Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:30:35 -0400 |
Sometimes it's a heck of a lot easier and quicker to rebuild a computer then fight a heavy spyware infection. I can save peoples files and re-ghost a computer in < 10 minutes. Fighting a spyware infection with multi products can take 3-4 times longer than that. Multi-layer approach is a good idea, but in the enterprise, if the products cannot be centrally managed, I find it extremely difficult to use these products and their active protection. I install Spybot and Ad-aware on every machine, but I use no active protection for these products. We have them there for when a user calls us who is already infected with spyware/adware. I'm trying to decide on an enterprise app. MSAS looked very promising in it's stand-alone beta, and hopefully an enterprise version will continue on the path. CounterSpy doesn't scale in the way I'd like it to in it's current versions for a distributed WAN. Webroot seemed nice, but pricing was ridiculous. I've been told you can get the pricing way down if you nudge a little. Pest Patrol (prior to CA purchasing it) was absolutely horrible IMO. I have not seen it since CA has had a chance to develop it. That leaves what's included with AV vendors. Symantec is late to the game (compared to McAfee in Trend) with v10, but it's decent. Trend's and McAfee's door a pretty good job of active protection an removal, but they lack the robustness of a product like Spybot S&D or even Ad-Aware, IMO. In time they will develop, but it's hard to play catchup to these already established products. -----Original Message----- From: Joe George [mailto:j.george@conservation.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:08 AM To: Planz; Quark IT - Hilton Travis Cc: focus-virus@securityfocus.com Subject: RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind I would also recommend running MSAS and/or any other anti-spyware utility on normal mode and once in safe mode for good measure. I was amazed at what wasn't being picked up in some cases after running once. I definitely agree with Bruce Klein. Using more anti-spyware apps maybe overkill, but if it doesn't affect the host machine negatively, might as well. Rebuilding computers should be a last resort. Best, Joe -----Original Message----- From: Planz [mailto:planz2009@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:36 PM To: Quark IT - Hilton Travis Cc: focus-virus@securityfocus.com Subject: Re: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind My experience with MSAS was also similar. To verify whether MSAS is really working, I used SpybotS&D to scan my PC after surfing for sometime. MSAS, didn't alert me during the surfing, but SpybotS&D detected a lot. No single security solution is a saviour. Quark IT - Hilton Travis wrote:
Hi All, It seems that not only does Microsoft AntiSpyware recommend that Claria's spyware is ignored, but it also misses a significant amount of
cookies that are placed on a system - I have a VPC environment where I browse the Internet so that anywhere I go won't affect my regular Windows session/installation. Regularly CounterSpy is detecting
cookies
(such as Cok.ad.yieldmanager, CGI-Bin, Cok.AssassinTrojan2.0 and Zedo (from yesterday's browsing)) that Microsoft AntiSpyware simply does not
know about. Now, this is not only disappointing, but potentially dangerous. Any customer or end user running Microsoft AntiSpyware or CounterSpy is not
being protected from these cookies, and MSAS doesn't even detect them -
that's right, neither program's active monitoring is stopping the installation of these cookies, but at least CounterSpy is detecting
them
post-installation. AntiSpyware is far, far from the accuracy of antivirus, especially something like NOD32. I wonder how long it will be before a decent AntiSpyware application is released that, like NOD32 does with viruses,
actually stops spyware *before* it is installed? -- Regards, Hilton Travis Phone: +61 (0)7 3344 3889 (Brisbane, Australia) Phone: +61 (0)419 792 394 Manager, Quark IT http://www.quarkit.com.au Quark Group http://quarkgroup.com.au/ Microsoft Small Business Specialists http://www.threatcode.com/ <-- its now time to shame poor coders into writing code that is acceptable for use on today's networks War doesn't determine who is right. War determines who is left. This document and any attachments are for the intended recipient only. It may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material which must not be disclosed or distributed.
| Previous by Date: | Re: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Harish Pillay |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Nathan Kline |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Martin_Brad |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Roger Padilla |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |