wrote in message
...
martin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:26:51 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , martin
writes
snip

I haven't had a virus attack on my PCs in the more than ten years I've
been connected to the internet and I don't run any virus protection
at all. I just have a reasonably responsible family and a system which
is inherently fairly safe (ISDN NAT router).

--
Chris Green )

Just took a phone call from a NAV user a client a disabled lady who depends
on E mail to communicate -- her computer is rebooting when ever she
attempts to connect to the internet -- my immediate suspicion a
trojan/worn, a quick trawl reveals MSBlaster as the likely culprit. I
suspect the version of NAV virus signatures file on her computer won't be
more than 2 weeks out of date as she recently renewed her sub to Norton. It
would appear the worn came right through the XP firewall and was undetect by
NAV.

"AWM" wrote in message
...
..nl
Just took a phone call from a NAV user a client a disabled lady who
depends
on E mail to communicate -- her computer is rebooting when ever
she
attempts to connect to the internet -- my immediate suspicion a
trojan/worn, a quick trawl reveals MSBlaster as the likely culprit.
I
suspect the version of NAV virus signatures file on her computer
won't be
more than 2 weeks out of date as she recently renewed her sub to
Norton. It
would appear the worn came right through the XP firewall and was
undetect by
NAV.


If her NAV was around 2 weeks out of date, that is enough to cause a
problem. It wouldn't have been undetected by NAV if she was
up-to-date. It is extremely efficient and, apart from the normal
updates, it is updated immediately there is a new threat.
I happened to see mine update this morning. Normal day is Wednesday.
She also needs to download the Microsoft critical updates on a regular
basis. The message is clear when they are there to download.

Iris McCanna

"Barry & Iris McCanna" wrote in message
...

snip

If her NAV was around 2 weeks out of date, that is enough to cause a
problem. It wouldn't have been undetected by NAV if she was
up-to-date. It is extremely efficient and, apart from the normal
updates, it is updated immediately there is a new threat.
I happened to see mine update this morning. Normal day is Wednesday.
She also needs to download the Microsoft critical updates on a regular
basis. The message is clear when they are there to download.

Iris McCanna


Easier said than done, it is more or less impossible for anyone with a
broadband internet connection to keep MSWindows XP with all the critical
security patches required --- the required dowloads are much bigger than
the average hard disc was just a few years ago -- try than on the average
users 56k POTS landline, with a dropped line or two it could take days to
download.

In article , AWM said:

"Barry & Iris McCanna" wrote in message
...

snip

If her NAV was around 2 weeks out of date, that is enough to cause a
problem. It wouldn't have been undetected by NAV if she was
up-to-date. It is extremely efficient and, apart from the normal
updates, it is updated immediately there is a new threat.
I happened to see mine update this morning. Normal day is Wednesday.
She also needs to download the Microsoft critical updates on a regular
basis. The message is clear when they are there to download.

Iris McCanna


Easier said than done, it is more or less impossible for anyone with a
broadband internet connection to keep MSWindows XP with all the critical
security patches required --- the required dowloads are much bigger than
the average hard disc was just a few years ago -- try than on the average
users 56k POTS landline, with a dropped line or two it could take days to
download.

Not so. I have only 56Kb (I live out of reach of DSL), and I manage to
keep up. Maybe I just have more patience than most, but of course you
don't have to sit and watch it download. I use Win2000, but WinXP can
also be kept patched pretty effectively (I do this for my dad when I
visit), especially with a "broadband" connection. It's a matter of
either automating (I believe that the notifications can at least be
automated), or of visiting the windows update site regularly.

Granted none of this is particularly user-friendly: Windows can be
compared to a car with a leaky sump -- it's kind of annoying that you
have to keep topping up the oil, but if you don't things can get even
more depressing.

NAV has LiveUpdate, which downloads updates when available, but these
are very small compared to Windows patches.

My point is that it is perfectly possible to keep your system patched
and protected, though there's nothing to prevent you giving up if you're
easily put off by the pessimists!

See my previous post in an earlier fragment of this thread for further
details.

Disclaimer: Yep, I hate the botch-up that is Windows too :-)


--
Neil Trotter, Canewdon, UK

AWM wrote:

I haven't had a virus attack on my PCs in the more than ten years I've
been connected to the internet and I don't run any virus protection
at all. I just have a reasonably responsible family and a system which
is inherently fairly safe (ISDN NAT router).

--
Chris Green )

Just took a phone call from a NAV user a client a disabled lady who depends
on E mail to communicate -- her computer is rebooting when ever she
attempts to connect to the internet -- my immediate suspicion a
trojan/worn, a quick trawl reveals MSBlaster as the likely culprit. I
suspect the version of NAV virus signatures file on her computer won't be
more than 2 weeks out of date as she recently renewed her sub to Norton. It
would appear the worn came right through the XP firewall and was undetect by
NAV.

Yes, it's an RPC exploit, not really detectable by any sort of virus
protection, you need a (good) firewall. My NAT router provides the
basics.

--
Chris Green )

wrote in message
...
Yes, it's an RPC exploit, not really detectable by any sort of virus
protection, you need a (good) firewall. My NAT router provides the
basics.

--
Chris Green )

Again, a good extra barrier if you kept up with everything else. But if you
deliberately leave the rest wide open just because you are NATting you are
asking for trouble some day.



a

wrote in message
...
AWM wrote:
would appear the worn came right through the XP firewall and was
undetect by
NAV.

Yes, it's an RPC exploit, not really detectable by any sort of virus
protection, you need a (good) firewall. My NAT router provides the
basics.

--
Chris Green )

score so far
Clients using Win98se or Me with AVG & a Kerio or Tiny Personal
Firewall -- no reported problems
Clients using Windows XP firewall -- with or without NAV -- 2 infections
Clients using Windows XP -- with Kerio firewall --- no reported problems

My own setup is a Windows 98se and Linux boxes all with own firewalls
sitting behind a Conexant NAT router with a Free BSD firewall built in but
recent events are making me consider adding an IP Cop box between the
Conexant Router and the network hub.

AWM wrote in message ...


score so far
Clients using Win98se or Me with AVG & a Kerio or Tiny Personal
Firewall -- no reported problems
Clients using Windows XP firewall -- with or without NAV -- 2
infections
Clients using Windows XP -- with Kerio firewall --- no reported
problems

My own setup is a Windows 98se and Linux boxes all with own firewalls
sitting behind a Conexant NAT router with a Free BSD firewall built in
but
recent events are making me consider adding an IP Cop box between the
Conexant Router and the network hub.


This is somewhat skewed score, as the blast virus does not attack
windows versions 98 and earlier. At least that is the information from
the Microsoft web site. I use Zone Alarms firewall, updated yesterday,
and NAV, also updated yesterday, but then I use Windows 98.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

AWM wrote in message ...


score so far
Clients using Win98se or Me with AVG & a Kerio or Tiny Personal
Firewall -- no reported problems
Clients using Windows XP firewall -- with or without NAV -- 2
infections
Clients using Windows XP -- with Kerio firewall --- no reported
problems

My own setup is a Windows 98se and Linux boxes all with own firewalls
sitting behind a Conexant NAT router with a Free BSD firewall built in
but
recent events are making me consider adding an IP Cop box between the
Conexant Router and the network hub.


This is somewhat skewed score, as the blast virus does not attack
windows versions 98 and earlier. At least that is the information from
the Microsoft web site. I use Zone Alarms firewall, updated yesterday,
and NAV, also updated yesterday, but then I use Windows 98.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:21:03 +0100, "Michael Berridge"
wrote:


AWM wrote in message ...


score so far
Clients using Win98se or Me with AVG & a Kerio or Tiny Personal
Firewall -- no reported problems
Clients using Windows XP firewall -- with or without NAV -- 2
infections
Clients using Windows XP -- with Kerio firewall --- no reported
problems

My own setup is a Windows 98se and Linux boxes all with own firewalls
sitting behind a Conexant NAT router with a Free BSD firewall built in
but
recent events are making me consider adding an IP Cop box between the
Conexant Router and the network hub.


This is somewhat skewed score, as the blast virus does not attack
windows versions 98 and earlier. At least that is the information from
the Microsoft web site. I use Zone Alarms firewall, updated yesterday,
and NAV, also updated yesterday, but then I use Windows 98.

NAV was updated on 11 August.
--
Martin