Re: Windows Firewall and Routers

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:OCijIPJsHHA.1172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kayman wrote:
"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eq52VHIsHHA.1212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kayman wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23xgjHWDsHHA.4180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or
protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate
action.

Wrong.

The free version of AntiVir (and most other antiviruses, AFAIK) do
*not* scan for spyware/adware. See:

Courtesy Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

Q: Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the
other ones?
A: Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability
to scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than
some of the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even
Trend Micro in some packages, are among the most *inefficient*
applications out there, whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings
are among the most efficient. After that, it's a question of the
definitions used, and whether or not they're free has absolutely no
bearing on those stats.

So? That doesn't contradict what Bruce wrote at all. Gary's talking
about viruses, and Bruce is talking about spyware and adware.

Of course :)

.