toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I actually meant choosing the save option in thunderbird. This
option does not execute the attachment
On 11/20/2016 1:01 AM, Gene wrote:
Opening an attachment often
automatically causes it to be executed.
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Anti Virus
opening the attachment isn't a problem. Executing the file is.
enclosed in a zip file. My antivirus, avira, missed it. When I
uploaded it to virustotal, I was the first one to upload it and
only 2 antiviruses caught it.
On 11/19/2016 9:03 PM, Gene wrote:
No matter how careful you are,
you can still be infected, even by going to reputable sites
if those sites are hacked or if the advertising on those
sites is hacked. Yes, people should follow good safety
procedures. but that does not minimize the need or
usefulness of good antimalware programs.
And no matter how careful you
are, what about the moment of inattention. I'm very careful
about not opening attachments. but even so, there was one
time in perhaps fifteen years or longer, that I wasn't
really thinking much about what I was doing and opened an
attachment that came from a message that looked as though it
was from someone I knew. If I had been paying proper
attention, I wouldn't have done so but the point is that
unless you are sure that you will always be paying proper
attention from now until you stop using computers, there is
always a small or very small chance for error. I've seen
techs or techies minimize the importance of antimalware
programs. Frankly, I consider this to be the overconfidence
of knowledge. I believe that safety is the lesson of
knowledge and experience.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Anti Virus
I agree, the first point of security should be your head.
Next I'd use something like firefox with better privacy for
cookies, ublock for adds, and noscript for scripts.
That way if you click malware it may not run.
To be honest I have been tempted to get more passive protection
gets stuff before it handles things.
On 20/11/2016 6:44 a.m., Brian Vogel wrote:
> I have seen virtually any antivirus or security suite you
can name either praised to the high heavens or called almost
completely useless. It really depends on who's doing the
reviewing and the metrics they're using.
> As has been said here, and elsewhere, antivirus programs
are not and should not be considered your first line of defense
against infection. Your own browsing habits play a far, far
greater role in that. Good browsing hygiene will keep you quite
safe, if not 100% so.
> If you have not been infected nor had whatever antivirus or
security program you've been using report anything being
quarantined in a very long time you can be reasonably certain
that your browsing habits are OK. If you're constantly infected
or have things quarantined without actually having been infected
it would be very wise to start looking at precisely when, how,
and why this is happening. Most infections are the direct
result of user action, not some backdoor entry.
> Windows Defender has proven more than adequate for more
users on more machines than I can count at this point in my
career. Nothing is perfect, some competitors may be better,
but Windows Defender is not even close to "junk".
> This thread entitled, Windows Defender as an integral part
of Windows 10 ( http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/632487/windows-defender-as-integral-part-of-windows-10/
) , which just started yesterday on bleepingcomputer.com's
Windows 10 Support Forum, is worth reading [disclaimer: I've got
two posts in that thread so far, but that's not why I think it's
worth looking at].
> *Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is
complete. If you’re alive, it isn’t.*
> ~ Lauren Bacall