full-disclosure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: dan at losangelescomputerhelp.com (Daniel H. Renner)
Subject: malware

Hello Dennis,

I can give you two good reasons why not to use NAV:

1.  We have seen in the field 7 cases in the last 3 months where updated
NAV (both individual and corporate versions) found an infected file,
stated what virus it was infected with, and left a message in the event
log that it "successfully left alone" the file.  This is not good...

2.  Since version 2003, if you do not have IE installed on your
Win9x/Win2k system (removed with IEradicator) NAV will not install - and
it gives the reason as you not having IE on your system.  The fact that
any product proporting to help secure your system is that tied in with
the most insecure product on the planet is enough for me to not sell it
to my clients.  (QuickBooks v2003 and up are the same, don't even get me
started there...  :)

-- 

Thank you,

Dan Renner
President
Los Angeles Computerhelp
http://losangelescomputerhelp.com
818.352.8700

On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 03:33, Dennis Freise wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:25:06 +0100
> Papp Geza <pappgeza@...na.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hy,
> > I love NAV not, and my machine not run Symantec program. Real Time and
> > on acces functions not good.
> 
> Could you please give some better reason than "not good" why the on-access
> scanner is bad ?