how save can you make windows?

[yester64]

I started off with making a real administrator account and seperate
user accounts that have limited rights.
Then i installed MS essentials and a antivirus.
But i wonder if thats all one can do on Windows.

Is there any other strategy that can be applied to Windows to make it
safer?

 

[Andy Burns]

I started off with making a real administrator account and seperate
user accounts that have limited rights.
Then i installed MS essentials and a antivirus.

MSE *is* an anti-virus, don't install two anti-virus products at the
same time.

But i wonder if thats all one can do on Windows.

Consider not using Internet explorer and be careful about where you
download executables from and you should be fine ...

 

[Ken Blake]

I started off with making a real administrator account and seperate
user accounts that have limited rights.
Then i installed MS essentials and a antivirus.

You say "MS essentials." Do you mean Microsoft Security Essentials?

If so, that *is* an anti-virus. If you have two anti-virus programs
installed you are looking for trouble. It will adversely affect your
performance and also may cause problems as they interfere with each
other.

Microsoft Security Essentials is not only an anti-virus, it's a good
choice of an anti-virus--better than many of the others out there.

But i wonder if thats all one can do on Windows.

Is there any other strategy that can be applied to Windows to make it
safer?

Yes. You should also install MalwareBytes AntiMalware.

I also recommend the MVP Hosts File at
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm


But the most important thing to do has nothing to do with software.
You need to practice safe hex. That means stay far away from porn web
sites, pirate software sites, and other dangerous sites. Also don't
open attachments that you receive by e-mail.

 

[yester64]

You say "MS essentials." Do you mean Microsoft Security Essentials?

Yes it is the 'security' essentials. I forgot to mention that i plan
to replace it with eset32. Right now the MS essentials are the only
thing i have.
Sorry for the confusion.

If so, that *is* an anti-virus. If you have two anti-virus programs
installed you are looking for trouble. It will adversely affect your
performance and also may cause problems as they interfere with each
other.

Microsoft Security Essentials is not only an anti-virus, it's a good
choice of an anti-virus--better than many of the others out there.





Yes. You should also install MalwareBytes AntiMalware.

I also recommend the MVP Hosts File at
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm


But the most important thing to do has nothing to do with software.
You need to practice safe hex. That means stay far away from porn web
sites, pirate software sites, and other dangerous sites. Also don't
open attachments that you receive by e-mail.

I will look into that. No i don't use pron or anything like that.
The only danger may be the newsgroups. Ah, not really. Or?

 

[Zaidy036]

MSE *is* an anti-virus, don't install two anti-virus products at the
same time.


Consider not using Internet explorer and be careful about where you
download executables from and you should be fine ...

You can Immunet along side others. Both Free and Plus versions available at
http://www.immunet.com/plus/compare/index.html

 

[XS11E]

Consider not using Internet explorer

Why? It's the safest browser of all.

 

[Ken Blake]

Personally, I have MSE installed and set for my real-time checking;
I also have MalwareBytes and SUPERAntiSpyware freeware versions
installed (they do not have real-time protection in the freeware
versions) for doing periodical on-demand scans and have never had
any problems by having more than two anti-virus programs "installed
at the same time."

Two points:

1. MalwareBytes AntiMalware and SuperAntiSpyware are *not* anti-virus
programs. They are anti-spyware programs. There is no problem with
having them installed along with an anti-virus.

2. If you did have two anti-virus programs installed and had no
problems doing so, note that having two installed does not mean you
will have a problem. It means that the *risk* of a problem is
increased. Saying " have never had any problems by having more than
two anti-virus programs "installed at the same time" is like saying
"I've been driving without a seatbelt and have never had any problems
doing so."

 

[Ken Blake]

Yes it is the 'security' essentials. I forgot to mention that i plan
to replace it with eset32.

You mean eSet NOD32. A very good choice. It's probably somewhat better
than Microsoft Security Essentials, but Microsoft Security Essentials
is also very good.

Right now the MS essentials are the only
thing i have.
Sorry for the confusion.

OK, thanks for the clarification. No big confusion; that's what I
thought you meant.

I will look into that. No i don't use pron or anything like that.
The only danger may be the newsgroups. Ah, not really. Or?

Text newsgroups are not a problem. A binary one could be. And note
that although you say "i don't use pron or anything like that," you
could do so without realizing it, for example by clicking on a link
you receive by e-mail. Great care is required.

 

[Ken Blake]

Why? It's the safest browser of all.

I'm not sure that it's the safest, but I agree that most of the others
are no safer.

 

[yester64]

Text newsgroups are not a problem. A binary one could be. And note
that although you say "i don't use pron or anything like that," you
could do so without realizing it, for example by clicking on a link
you receive by e-mail. Great care is required.

Well, i never open mail that i don't know the sender is from. Even if
i get mail from paypal, i rather check the website.

But i wonder if you can restrict users right in windows like you can
in linux. I haven't found anything than just to set it to limited.
Also, i heart you can start a script via an icon. Not sure if thats
true.
Right now i don't you office either, just libreoffice.

 

[RnR]

I started off with making a real administrator account and seperate
user accounts that have limited rights.
Then i installed MS essentials and a antivirus.
But i wonder if thats all one can do on Windows.

Is there any other strategy that can be applied to Windows to make it
safer?

Yeah after you do everything everyone else mentions, pray a lot !!!!

 

[Bob I]

Yeah after you do everything everyone else mentions, pray a lot !!!!

As with ANY operating system, the most dangerous part is the USER.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

As with ANY operating system, the most dangerous part is the USER.

Amen! I have been running Windows for years as the only user, with full
privileges, and a firewall as the only defensive software. I added MSE
with Windows 7 because it was handy and unobtrusive. I use IE with the
default security settings. The closest I have ever come to a virus,
invasion, trojan, whatever, is reading about them in paranoid newsgroups.
Either I have a completely different build of Windows, or my surfing habits
are different from those of the constantly plagued. Probably most
significantly, I don't equate "free" with "download," or visit domains
that end in "z".

 

[Ken Blake]

Well, i never open mail that i don't know the sender is from. Even if
i get mail from paypal, i rather check the website.

Opening mail is never a problem, regardless of who it's from, if you
open it in plain text. But html mail *can* be a problem.

In general, besides html mail, problems with e-mail messages fall into
two categories:

1. Attachments, which could be infected.

2. Links to web sites, which could be infected.

Also note the following: You often see advice not to open attachments
from people you don't know. I think that that's one of the most
dangerous pieces of advice you see around, because it implies that
it's safe to do the opposite--open attachments from friends and
relatives. But many viruses spread by sending themselves to everyone
in the infected party's address book, so attachments received from
friends are perhaps the *most* risky to open.

Even if the attachment legitimately comes from a friend, it can
contain a virus. I'm not suggesting that a friend is likely to send
you a virus on purpose, but if the friend is infected without
realizing it, any attachment he sends you is likely to also be
infected.

 

[Jeff Layman]

Bob I wrote:
)snip)


Amen! I have been running Windows for years as the only user, with full
privileges, and a firewall as the only defensive software. I added MSE
with Windows 7 because it was handy and unobtrusive. I use IE with the
default security settings. The closest I have ever come to a virus,
invasion, trojan, whatever, is reading about them in paranoid newsgroups.
Either I have a completely different build of Windows, or my surfing habits
are different from those of the constantly plagued. Probably most
significantly, I don't equate "free" with "download," or visit domains
that end in "z".

What have you got against New Zealand?!

 

[Char Jackson]

I believe that Andy meant that it's not good to have two anti-virus
programs active (running real-time protection) at the same time.


Personally, I have MSE installed and set for my real-time checking;
I also have MalwareBytes and SUPERAntiSpyware freeware versions
installed (they do not have real-time protection in the freeware
versions) for doing periodical on-demand scans and have never had
any problems by having more than two anti-virus programs "installed
at the same time."

my 2 cents worth,

hth

I use and recommend both of those tools (MalwareBytes and
SUPERAntiSpyware freeware versions).

 

[Big Steel]

I started off with making a real administrator account and seperate
user accounts that have limited rights.
Then i installed MS essentials and a antivirus.
But i wonder if thats all one can do on Windows.

Is there any other strategy that can be applied to Windows to make it
safer?

<http://www.winfrastructure.net/article.aspx?BlogEntry=Quick-steps-to-Windows-7-OS-hardening>

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Also note the following: You often see advice not to open attachments
from people you don't know. I think that that's one of the most
dangerous pieces of advice you see around, because it implies that
it's safe to do the opposite--open attachments from friends and
relatives.

*Logically* it doesn't imply that. The fallacy to think it does is
called "affirming the consequent".

However, that ignores psychological reality

I just had to get pedantic[1], even though I agree with you.

[1] It's lunch time, and I'm still reading Usenet...That's my excuse and
I'm sticking to it.

 

[Chet]

Two points:

1. MalwareBytes AntiMalware and SuperAntiSpyware are *not* anti-virus
programs. They are anti-spyware programs. There is no problem with
having them installed along with an anti-virus.

2. If you did have two anti-virus programs installed and had no
problems doing so, note that having two installed does not mean you
will have a problem. It means that the *risk* of a problem is
increased. Saying " have never had any problems by having more than
two anti-virus programs "installed at the same time" is like saying
"I've been driving without a seatbelt and have never had any problems
doing so."

Ken,

A quick question for clarification and my own personal knowledge:

I agree that SuperAntiSpyware is not an anti-virus program and I
shouldn't have stated it was. Duh!

I also agree that having two anti-spyware programs active (real-time
protection on) is bad as the two will "butt-heads" causing (severe)
problems.

MalwareBytes on their main page state:

"Malwarebytes products have a proven record of protecting computers
by completely removing all forms of malware, including viruses..."

I'm trying to learn so please bear with me.

If Malwarebytes removes all forms of malware, including viruses,
isn't it at least a "form" of anti-virus? So, if installed for
on-demand scans only and configured as such, does this still expose
the system to the risk of conflicts?

For quite some time I've seen it recommended here and other
newsgroups and forums to have Malwarebytes installed for on-demand
scans in addition to the users real-time protection program. Also,
in Char's reply to my post (below your reply), she says that she
also uses Malwarebytes and I assume that she has it installed and
does not install, scan, then uninstall each time.

I also see the Microsoft Safety Scanner recommended very often for
on-demand scans (especially in Answers) and on its main page states,
in part, "provides on-demand scanning and helps remove viruses..."
Wouldn't this make this a "form" of anti-virus also? I realize the
Safety Scanner differs from MalwareBytes, i.e., is only good for 10
days and essentially must be downloaded for each use with no real
installation, but when you have it actively scanning your system,
does this also present the risk of conflicts? I don't recall seeing
it mentioned on the Safety Scanner page, but should you disable your
real-time protection (in my case, Microsoft Security Essentials) to
eliminate the risks? Also when doing an on-demand MalwareBytes scan?

Sorry, this wasn't really a "quick" question

Thanks in advance as I appreciate your expertise.

OT: I've enjoyed your and Char's recent banter in this group
It's great to see instead of all the bickering and worse nowadays.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Two points:

1. MalwareBytes AntiMalware and SuperAntiSpyware are *not* anti-virus
programs. They are anti-spyware programs. There is no problem with
having them installed along with an anti-virus.

2. If you did have two anti-virus programs installed and had no
problems doing so, note that having two installed does not mean you
will have a problem. It means that the *risk* of a problem is
increased. Saying " have never had any problems by having more than
two anti-virus programs "installed at the same time" is like saying
"I've been driving without a seatbelt and have never had any problems
doing so."

Ken,

A quick question for clarification and my own personal knowledge:

I agree that SuperAntiSpyware is not an anti-virus program and I
shouldn't have stated it was. Duh!

I also agree that having two anti-spyware programs active (real-time
protection on) is bad as the two will "butt-heads" causing (severe)
problems.

MalwareBytes on their main page state:

"Malwarebytes products have a proven record of protecting computers
by completely removing all forms of malware, including viruses..."

I'm trying to learn so please bear with me.

If Malwarebytes removes all forms of malware, including viruses,
isn't it at least a "form" of anti-virus? So, if installed for
on-demand scans only and configured as such, does this still expose
the system to the risk of conflicts?

For quite some time I've seen it recommended here and other
newsgroups and forums to have Malwarebytes installed for on-demand
scans in addition to the users real-time protection program. Also,
in Char's reply to my post (below your reply), she says that she
also uses Malwarebytes and I assume that she has it installed and
does not install, scan, then uninstall each time.

I also see the Microsoft Safety Scanner recommended very often for
on-demand scans (especially in Answers) and on its main page states,
in part, "provides on-demand scanning and helps remove viruses..."
Wouldn't this make this a "form" of anti-virus also? I realize the
Safety Scanner differs from MalwareBytes, i.e., is only good for 10
days and essentially must be downloaded for each use with no real
installation, but when you have it actively scanning your system,
does this also present the risk of conflicts? I don't recall seeing
it mentioned on the Safety Scanner page, but should you disable your
real-time protection (in my case, Microsoft Security Essentials) to
eliminate the risks? Also when doing an on-demand MalwareBytes scan?

Sorry, this wasn't really a "quick" question

Thanks in advance as I appreciate your expertise.

OT: I've enjoyed your and Char's recent banter in this group
It's great to see instead of all the bickering and worse nowadays.

There's a *big* difference between on-demand scumming and continuous
background scanning.

The former is not where the butting of heads occurs, the latter is. And
that's what real antivirus programs do.