VIRUS Alert!

[Mike Kurta]

    Robert, you're right about evaluating anti-virus software, reputation
and performance are the yardsticks.  Speaking from my own experience (which
is minimal) viruses have slipped by McAfee and Norton which I have used, but
in the last 6 months AVG has not let any through and caught 6 to 8.  The
recommendation of one far more experienced than I encouraged me to initially
try AVG.  I guess we take a chance of getting contaminated fuel each time we
fill up our cars, or getting food poisoning when we buy potato salad, but as
you say reputation and performance are primary, and so far AVG has performed
well for me and one other that I know of.  I am not involved in any way with
this product, but only mention it here as personal experience.  Mike Kurta
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Scott" <rscott@wwnet.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: VIRUS Alert!


>
> There is a lot of fuzzy thinking going on about computer viruses.
>
> For example, the sense of security that you get from using McAfee or
Norton
> anti-virus utilities is a false one.  Commercial anti-virus products can
> protect you from many, but not all viruses.  When a new virus is first
sent
> out by its maker, it is generally indistinguishable from a benign
> program.  There are a few general virus-like behaviors that can be
detected
> by anti-virus software and thus allow the timely detection of a new
> virus.  But virus makers have caught on to that weakness and most new
> viruses do not exhibit any virus-like behavior until it is too late to
stop
> them from doing their damage.  Once a virus has been in circulation long
> enough to come to the attention of someone at McAfee or Norton, then they
> analyze it and determine a "fingerprint" for it.  Then when you update
your
> anti-virus database (you do this every week or so, right?) the fingerprint
> is added to the database.  Only then does your anti-virus software have
the
> capability of recognizing the new virus.  But are you sure that all this
> will happen before the new virus hits your machine?
>
> Everyone wants someone else to take responsibility.  Mike Kurta even
> suggested running some unknown software from Czechoslovakia.  How do you
> know that the Czechoslovakian software is not itself a vehicle for a
> virus?  What do you really know about the maker of that
> software?  Anti-virus software is not something you can test.  You can
only
> evaluate it based on reputation.  To the average user, a faulty anti-virus
> utility appears to behave identically to a excellent one.  Both programs
> can say "No Viruses Detected" equally well.  The chances are your
> anti-virus software will get its first serious test on the job when
correct
> detection really matters.
>
> Richard Moody says:
>
>  >I am a firm believer that ISP's can and should be the fore
>  >front in stopping viruses, worms and other....
>
> They may try, Richard, but they can't do the job perfectly.  In fact they
> can't even do the job as well as McAfee and Norton.
>
> What it all comes down to is taking responsibility for your own
> protection.  You must be the one to pass judgement on which program is
> allowed to run on your machine and which is not.  You must become familiar
> with what kinds of files are potential carriers and which are safe.  You
> must become knowledgeable about what it takes to open an
> attachment.  Recently there was some discussion about Microsoft's e-mail
> programs opening attachments automatically.  This has been fixed by
> Microsoft, so check their web-site for information about how to update
your
> Outlook or Internet Explorer e-mail.  As far as I know, Eudora does not
> have that problem.
>
> So run anti-virus software if you want.  Use an ISP that filters for
> viruses if you want.  But don't count on either of these measures to keep
> viruses from your computer.  You might even decide that a weak safety line
> is worse than no safety line at all.
>
> -Robert Scott
>   Ypsilanti, MI
>