Re: Which of the following do you recommend for anti-virus ware?

"The Symantec Corporate installations are pirated."
Am I missing something?
Or are you admitting to theft?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Virus Guy" <Virus@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:47251C38.EFE7D73B@xxxxxxxxxx
RJK wrote:

...above this post a little, you said that you are yourself
using an older version of NAV,

I manage about a dozen PC's. On most of them, I either have NAV 2002,
or Symantec corporate (version 8 I think). I've only ever paid for 1
copy of NAV 2002, and that was at a swap meet in 2003. The Symantec
Corporate installations are pirated.

On my own 2 PC's, I've allowed my NAV 2002 to expire (I've uninstalled
them to stop them from nagging me about their expired status). All it
takes to re-activate them is to copy the file "catalog.livesubscribe"
from any of the other systems that haven't expired yet.

I also run a real time registry monitor made by "The Cleaner" (also a
bootlegged copy).

...here on this part of this thread - you pointed out that viruses
like "storm" have been deactivating AV programs,

Yes.

...so you are aware of this danger, and yet you are using an
ancient a/v program !

The age of the program is not relavent - and might even be an
advantage. The Storm "thing" has a built-in list of process names
that it looks for. Using an old (ancient) piece of AV software might
be an advantage - assuming that the same process name isin't being
used in more modern versions. And even though NAV 2002 is old, it
updates itself via Symantec's "LiveUpdate" with the most current virus
definitions and scan engine.

...malware that's programmed to deactivate AV software is just
one of the reasons that many major AV application software
vendors, (like AVG), are continually modifying their core
files !

What they need to do is give their program modules different names
(random process names) so that things like Storm can't identify them
at run time.

...and this is one aspect of the "preventing malware /
multi-layered internet security approach,"

I run win-98 on my systems. That's the most effective "layer" going
(besides running Linux or Mac OS I guess).

It's a lot harder to run a root-kit on Windows 9x, and it's a way
easier to identify, and delete malware on a win-98 box (fat-32 makes
things easier compared to NTFS). In the 8 years we've been running
win-98 on most of our systems, I think there have only been 2
infections, and those were prior to 2004. In fact, our win-98 systems
were directly facing the internet (no firewall, no NAT router) up
until the end of 2005 and none were ever hit with a network worm,
port-scan, etc. We've had about 1/2 dozen occurrances of malware on
our handful of NT and 2K machines over the same time frame.

.