[Obliviator]

I choose none because with the tools included with SP2, I think its possible to not only secure Windows, but probably beyond the security offered by most applications. In the cracker community, the most common ways of breaking into a computer is through applications. Applications contains the holes, bugs, and of course, the exploit tools necessary for cracking.

By Automatic Update, one can update my Windows app and Windows itself. Abstinence from any other company's software that accesses the internet allows one to keep my software updated and protected against even 0-day viruses.

Windows Firewall provides a negligible amount of protection against worms and crackers. To further enhance internet traffic protection, you can enable TCP/IP filtering and the IPSEC firewall. Using a Microsoft tool i havnt tested yet, it is possible to create a firewall-like service. The app's ability to filter out certain packets can then be made into a service.

Also a MS tool exists that allows the logging of network traffic. Another MS tool contains the ability of filtering through logs. Combining these two programs and making them a service serves as an IDS.

Access control and using a restricted account can further protect against even a virus that did manage to penetrate against these defenses. Encryption of important files makes sure that if a cracker somehow bypasses these defenses, the files would be unreadable.

Shutting down nonessential services and running the remaining services in restricted accounts closes most opened ports.

Current antiviruses scan using signatures, which is both slow and inaccurate. Until heuristics are advanced, having an antivirus offers only a little better protection.

Firewalls are basically filters with cool options. Options like SPI are already in Windows Firewall. Filtering options are configured in the IPSEC firewall and TCP/IP filtering.

Antispam doesnt really help much. The reason why spam is considered even a security threat is because it can harbor worms and viruses. With adequate restrictions, even opening spam wont really affect you.

Antispyware, like antiviruses, depend on signatures also. Microsoft has recently acquired an antispam company in hopes of making their own antispyware, which probably will offer more protection than any current solutions based on their knowledge of the inner workings of the OS. And again, with adequate restrictions, one wouldnt even get spyware in the first place.

The secret to security is prevention. What im really trying to say is that a perfectly secure Windows could be based only on MS programs. I think that this is enough for now, but if anyone wants to argue my points, I would be happy to continue on.

[Stuntgp2000]

What you have said is right only if you :

1) you are the only one who use the pc at home & and with knowledge of security risks. As there are an increasing number of PC users with no basic knowledge of security risks we can expect an increasing number of infection & attacks.

2) If you'r working in a corporate with a central Server that filter & clean viruses.

However, as I said, it almost impossible to live with no additional security tools. But I agree with your idea which prevention is better than cure, but again it not always easy to prevent attacks. For example, today I was looking in Secunia's site for IE Flaws, after a complete day of analysis I found that what Microsoft suggest "Set IE Internet Security level to high would prevent most attacks" is not easy to do because when you set it to high most webpage won't load, they all need active scripting enabled.

[Jeremy]

nLite your PC.
Use Firefox or Opera
Don't open bogus e-mail
Don't use Kazaa.
Don't get in a fight with a hacker on IRC.
USE COMMON SENSE

Do/Don't do these and you're all set.

[10forcash]

Popular misconception: SP2 firewall protects you.
Not true! SP2 firewall does not block any outbound packets, on any port, on any transport, to any address...
Zonealarm, outpost - or any hardware firewall does
make yer choice and live with it....
Cheers,
10forcash

[10forcash]

Forgot to mention the biggest security risk of all....

the 'enter' or 'cr' key....
work it out for yourselves (with a pencil)
Cheers,
10forcash

[cypher_soundz]

10forcash colud you explain what you mean?
regards
cyph

[VitoCorleone]

For most usres SP2 firewall and a good antivirus is all they need.
It works for me, but i don't even use do sp2 firewall but only NAV2005 and it's worm protection instead
Whatever people say about norton produtcs I never had virus problems after instaling NAV...

Besides

Quote

USE COMMON SENSE

is always the best protection

[sven]

firewall, anti virus, and a regular run of ad-aware (i have some ppl who dont know about all that stuff using my computer). thats all i believe you need

[prathapml]

cypher_soundz, on Jan 1 2005, 07:20 PM, said:

10forcash  colud you explain what you mean?

He's referring to the fact that the "Enter" key (which will "click" default Yes or Install button in any spyware dialog box) does a lot of damage.


USE COMMON SENSE is the best protection, has been heard a lot, but I'd say the minimum you should do is have an anti-virus with updated defs. That's pretty much all you need, to stay safe. If you're literate, you will recognize spam and spyware. If you have SP2, the firewall is pretty good. Only thing left out, is the Anti-Vir. So yeah, even an old one (so that your system doesn't get bogged down) is perfectly fine (like NAV2002).

[cypher_soundz]

arh i thought it was along those lines.

i use anti virus (AVG) , router / firewall (hardware) , Kaspersky anti-hacker , thunderbird , firefox , adaware , spybot , giant anti-spyware , SpywareBlaster , HOST file , reg website blocking , no java installed , flash disabled (via spyware blaster i hate ads) common sense , proxy etc you know just the basics
Regards
cyph

[SiMoNsAyS]

i've choosed "other". for me it's common sense: don't open mails from unknow senders and be sure where you got your files is the key

[Martin Zugec]

Well, the basics R KillBits and RestrictedSites

I use WFW, eTrust AV, KB&RS, SP2 (probably most important ) and looks like from next month will be betatesting MS antispyware solution

[chankya]

Dear all

Use these free and safe tools and enjoy life i always beleve in the best free sw

firewall =>sygate personal.
antivirus => antivir for windows , f-prot for dos.

enjoy

[Zxian]

soulin, on Jan 3 2005, 04:02 AM, said:

SP2 (probably most important )

I've gotta disagree with this. I've had more bad experiences with SP2 than good ones, especially for a mobile user.

All you should ever need is...

Windows XP SP1 with all updates (except SP2)
A good anti-virus (anyone that has a decent real-time scanning feature)
Software firewall (Sygate get's my vote)
Spyware Blockers (SpywareBlaster and Spybot S&D)
Anything but IE as your browser (Firefox, Maxthon, Avant Browser, Mozilla, etc)

Even then... it'd be pretty hard to get something onto your system...

The ultimate would be to have all these systems unaccessible to the user if you have a computer illiterate person who uses it, i.e. Have the AV and firewall running, but the user has no access to it. The software just blocks any intrusions and deletes any viruses silently. I'd probably prefer that as my interface actually... if I want to know if anything's been blocked or deleted, go into the admin account and check the logs.

[prathapml]

That (sticking to SP1) would leave you seriously vulnerable. Having SP2 slip-streamed into XP and installed after a re-format, is a strategy that never fails.

[Zxian]

How would staying with an updated SP1 leave me "seriously vulnerable"?

I've tried the SP2 slipstreaming method as well as the upgrade route, and both have only caused me problems and slowdowns. When you're sitting on a computer that isn't a high performance machine (try PIII 750, 128MB PC100 RAM), SP2 does slow things down quite a bit!

As far as I can tell, all that was done with SP2 was that all the hotfixes for SP1 were integrated, they added a "firewall", and a "security center". MS also changed some of the service startup settings so that they could close a couple of security holes (for example, Messenger spam).

I'd take a computer with SP1 and an anti-virus program and Sygate firewall over SP2 anyday.

[Obliviator]

10forcash, on Dec 30 2004, 12:28 PM, said:

Popular misconception: SP2 firewall protects you.
Not true! SP2 firewall does not block any outbound packets, on any port, on any transport, to any address...
Zonealarm, outpost - or any hardware firewall does
make yer choice and live with it....
Cheers,
10forcash

sp2 firewall does provide some degree of protection . i use it all the time with packet filtering also. true it doesnt protect you from outbound packets, but basic security rule: if a malicious app has access to your comp, then it's not your comp. so why does it need to filter outbound packets, if the application sending those packets can perhaps kill the firewall? btw do any of the people with about 20 security apps ever think about the hardware strain?

[un4given1]

Zxian, on Jan 3 2005, 08:06 PM, said:

How would staying with an updated SP1 leave me "seriously vulnerable"?

I believe your issue with SP2 is that it causes performance issues. It's ignorant to believe you are better off with SP1 and all of the updates. If that was the case wouldn't you be better off with the original GOLD disk XP with all of the updates? Who needs SP1! hehe... Back to that common sense thing....

[Zxian]

un4given1, on Jan 3 2005, 08:46 PM, said:

I believe your issue with SP2 is that it causes performance issues.  It's ignorant to believe you are better off with SP1 and all of the updates.  If that was the case wouldn't you be better off with the original GOLD disk XP with all of the updates?  Who needs SP1!  hehe...  Back to that common sense thing....

I'm not saying that I don't have performance issues with SP2... I do very much so.

All I'm asking is a definate answer to how Service Pack 2 is protecting my computer better than SP1 updated.

As far as I can tell (with various security checks, virus tests, etc etc), all that Service Pack 2 has added is the "in-your-face" security center for the common user and an improved firewall (which I still wouldn't trust on its own).

Also... remember when Service Pack 1 first came out? Remember how many problems it caused the world? Then a few months later, MS released Service Pack 1a, which had patched SP1's problems and all the security fixes between the two releases.

Also... please don't call me ignorant... I'm not simply stating my opinions just to have them... I've gone through several headaches to arrive at my conclusions. First hand knowledge and experiences are probably the only things that will change those opinions. Everyone has them... I could be a jerk and call everyone who uses SP2 ignorant because they're being "blinded by the new 'security' features and that it's the newest and greatest thing since sliced bread". I've heard that type of arguement all too many times, and I don't care for it in either direction.

IMHO, I don't see anything wrong with running a computer with Service Pack 1a and a good anti-virus program and firewall. If anyone can give me a definate answer (not just "because it is") as to why this is a bad idea, please tell me.

Cheers!

[un4given1]

Zxian, on Jan 4 2005, 01:08 AM, said:

Also... remember when Service Pack 1 first came out? Remember how many problems it caused the world? Then a few months later, MS released Service Pack 1a, which had patched SP1's problems and all the security fixes between the two releases.

This you are absolutely 100% incorrect about. Service Pack 1a is Service Pack 1 with Virtual Machine removed. When Sun won the Java battle Microsoft was forced to remove Virtual Machine.