Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

How confident are you in your computer's security?

Oct 26, 2005 5:35AM PDT

How confident are you in your computer's security?

Totally confident, bring it on! (share your strategy)
Very confident (why?)
Somewhat confident (how so?)
A little concerned (share your concerns)
Very worried (why?)
Terrified (please explain)

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Pride comes before a fall!!!
Oct 27, 2005 8:18PM PDT

At the moment I'm very confident.
I leave Windows XP Pro auto updates switched on
I have Norton System Works AV and pay an annual subscription and leave auto updates switched on
I have MS Anti Spyware (auto updates)
I have MS Firewall on
I only check for viruses on incoming mail
I have a few other (special) security features enabled.
regards
Glyn

- Collapse -
I'm very confident.
Oct 27, 2005 8:30PM PDT

I run XP Pro/SP2 + updates.
I have the best AV available = NOD32.
I use a dedicated firewall running Smoothwall express 2.0
I scan weekly with Spybot S&D and ad-aware and have MS antispyware checking every night and never open a mail from unknown sources.
I think I'm confident with reason.
Cheers, Joseph.

- Collapse -
im confident
Oct 27, 2005 8:54PM PDT

im running windows xp without service packs as they screwed up my programs. but i have a firewall that hides all my ports on router on my router i have a secondry firewall to further hide ports and a packet inspector all my links r encrypted and i use to have a enterprise protection system on my computer but after a few month it still hadnt picked up one thing as nothing had got through to the computer

- Collapse -
No
Nov 12, 2005 1:25PM PST

You should REALLY have Service Pack 2 for Win XP. Without it, you're as vulnerable as a chocolate cookie sitting in front of a cookie lover. No. Seriously. If you don't have SP2, you're basically unprotected against viruses and other security problems XP has.

- Collapse -
Computer Security
Oct 27, 2005 9:15PM PDT

The question is security confidence and if I think mine is good enough.
I have guarding my system Bit defender Pro as the Antivirus aspect and Firewall, I have Spyware Doctor to stop System Spys and addware and I have Prevx1 Pro as the background intruder detection.
These 3 combined, have managed so far to stop 98% of attacks, with the rest being quarantined if they can't be dealt with in real time.
The thing that bugs my happyness is the need for all this security in the first place.
All those people out there who have ruined the Net for the rest of us with their childish "I must prove myself by releasing a virus etc." should be castrated.
Also Mr. Gates should get his finger out and use some of his billions to release an operating system that actually is secure, and not have the cheek to say we will have to pay extra for the privillage.

- Collapse -
Secure Operating System? Might as well wish for a Pony....
Oct 27, 2005 9:57PM PDT

Mr. Gates has nothing to do with "security". Why do people feel the need to blame someone else for the inherent shortcomings of humanity? As long as human beings have possesed knowledge, people have stolen it. Remember Prometheus? Stole fire from the gods? It's not about Operating systems. It's about personal culability. As I mention in my post, the ONLY way to make a computer secure is to turn it off, and lock it in a closet. Even then, someone could break in and steal the computer itself. Besides, no one is really interested in your wedding pics or your stolen mp3's.

I use AVG Free, a $40 Linksys router (that has had the user/pass changed), S:S&D, and Hijack this.
10 years, no viruses.
10 years, no attacks
10 years, no open port attacks
No hacks. No cracks. No zombies. No trojans

If you're that worried, buy a Mac.

- Collapse -
Secure Operating System
Oct 29, 2005 7:05PM PDT

At work 150 computers we use Trends Officescan which is a highly regarded antivirus solution. It still managed to let in a virus this year. There are only a handfull of AV's that are 100% successfull NOD32 is one of those. Grisoft's AV was way down the top 10 of best AV's. Never be complacent ! I'm not knocking Grisoft however it's a very good piece of software, most people use it cos it's free, but i'd much rather know i'm using the best. and no i don't work for Eset !

- Collapse -
Secure OS
Oct 28, 2005 10:43AM PDT

Do you realy think that and Operating System with as many lines of code ad Windows, Mac OS whatever they call it or Linux could be secure and bug free?

If you do than you need a serious reality check, it is physicaly impossible to write that much code and not have flaws and vulnerabilities.

Look at Fireflop, this was regarded as a panaciea for people that used web browsers when it was first introduced, people, beleiving the hype started using it.

At first it was great but as it became popular the dirt bags started turning their attention to it rather than windows and guess what, Fireflop not only doesnt work on all web sites but now it beleived by a number of researchers that it's less secure than Internet Explorer.

So dont hold your breath untill someone, Gates or anyone else, comes up with a secure OS, that ain't goinna happen for a long time.

Ben

- Collapse -
Mr. Gates has no incentive
Oct 30, 2005 12:45AM PDT

"Mr. Gates should...use some of his billions to release an operating system that actually is secure and not the cheek to say we will have to pay extra for the privilage."

So long as everyone continues to let Windows have a 95% market share, Gates will keep doing what he is doing. You may not like hearing it, but so long as you buy Windows, you are part of the problem.

- Collapse -
bah! security is smart if YOU'RE smart
Oct 27, 2005 9:48PM PDT

As an IT proffesional, I know the ONLY way to make a computer truly secure is to unplug it, put it in the closet, then lock the closet. However, we in the industry work on ''threat models''; projecting the possible threats to a system, then figuring out how those threats can attack our assets. Here's the thing about your home computer-
Unless you are jacked by some 14 year-old script kiddie from russia...NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR COMPUTER!!!
Real ''hackers'' don't care about your wedding pictures. Real ''hackers'' don't care aout your mp3 collection. Real ''hackers'' don't care about your pr0n collection on your 1.5/128 DSL connection. Real ''hackers'' don't care about your carefully archived movie collection. If they REALLY wanted your credit card info, or your medical info, they can get it quicker and easier by hacking a big companies DB's than by trying to run zero-point execution overflow exploits on your family PC. It's just that simple. Yes, you should use a firewall, but only to protect you from your next-door neighbours kid trying to zombie your box, just to see if he can. I know people who use a hardware and software firewalls, and packet sniffers and who meticulously pour over every packet of information coming into or out of their computers. I say to these people- GET A LIFE!!! Read a book, go for a walk, do something else!!!
You aren't that important. No one cares. Uninstall your FOUR antivirus programs or buy a Mac or something. Jeez, four simultaneous A/V progs?
Use a good router (and change the default user/pass on it), use a good A/V prog, and run a spyware scanner once a week. You'll be fine.

- Collapse -
I beg to differ!
Oct 28, 2005 4:14AM PDT

As an IT Professional, I beg to differ. I am a Systems Admin for a company with approximately 600 users. I also moonlight as a consultant for several smaller companies and individual home users. I see compromised computers in our own company, the smaller companies I work with, and individuals on a regular basis. According to many sources, a brand new machine can become infected within four minutes of being connected to the internet. I have personally seen this happen more times than I care to remember. Bots are running rampant looking for unsecure machine.

In the grand scheme of things, the home user may not be ''That Important'' to a professional hacker, but I would venture to guess most home users consider their data important enough to try to protect as best they can.

True, not all hackers are that interested in the data on a home computer. However, they ARE interested in gaining control of as many home systems as they can in order to add them to their ''Zombie Network''.

A compromised home computer can be used to launch DOS attacks and/or send out mass emials. Various infections can grind a machine to a hault, corrupt operating systems, or cause uncontrolled pop-ups. And yes, if there is some ''jucy data'' that contains Bank or Credit Card account numbers or even better, drivers license and/or Social Security numbers, trust me, so much the better. Identiy Theft is a growing problem, and is often the result of unsecure home computer systems.

A home user needs only to take the following steps.
1. Use a router with a hardwall firewall.
2. Run a software firewall such as ZoneAlarm
3. Run a decent AV such as Norton or McAfee and keep it updated.
4. Run a decent Spyware software such as Spysweeper and keep it updated.
5. Keep Windows updated.
6. Stay away from wireless networks.
7. Backup your data on a regular basis.

To home computer users, I do not advocate running multiple AV and Spyware programs. I agree there is no need to stress over it. But some ''IT Professionals'' tend to have a bit of a snobbish attitude towards less experienced computer users and that is why I was compelled to respond to this post.

- Collapse -
Thanks, "I beg to differ"
Oct 28, 2005 5:41AM PDT

Your post was very helpful to me as I am not a computer whiz and probably never will be. I currently run Spybot and Lavasoft + I have the new Yahoo! toolbar which also has spyware detection. I figured I probably did not need all of this stuff on here but I had a trojan earlier this year and the darn thing aggravated me to death until I got it removed. I am not very confident in the safety of my computer as I browse anything that looks interesting.
I use Zonealarm "free" and AVG but am looking into getting Norton. Your post has helped me decide what I should be running in order to stay relatively spyware and virus-free. Thanks! Silly

- Collapse -
Un-important homeuser
Oct 29, 2005 10:11PM PDT

Hi
I can't believe an IT Specialist thinks homeusers are uninteresting and not worth bothering with to pro hackers.

Has he or she not heard of Identity theft, this is the biggest growing problem in the world thanks to the net.

It is costing bank and credit card companies billions in fraud.
Some might say so what, they can afford it can they?
but who do think ends up paying the gross interest rates on our cards to help them get that money back.
Also unprotected machines are used by hackers to swamp companies with email spam or worse and again this costs millions to put right.
It was estimated that email spam and viruses cost American industry over 2 and a half billion dollars last year alone.
So as an IT specialist he or she should not dismiss the fact hackers don't exploit unprotected homeusers because it costs us all in the end to pay for these scumbags to have their fun.

- Collapse -
I agree; just be smart.
Oct 28, 2005 10:14AM PDT

My best computer protection is that I'm a smart surfer. I don't let webpages install toolbars or spyware and I don't install anything that's not from a trusted source (Authentic product CD, Microsoft.com, etc.).

I work in the IT field, so I've been trained to do this. My advice to others is not to stress about it, just keep windows updated, run a good antivirus solution, and don't open email or programs from untrusted sources. It's also a good idea for the average user to have the Windows XP firewall active. Just like driving a car or using a lawnmower: Safety is key.

As a backup, Ii have Ad-Aware and Zone Alarm downloaded on my computer, but they do not autorun. The few times I have run Ad-Aware, it never finds anything more then a few cookies.

Personally, firewall's have cause me frustration and kept me from doing the things I want to do on my own network. Occasionally, I log my network activity and I've never found anything insecure.

I'm very confident in my security.

As for someone hacking into my files. If someone wants to steal or photochop my baby pictures or home movies, go right ahead. The point of being digital is to make them easy to share and one of the drawbacks of this is that the kid next door might see them. Just be aware that that can happen. If this kid wants to waste his time then go ahead. I've got better things to do with my time then worry about it.
I keep bank numbers and statements in paper form as much as possible.

- Collapse -
Very confident.. I own a Mac!
Oct 27, 2005 10:34PM PDT

Get a clue! Buy a PC that does not have an operating system that any self respecting high school student can hack (i.e. Windoze....)

I also run Personal Firewall that, unlike Windoze, has a default setting of 'on'.. I also have WEP security on my Airport WiFi network...

Additionally, I run Norton Anti-Virus on my Mac, but all it seems to do is scan e-mail attachements to make sure that I don't send infected files (that my Mac renders harmless) to unsuspecting recipients who aren't smart enough to buy a modern operating system.

- Collapse -
It doesn't matter what you use
Oct 28, 2005 6:32AM PDT

Mac's and Linux are just as vulnerable as Windows, it's just that the virus writers are going to take the path that gets the most infections and attention. And right now that's Windows. As the PC world starts evolving to Linux, people will see, just like windows, it has a lot of security flaws too.

- Collapse -
Mac's aren't fireproof
Oct 28, 2005 11:40AM PDT

Macs are easy to hack, but who wants to waste the time and energy when most people run a pc. Not to mention all of the malicious virus parents are usually smart college kids, that are smart enough to know that they should be using a pc lol. If mac held the market share, they would have just as many problems. Who cares about ruining a mac, I just use mine for video editing. Its not good for much else.

- Collapse -
Nervous Mackie
Oct 28, 2005 8:12PM PDT

Macs are now easy to hack, since converting to unix underpinnings, with most of the serious hackers being university students/alumni probably nurtured on unix server environments. Apple used to boast about their security prowess, now they don't. Some of the latest website attacks and defacings have been Linux and OSX systems, not Windoze.

I happen to believe that Bill-the-Gates's success can be attributed to having a rich mother and cutting some backroom deals with the NSA. The latest guffaw over consumer laser printers leaving hidden trails back to their owners kind of confirms this paranoid bunker mentality. But, have you noticed that Jobs and Apple have been playing real nice with Microsoft and have "gasp!" put Satan's mark in their latest hardware (Intel CPUs)?

I'm not feeling too safe.

- Collapse -
There has never been 1 virus for Mac OSX - NOT ONE!
Oct 30, 2005 1:10AM PDT

Hey Clueless,

There has never been 1 virus EVER for Mac OSX! If it were that easy to hack, one would've shown up by now...

Virus writers like the challenge (and there's not much of a challlenge to writing a virus for Windoze....) so if anything, that would make the Mac OSX platform MORE of a target for hackers to prove they could do it....

Are you a complete imbecile?

- Collapse -
NOT ONE - Because it's not worth their effort
Oct 30, 2005 9:23AM PST

Hey Clueless,

Virus writers are going to write something that can give them the possibility of getting their virus widely spread around the world. Which, in turn, would make it a big news topic and well known to the world. Currently, this isn't going to happen with Macs. They don't even talk about the majority of Windows viruses, just the one's that cause significant damage. Especially, damage that effects big businesses. Which is another reason you wouldn't hear about a Mac virus, because the majority of companies today, run on Windows.

The truth is... It's not that Macs are virus proof, it's that virus writers don't want to waste their time writing viruses that don't even have the possibility to spread far enough to make it on the news.

- Collapse -
Strange how Windows users
Oct 30, 2005 10:13PM PST

get all bent out of shape and go into denial about the Mac V PC virus thing. The fact remains, and it is indisputable, that in the 5 years that OS X has been running, there have been ZERO virus's that attack it. Some say that it is not worth the virus writers time and effort and that they would much prefer to cause "significant damage" Others say that OS X is "easy" to crack, yet others that there have been a number of virus attacks on OS X and UNIX servers. Of course, all of this is said without one shred of evidence being put forward. To them I say, put your money where your mouth is and put the evidence of these "successful Virus attacks against OS X servers" out there so that we can see it.
I see the "Security through Obscurity" myth is still alive out there. Consider this, MS Longhorn had successful virus attacks against it when there were only 10K copies in the world!
If I were a virus writer, and I wanted to be one of the most famous virus writers in history, AND, I wanted to take my place in the "Virus Writers Hall of Fame", I would attack the Mac community with a vengeance. Many (most) Mac users don't have AV protection, difficulty to see what would be in the Virus definitions list as no Virus's exist right now, so that If I wrote the worlds first Mac OS X virus, I would be in a position to drop EVERY Mac in the world. Over 25 million machines down with one virus. That would surely put me up there with the great virus writers and I will guarantee that the world WOULD hear about it.
A 12 month study by the security firm mi2g concludes that Mac OS X and Open Source BSD are the "world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environments."
That just about covers it, try not to show your jealousy too much and contemplate this: How is it ethical for a company to produce an OS that they know to be full of holes, to turn around and offer to SELL you a piece of software that "may" improve the security?

P

- Collapse -
Strange how Mac users
Oct 31, 2005 12:46AM PST

It's interesting how Mac users are always talking about their indestructible Mac OS. It has nothing to do with Mac OS, you could say all of the same things about Linux. There has currently been no big-time Linux viruses either. It's not that they're virus proof, it's that they're not popular enough to make it on the news with a big time virus. And Linux is more popular than Mac OS X.

There may not have been any parasitic viruses on Mac OS X so far, but there's at least one mac Trojan horse listed on Symantec's website.

- Collapse -
Mac VS Windows
Oct 31, 2005 4:05AM PST

Personally, I find the big reason to stay with windows is dictated by the fact that most people use Windows and the file system compatibility leaves a lot to be desired. Also, there are many more program offerings for Windows than Mac. As long as the Mac users are satified with what is offered and they do not have a problem interfacing with other users, then more power to them. Mac is certainly a very good OS but for me it is not an option to discard Windows and use Mac. Yes, there are certainly a lot more hazards for Windows users, but if one uses a little discreation in what they are doing with the computer, it is really a minor annoyance. That big thing on top of the neck is the best system security that exists and it works extremely well when properly applied regardless of the OS that is being used.

- Collapse -
Forgive me
Oct 31, 2005 6:55AM PST

I thought you were talking about virus's but after taking a look at the Symantec website, I gather you were talking about theoretical trojan horses.

P

- Collapse -
This isn't theoretical
Oct 31, 2005 8:18AM PST
- Collapse -
You are correct!
Oct 31, 2005 10:02PM PST

However, this is NOT a virus! and that was the subject of my posts.
The only reason this thing works is for the user to give the app, which is only a line of Unix commands, permission to create havoc.
Someone with Admin rights, and rights to the Root, has to type in the Admin or Root Password before the command "rm -rf ~" will run.
This is like me sitting in front of your machine and running "Format C" from the command line. The difference here is that Windows will not ask for a password before it formats. In OS X, the only part of the system that will be deleted and then only if the root password is the same as the admin password, is the users folder. Everything else, system - other users folders - Apps -, remains intact and working.
The only people who fall for this are those trying to steal software. Usually Limewire, Kazaa or other P2P network users. It would not surprise me if MS put this one out there as a deterrent to other potential "borrowers" of its software. You have to agree, maybe, that if I had access to your machine, was sitting in front of it, and had all your passwords, there would be no such thing as security on your machine anymore. This is what happens with this TH. I don't deny that this is a risk, but it is NOT a virus and does not have the ability to replicate and send itself to other computers.
P

- Collapse -
I agree
Nov 1, 2005 1:07AM PST

That's what I said when I first mentioned this: "There may not have been any parasitic viruses on Mac OS X so far, but there's at least one mac Trojan horse listed on Symantec's website."

The trojan may come disguised as a MS Word installation by default, but someone could simply rename the thing and send it out in an e-mail saying it's an update for Mac OS or something. Just like the so many spam messages going around containing fake windows updates.

I was just trying to make a point that whether it's Windows, a Mac, or Linux, they're all vulnerable to viruses. It's just that Windows is currently used by the majority of the industry, and that's where most virus writers are going to aim their attacks. The more it's used, the more likely people are going to find security holes in it. And as the world starts evolving to Linux, people will see that has plenty of its own vulnerabilities as well.

The upside to using Linux is that when a security hole is found, companies don't necessarily have to wait for the manufacturer to come out with a patch. Since it's open source, they can hire someone to write a patch for them if they want.

- Collapse -
Mac n toss v.s. Win doze
Nov 3, 2005 7:42PM PST

Well, Just to put my two cents in, Mac is good, for Mac,if that's what you like. Windows the same. Mac has not been virus beaten though, honestly, because no one cares. Hackers want to hit something big , not a small corner of the world and many don't like Bill Gates. I think I saw Linux has security flaws also. This is true but not for the lack of why Linux isn't hit so hard, it's because of the open source code. A hacker has to go through way more trouble to find a common place to hit Linux due to this. For a while it seemed impervious to virus attacks, or some thought. Nothing is fool proof. One day that apple may get a worm. If more people start to use them that is. If that happens and they become more of a wide spread computer then I think they will be hit.

- Collapse -
Correct me if I'm missing your point here,
Nov 4, 2005 9:04AM PST

but, I don't see how you can, on the one hand, claim that the "Mac has not been virus beaten because no one cares" and then move on to Linux and say how Linux is protected because of the Linux code being Open source.
"A hacker has to go through way more trouble to find a common place to hit Linux due to this"
Don't you mean that because there are even less Linux users than there are Mac users, that there are no virus's because "no one cares"?

You have either been hiding under a rock or just don't want to be confused by facts, BUT, the Mac OS X is built on OPEN SOURCE BSD which is UNIX based and is OPEN SOURCE.
If you are going to throw your 2c away, you might first check to see if you are spending it wisely.
You have been listening to the FUD crowd for too long.

P

- Collapse -
I will and you are.
Nov 4, 2005 1:45PM PST

For one, I mentioned that because some mentioned linux security, which isn't that it's more secure, it's because of the open source code structure. Mac is open source sure, but still....no one cares. Linux has been hit by viruses because it's more popular.

(A hacker has to go through way more trouble to find a common place to hit Linux due to this")

Yes, I stated this because it's true because of the security issue once again. Here was my post...read on...

Well, Just to put my two cents in, Mac is good, for Mac,if that's what you like. Windows the same. Mac has not been virus beaten though, honestly, because no one cares. Hackers want to hit something big , not a small corner of the world and many don't like Bill Gates. (I think I saw Linux has security flaws also. This is true but not for the lack of why Linux isn't hit so hard, it's because of the open source code. A hacker has to go through way more trouble to find a common place to hit Linux due to this. For a while it seemed impervious to virus attacks, or some thought. Nothing is fool proof. One day that apple may get a worm.)
If more people start to use them that is. If that happens and they become more of a wide spread computer then I think they will be hit.


Notice how I stated the Apple may get a worm one day, in conclusion to how linux got hit but most thought it couldn't. I don't see where i said mac wasn't open source, i didn't say it was but, who cares about mac right? You know, when someone says i'm wrong, i accept it and move on, learn from it even if i'm right. I don't kick and scream and throw a hissy fit. You have a real anger issue pal, go get it worked out.
Yes, I have been under a rock, it's nice and cool there. By the way, as far as me throwing my 2 cents away, keep the change!