues you should be aware of. The lack of gzip support that was mentioned before is one issue, the fact it turns ALL HTTP1.1 requests made from your PC into 1.0 requests is the other. Even if you white list a particular site, application, or turn off ad blocking, it will still do this for as long as Ad Muncher is still running. If a server is misconfigured and does not respond to 1.0 requests properly, it has the potential to break pages and there is no work around other than exiting Ad Muncher completely. I have run into this problem a few times, most notably on Friendfeed, where the issue caused pages not to fully load and I wasn't able to use some basic features such as "like" and commenting. This went on for a few months after Facebook bought friendfeed and they moved it to their servers. Even though I contacted friendfeed and explained what the issue was and how their server was not responding to 1.0 requests properly, I ended up having to use AdBlock Plus till they got around to fixing it. Since AdBlock Plus only works in the browser it is installed in and offers no protection for things like stand-alone desktop RSS readers and IM clients, it left me uncovered in most applications capable of displaying ads.

WOT (Web Of Trust) - I love this browser plugin for its ability to alert me to sites with less than stellar reputations. It crowd sources ratings for things like trustworthyness, vendor reliability, privacy, and child safety to its userbase. The commenting system can give you more of an idea why a site might have a bad rating, such as fraud, phishing, malware, spam, adult content, unethical practices, etc. While it's not the only thing you should rely upon to evaluate a site (it can be wrong) it can give you an idea of the past experiences of others when dealing with the same site. (I personally mark any and all spammers that hit this forum with spam links as bad sites, with a note of why) The reputation rings next to search results in the major search engines (supports the major providers) and next to links in webmail (supports the major providers) can alert you to reputation before you visit the site. (yes, even Adsense ads in Gmail get reputation rings, and oh, boy, you probably won't ever want to click one of those ads, even out of curiosity, once you see how most of them rate!)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page