Which a/v after IE eradicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter M
  • Start date Start date
M

M

As per subject, can anybody recommend a good a/v for Win98 after IE is
eradicated. Doesn't have to be free.

Thanks for any replies.
Mike
 
In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Mon,
As per subject, can anybody recommend a good a/v for Win98 after IE is
eradicated. Doesn't have to be free.

Thanks for any replies.
Mike
Click to expand...

The good AV's that work with IE,
will still work without it,
just won't be as likely to get as many hits.
 
Bart:

That's not necessarily true.
Some AV packages require IE v5.5 and above either to work or for some capabilities to work
like auto-updating.

Dave



| In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Mon,
| 19 Jan 2004 16:39:37 +0000, M wrote:
|
| >As per subject, can anybody recommend a good a/v for Win98 after IE is
| >eradicated. Doesn't have to be free.
| >
| >Thanks for any replies.
| >Mike
|
| The good AV's that work with IE,
| will still work without it,
| just won't be as likely to get as many hits.
|
| --
|
| Bart
 
Bart:

That's not necessarily true.
Some AV packages require IE v5.5 and above either to work or for some capabilities to work
like auto-updating.

Dave



| In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Mon,
| 19 Jan 2004 16:39:37 +0000, M wrote:
|
| >As per subject, can anybody recommend a good a/v for Win98 after IE is
| >eradicated. Doesn't have to be free.
| >
| >Thanks for any replies.
| >Mike
|
| The good AV's that work with IE,
| will still work without it,
| just won't be as likely to get as many hits.
|
| --
|
| Bart
Click to expand...
Maybe you could try to restrain your urge to rush a top posted comment
into the group, and really read what I said?

"The good AV's"
IOW: If an AV app needs IE to function, it's not a good AV app.
 
As per subject, can anybody recommend a good a/v for Win98 after IE is
eradicated. Doesn't have to be free.
Click to expand...

Why would you need a av after eradicating IE and OE? :)

Seriously, if you've taken care of your network settings and renamed
RPCSS.EXE as per my instructions here (no LAN):

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg/internet.html

you should find no use for any realtime av scanning. Insofar as
on-demand scanning there are a number of alternatives, all free:

1. F-Prot for DOS
2. Antidote (based on KAV)
3. Trend's Sysclean
4. File upload av scan web sites

See my web site for links. Of course, this assumes you aren't a click
happy Kazzaa-using dumbass, and you have a clue.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
I stick by my statement. I'm not going to get into the "which is better than..." argument.
And I won't characterize one or the other as being bad just because it has a minimum
requirement for something you personally don't like. I want to deal with facts here, not
opinions.

I will say GOOD AV packages often require IE.

Dave

Addendum:
Release Notes for
McAfee NetShield 4.5 for Windows NT and Windows 2000 (4062)
Copyright (c)1995-2000 Networks Associates Technology,Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

<snip>

The NetShield for Windows NT and Windows 2000
program will install and run on a server equipped
with:

--an Intel processor or a compatible
architecture.

--Windows 2000 Server (or Advanced Server) or
Windows NT 4, Server (or Enterprise Server)
with Service Pack 4, 5, or 6. It has not been
certified for use with Windows NT 4 Small
Business Server.

--Microsoft Internet Explorer, version 4.0 or
later.
~ ~ ~




| In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Mon, 19 Jan

| Maybe you could try to restrain your urge to rush a top posted comment
| into the group, and really read what I said?
|
| "The good AV's"
| IOW: If an AV app needs IE to function, it's not a good AV app.
|
| --
|
| Bart
 
As per subject, can anybody recommend a good a/v for Win98 after IE is
eradicated. Doesn't have to be free.

Thanks for any replies.
Mike
Click to expand...


IE has been eradicated? I think you've just removed the virus. ;-)

Actually, there are a few good free command line virus scanners out
there. A command line scanner is pretty much guaranteed to work
without IE, at least in theory.

McAfee has a very good command line scanner.
 
Addendum:
Release Notes for
McAfee NetShield 4.5 for Windows NT and Windows 2000 (4062)
Copyright (c)1995-2000 Networks Associates Technology,Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Click to expand...

Hey you top posting turd,
are you using McAfee as a reference for a "GOOD" AV product?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

PLONK
 
Bart:
I certainly do hold high regards for McAfee! McAfee is one of the best.

However, if you want to make an argument that it is NOT good practice to have some
predication on IE. I will agree with you.

Dave



I almost *always* Top Post. That isn't about to change.
| on Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:00:18 GMT, David H. Lipman wrote:
|
| >Addendum:
| > Release Notes for
| >McAfee NetShield 4.5 for Windows NT and Windows 2000 (4062)
| > Copyright (c)1995-2000 Networks Associates Technology,Inc.
| > All Rights Reserved.
|
| Hey you top posting turd,
| are you using McAfee as a reference for a "GOOD" AV product?
| :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
|
| PLONK
|
| --
|
| Bart
 
David H. Lipman a écrit :
I will say GOOD AV packages often require IE.
Click to expand...

If they require IE, by definition they cannot be good. It's totally
absurd for an AV program to rely on IE.
 
I will say GOOD AV packages often require IE.
Click to expand...

Why?

Why should it require /any/ browser?

Nod32, to name just one excellent AV program, does not. So please tell us
all, why?

Cheers,

Roy
 
Roy a écrit :
Why?

Why should it require /any/ browser?
Click to expand...

Oh, I think Norton requires IE so it can display a suuuuuper-cute sexy
user interface with lots of flashy stuff.

At least it's totally impossible to use NAV if one has made the wise
choice of pre-emptively annihilating IE and its weapons of mass infection.
 
I will say GOOD AV packages often require IE.
Click to expand...
Only BAD AV packages are totally reliant on the presence of a single
brand of browser in order to work properly.

So what you're saying is a GOOD AV product will fire up iexplore.exe in
order to update even though iexplore.exe may actually be infected? Just
how does this GOOD AV software update if the very file it requires is
quarantined?




--
Conor

"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
- George Bush
 
Roy a écrit :


Oh, I think Norton requires IE so it can display a suuuuuper-cute sexy
user interface with lots of flashy stuff.

At least it's totally impossible to use NAV if one has made the wise
choice of pre-emptively annihilating IE and its weapons of mass infection..
Click to expand...
Its screwed if iexplore.exe or one fo the many dlls associated with it
is infected then.

--
Conor

"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
- George Bush
 
Conor:

What's infected ?

IEXPLORE.EXE, a DLL ? Which DLL ?

Added with certain versions of IE are helper DLLs. The AV software doesn't require
IEXPLORE.EXE but it requires a subfunction DLL.

Dave



| In article <[email protected]>,
| [email protected] says...
|
| > I will say GOOD AV packages often require IE.
| >
| Only BAD AV packages are totally reliant on the presence of a single
| brand of browser in order to work properly.
|
| So what you're saying is a GOOD AV product will fire up iexplore.exe in
| order to update even though iexplore.exe may actually be infected? Just
| how does this GOOD AV software update if the very file it requires is
| quarantined?
|
|
|
|
| --
| Conor
|
| "The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
| And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
| - George Bush
 
Only one DLL needed... MSHTML.DLL

But this whole argument is a bit pointless...

An AV suite shouldnt *need* IE. But if it does, this on it's own
doesnt make it bad. I would have thought reliability and detection rate
might be important factors!

In the same way that malware might hijack libraries such as
MSHTML.DLL, they might also go for any other library.

Every AV system runs on an operating system. The OS makes
libraries of functions available to running programs. Potentially
any of these can be hijacked.

Can you name me a Windows AV package that doesnt use
the registry? Or the file system? Any part of the windows
can be corrupted.

Similar arguments apply to Linux and all other OS's.

So the argument that using an AV suite that needs IE
is less secure doesnt hold. However, I would say it is very short-
sighted, if a package DOES require the full IE application (as
opposed to just the dor Windows MSHTML library) for the
obvious reason that some people may have removed it.

If the AV suite simply needs some core libraries including
MSHTML.dll, these should still be available. If the user
has removed these, then he/she is a fool! These library DLLs
are used by far more applications than just ie... eg. the Help
system, MSDN Libraries etc....

Phew!

So I'm not sure whose side I'm on now, so I'll hedge my bets and
say you are all wrong! :-)

Chris
 
Only one DLL needed... MSHTML.DLL

But this whole argument is a bit pointless...
Click to expand...

It's not pointless simply because it's a semantic (not Symantec :))
quagmire.
An AV suite shouldnt *need* IE. But if it does, this on it's own
doesnt make it bad. I would have thought reliability and detection rate
might be important factors!
Click to expand...

Of course, but obviously you're using the term "bad" in a different
way than others who have posted.
In the same way that malware might hijack libraries such as
MSHTML.DLL, they might also go for any other library.
Click to expand...

Hijacking libraries is not the issue. That IE is particularly
vulnerable and exploitable is the issue.
So the argument that using an AV suite that needs IE
is less secure doesnt hold.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument at all. The argument is that IE is a honeypot
for malware so any av that requires it is a self contradiction and
just plain stooopid! :) Symantec, by requiring IE is, in effect,
putting its blessing on IE. That's stooopid! And a "BAD THING".
So I'm not sure whose side I'm on now, so I'll hedge my bets and
say you are all wrong! :-)
Click to expand...

Best to say we are all correct since we are.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Why would you need a av after eradicating IE and OE? :)

Seriously, if you've taken care of your network settings and renamed
RPCSS.EXE as per my instructions here (no LAN):

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg/internet.html

you should find no use for any realtime av scanning. Insofar as
on-demand scanning there are a number of alternatives, all free:

1. F-Prot for DOS
2. Antidote (based on KAV)
3. Trend's Sysclean
4. File upload av scan web sites

See my web site for links. Of course, this assumes you aren't a click
happy Kazzaa-using dumbass, and you have a clue.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Click to expand...

Thanks Art,

I've seen your posts in the privacy.spyware group and have long since
sorted out the network settings and deleted RPCSS.exe - didn't seeem to
miss it so ...

Going back now to check on the a/v stuff. I've always hed realtime a/v
scanning so just assumed it was needed - time to rethink whether I do or
not.

Hopefully the more I lurk around these groups the less a 'click happy
Kazaa-using dumbass' I become :)

Thanks again, Mike
 
IE has been eradicated? I think you've just removed the virus. ;-)

Actually, there are a few good free command line virus scanners out
there. A command line scanner is pretty much guaranteed to work
without IE, at least in theory.

McAfee has a very good command line scanner.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pointer Zack, I'll check it out.

And thanks to everybody else for the informative, and lively, discussion.

Cheers, Mike.
 
In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on
If the AV suite simply needs some core libraries including
MSHTML.dll, these should still be available. If the user
has removed these, then he/she is a fool!
Click to expand...

There's no [MSHTML.dll] on this system,
and my AV scanners all work just fine.

So I guess that makes you the fool!

There's no way that malware requiring [MSHTML.dll] could even function
on this system were I fool enough to try and run it.

So I guess that makes you the fool!
These library DLLs
are used by far more applications than just ie... eg. the Help
system, MSDN Libraries etc....
Click to expand...

If I try to run "C:\Windows\Help\Windows.hlp",
It works just fine.

So I guess that makes you the fool!
Phew!

So I'm not sure whose side I'm on now, so I'll hedge my bets and
say you are all wrong! :-)
Click to expand...

So I guess that makes you the fool!
 
Back
Top