OT: Which is worse - Norton or McAfee?

[Andrew Gabriel]

Just about every hacked computer is behind a NAT firewall...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Depends what you mean by hacked.

[hugh]

But I am still on XP, which is why Norton gobbling resources is an irritation.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Let's say, hacked to the extent that it's part of a bot-net (and the owner has no clue that's the case), to pick a common case.

[The Natural Philosopher]

number of linux machines in a botnet? appproximately zero.

Firewalls alone are not enough, linux alone is not enough, but the two together and be a bit precious about what you do and you are virtually unhackable

[Andrew Gabriel]

Your assertion that a NAT firewall was any protection is bogus. Virtually all hacking gets past these for some time.

Linux is not interesting to hack, because once you've put the effort in, there are far fewer targets out there than if you had directed your efforts elsewhere.

Having said that, Linux runs most of the bot-nets...

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Man at B&Q escribió:

"I'm alright Jack".

"I don't care who I infect, I'm alright Jack".

Tosser.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Man at B&Q escribió:

They have found stuff which I know to be benign but which could be construed as malicious. Examples: keygens, legitimate password crackers.

Thing is, one needs to have enough common sense to evaluate whether something flagged up is a genuine threat or not. Sadly, common sense is in all too short supply these days.

[Andrew Gabriel]

I've worked for different companies which used both.

McAfee seemed to generate more overhead on the system, but it's possible that's down to different company customisations.

Ultimately, what you probably should be more interested in is how effective they are, and how up-to-date with new threats. Never having caught anything, that's not something I can comment on personally, but generally, the more you pay for support, the better they are in that respect. For commercial customers, some provide several threat updates per day.

However, virus writers have switched their attention to smartphones and other devices, which have well overtaken PC's in the hands of vulnerable users.

[Huge]

Fallacious, given the number of banks and e-commerce systems running on it.

[js.b1]

Kaspersky is fine, but I prefer 2010 over later versions because it has low= er background file scanning which has become more "Norton like". Can be had= free or at very low price if you shop around, 3PC genuine 1yr for =A39 or = even =A36 occasionally if you do have to pay for it.

Do wonder if they get extra help from MSFT if they force everyone to upgrad= e to 16 core (word)processors and spreadsheets.

[Another Dave]

+1

Another Dave

[geoff]

In message , tony sayer writes

I got an email today saying that my HSBC online banking had been suspended

I don't have an HSBC account

phew, close shave there eh ?

[Man at B&Q]

Which bit if the recommended tools never foind anything are yiou struggling with? Or are you saying the tools are in fact useless.

The apprentice uses them without thinking. The journeyman avoids them without thinking. The master uses them thoughtfully.

Which are you then, tosser?

MBQ

[hugh]

In message , Tim Streater writes

Now I know why you thought it was so funny.

Having deleted Norton I now can't download my "free" McAfee from the BT website. The left hand (Which invoices me every month) thinks I have Infinity. The right hand which provides the service thinks I haven't got broadband at all.

However I am assured all is under control - it's been "escalated"

[Tim Streater]

It's God's punishment for using Windows.