I'm baaaaaaack...

"Alan Street" wrote ...
> Having said all that, a great many of the virus infections could be
> avoided simply by not using Outlook.

Most virus infections could be avoided at companies by just taking away the
PCs from managers and secretaries... These two groups of people will click
on ANYTHING... At my last company, I proposed we email everyone in the
company a message with a "I'm a Virus, Please Run Me.vbs" attachment... This
VBS would then send back an email to a predetermined email address, logging
who our "problem children" were... Of course, management (the same ones who
would be implicated by these emails) decided that we shouldn't do it... I
figured that at worst, we could at least force these people to install the
Outlook patch that prevented them from running attachments in their email
without first saving them to their HD...

"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM.houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vS71b.585$Xp4.66630@twister.austin.rr.com...
> "Alan Street" wrote ...
> > Having said all that, a great many of the virus infections could be
> > avoided simply by not using Outlook.
>
> Most virus infections could be avoided at companies by just taking away
the
> PCs from managers and secretaries... These two groups of people will click
> on ANYTHING... At my last company, I proposed we email everyone in the
> company a message with a "I'm a Virus, Please Run Me.vbs" attachment...
This
> VBS would then send back an email to a predetermined email address,
logging
> who our "problem children" were... Of course, management (the same ones
who
> would be implicated by these emails) decided that we shouldn't do it... I
> figured that at worst, we could at least force these people to install the
> Outlook patch that prevented them from running attachments in their email
> without first saving them to their HD...
>
>

I recommend McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator. It allows the admin to update all
of the virus definitions on all of the computers without having to get up
and go to each machine. It will also allow you to check the virus
definition date on any of the machines you have available and (IIRC) it
keeps track of which machines have virus warnings (and lets you see them).
All that and it comes in a box with a really neat design on the front.

C Guynn

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:52:15 GMT, Alan Street <alan@nonono_irsi.com>
wrote:

>In article <vk9n5lleft4cc0@corp.supernews.com>, Scott
><scottk@localaccess.com.com> wrote:
>
>€"Angel" <thecomputergoddess@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>€news:ypW0b.10263$Ih1.3845301@newssrv26.news.prod igy.com...
>€
>€> welcome back. I kept wondering when you were going to just get a new
>€> machine. :)
>€
>€Shit, the old one was only a year old, and was top-o-da-line then...
>€
>€The new box is quite a bit faster (a gig of RAM and a 2.4 gig AMD Athlon),
>€but I dont want to buy another one
>€a year from now.
>€
>€I would, however, like to get my hands on one of these little creeps that
>€put these virii out. They have cost me
>€I-dont-know-how-many hours over the years. I bet they wouldnt think it was
>€so funny and fun if they had to
>€pay a few of the bills they create (not to mention being used for a
>€substitute soccer ball for a couple minutes).
>€
>€Scott
>€
>€
>At the new place I'm working, our IT department spends a *huge* amount
>of time and money fighting off viruses, and we just had a mandated
>system update for anything running Win2000, ME, NP (and probably a few
>others). Virus protection is also one of the non-negotiable pieces of
>software that has to be installed in every system that connects to the
>network (this is sometimes an issue with computer controlled lab
>equipment because the equipment uses up so many resources that the
>virus protection occasionally conflicts with system operation).
>
>Having said all that, a great many of the virus infections could be
>avoided simply by not using Outlook. Eudora is a much better mail
>client anyway, and doesn't suffer the same security holes that virus
>authors love to exploit in Outlook. The windows people will have to
>chime in on newsreaders, but I hear Forte Agent is pretty good (WinVN
>sucks - it claims to have killfiles, but they don't work).
>
>Alan

I can't seem to get the filters in Eudora to work properly. I ban an
address and it still gets through. Any thoughts?

Laser

In article <vkahij54jjbm24@news.supernews.com>, alan@nonono_irsi.com says...

>>>Alan
>>
>>I can't seem to get the filters in Eudora to work properly. I ban an
>>address and it still gets through. Any thoughts?
>>
>>Laser
>>
>
>Not off the top of my head..............
>

Oops.

Obviously, that was supposed to go as a private e-mail. I would never put my
title in a posting to rec.scuba, and I apologize for using the wrong
signature. Like I said, WinVN is a *really* lousy piece of software.

Alan

alan@nonono_irsi.com (Alan Street) entertained us with:
:Obviously, that was supposed to go as a private e-mail. I would never put my
:title in a posting to rec.scuba, and I apologize for using the wrong
:signature. Like I said, WinVN is a *really* lousy piece of software.

A good craftsman never blames his tools.

Dan Bracuk
As Big Ben said to the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I've got the time if you've got the inclination.
The Best of Rec.Scuba
http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article <h8rakvgir5p9l24j74en45a50kngllq70l@4ax.com>, NOTbracuk@pathcom.com
says...
>
>alan@nonono_irsi.com (Alan Street) entertained us with:
>:Obviously, that was supposed to go as a private e-mail. I would never put my
>:title in a posting to rec.scuba, and I apologize for using the wrong
>:signature. Like I said, WinVN is a *really* lousy piece of software.
>
>A good craftsman never blames his tools.
>

I'm not sure WinVN deserves to be called a "tool." Overpriced freeware might be
a better term.

"Scott" <scottk@localaccess.com.com> wrote in message
news:vk9n5lleft4cc0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Angel" <thecomputergoddess@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ypW0b.10263$Ih1.3845301@newssrv26.news.prodig y.com...
>
> > welcome back. I kept wondering when you were going to just get a new
> > machine. :)
>
> Shit, the old one was only a year old, and was top-o-da-line then...
>
I meant as I was reading all the things that went wrong. :)

> The new box is quite a bit faster (a gig of RAM and a 2.4 gig AMD Athlon),
> but I dont want to buy another one
> a year from now.
>
> I would, however, like to get my hands on one of these little creeps that
> put these virii out. They have cost me
> I-dont-know-how-many hours over the years. I bet they wouldnt think it was
> so funny and fun if they had to
> pay a few of the bills they create (not to mention being used for a
> substitute soccer ball for a couple minutes).
>
> Scott
>
Works for me.

X-No-Archive: yes
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:52:15 GMT, Alan Street <alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote:
>Having said all that, a great many of the virus infections could be
>avoided simply by not using Outlook.

Are you confusing Outlook with Outlook Express?
Email client is like 1% of Outlook functionality.

>Eudora is a much better mail client anyway,

Why do you say that? I don't use Eudora day to day, but
I've worked with it. It doesn't so anything special that
I can see.

>and doesn't suffer the same security holes that virus
>authors love to exploit in Outlook.

I've used Outlook (not OE) for years. Never gotten exploited.
I don't use a virus checker. I have a firewall that keeps out
the other stuff. I used to use a linux box, but I tossed that
in favor of a $40 router from D-Link. Much better, much easier,
much more powerful. It's pretty amazing. DHCP,NAT,Virtual Servers,
Firewall, hardware/software DMZ, port/domain/packet/MAC/URL filtering.

All the so-called 'viruses' in the past months/years have
been exploits of user stupidity.'Click Me', is what they say.
The security hole is at the keyboard.

They would work on any OS with sufficient number of users.
Mac and linux boxes are just as vulnerable to these methods,
and so is any email client.

Nobody targets them because there's nobody home. Whether you're
scanning ports or bulk mailing, the odds are pretty poor of
finding either one.

Outlook XP won't touch any dangerous attachments.
Old windows was soft. Modern Windows is as hard as they come,
but it's still vulnerable from sheer numbers on both sides.

>The windows people will have to
>chime in on newsreaders, but I hear Forte Agent is pretty good

Forte Agent is pretty good. The menu system and organization sucks.
It uses a [stupid] MDI. Handling of multiple newservers is awkward.
It's search capabilities are near zero. That said, it does a lot of
other things real well.

bullshark

In article <vtpbkvorpbqq2imaui84komkf9ti3qhf4n@4ax.com>,
bullshark@scubadiving.com says...
>
>X-No-Archive: yes
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:52:15 GMT, Alan Street <alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote:
>>Having said all that, a great many of the virus infections could be
>>avoided simply by not using Outlook.
>
>Are you confusing Outlook with Outlook Express?
>Email client is like 1% of Outlook functionality.
>

You're right, I was confusing OE for Outlook.


>>Eudora is a much better mail client anyway,
>
>Why do you say that? I don't use Eudora day to day, but
>I've worked with it. It doesn't so anything special that
>I can see.
>

I like the way it handles multiple mailboxes and gives you a lot of flexibility
in how you display, sort and handle messages. To be honest, I would actually
prefer Apple's new mail program if were faster. The SPAM filter works
surprisingly well once it's been trained (yes Dan, I know server side filtering
is better. Some of us don't have that option). Eudora is supposed to come out
with a SPAM filter soon, but I haven't heard anything concrete.


>>and doesn't suffer the same security holes that virus
>>authors love to exploit in Outlook.
>
>I've used Outlook (not OE) for years. Never gotten exploited.
>I don't use a virus checker. I have a firewall that keeps out
>the other stuff. I used to use a linux box, but I tossed that
>in favor of a $40 router from D-Link. Much better, much easier,
>much more powerful. It's pretty amazing. DHCP,NAT,Virtual Servers,
>Firewall, hardware/software DMZ, port/domain/packet/MAC/URL filtering.
>
>All the so-called 'viruses' in the past months/years have
>been exploits of user stupidity.'Click Me', is what they say.
>The security hole is at the keyboard.
>


Although some mail clients will run scripts automatically, as well as open
images, etc. I know Eudora will do this as well, but it seems that OE tends to
be set up for maximum automation and maximum vulnurability. Or maybe it's just
the users .

>They would work on any OS with sufficient number of users.
>Mac and linux boxes are just as vulnerable to these methods,
>and so is any email client.
>


Absolutely. In fact, back in the "good 'ol days" of DOS, Macs were much more
vulnerable to viruses because of the desktop, and we had to start dealing with
virus protection while the DOS world laughed at us.

>Nobody targets them because there's nobody home. Whether you're
>scanning ports or bulk mailing, the odds are pretty poor of
>finding either one.
>
>Outlook XP won't touch any dangerous attachments.
>Old windows was soft. Modern Windows is as hard as they come,
>but it's still vulnerable from sheer numbers on both sides.
>
>>The windows people will have to
>>chime in on newsreaders, but I hear Forte Agent is pretty good
>
>Forte Agent is pretty good. The menu system and organization sucks.
>It uses a [stupid] MDI. Handling of multiple newservers is awkward.
>It's search capabilities are near zero. That said, it does a lot of
>other things real well.
>


I see you're using it. What would be your other recommendations?


>bullshark

In article <vtpbkvorpbqq2imaui84komkf9ti3qhf4n@4ax.com>, bullshark
<bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote:


€Outlook XP won't touch any dangerous attachments.
€Old windows was soft. Modern Windows is as hard as they come,


Perhaps not. Here's a somwwhat different opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug23.html

Here's a great quote:

"In its default setup, Windows XP on the Internet amounts to a car
parked in a bad part of town, with the doors unlocked, the key in the
ignition and a Post-It note on the dashboard saying, "Please don't
steal this."

Here's another:

"Windows XP, by default, provides unrestricted, "administrator"
access to a computer. This sounds like a good thing but is not, because
any program, worms and viruses included, also has unrestricted access.
"

And, of course, my favorite:

"And for those saying they don't trust Microsoft to fix their
systems, I have one question: If you don't trust this company, why did
you give it your money? "

Alan