Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: software help needed

  1. #1
    bojack01
    Guest

    software help needed


    Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweacker,Regtool,system
    mechanic 9 and anti-virus. I have spent money on all of these and its
    gotten crazy. Im looking for either one program or two at the most that
    does all of this. Im confused and dont know what I need or what works.


    --
    bojack01
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bojack01's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/125919.htm
    View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/virus-spyware/1252682.htm

    http://forums.techarena.in


  2. #2
    G
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    In article <bojack01.3zamzb@DoNotSpam.com>,
    bojack01.3zamzb@DoNotSpam.com says...
    >
    > Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    > doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweacker,Regtool,system
    > mechanic 9 and anti-virus. I have spent money on all of these and its
    > gotten crazy. Im looking for either one program or two at the most that
    > does all of this. Im confused and dont know what I need or what works.
    >
    >
    > --
    > bojack01
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > bojack01's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/125919.htm
    > View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/virus-spyware/1252682.htm
    >
    > http://forums.techarena.in


    You're better off with individual pieces. You should be able to get
    everything you're looking for without spending anything. Check out the
    suggestions on these websites:

    http://lists.thedatalist.com/pages/New_Links.htm
    http://www.techsupportalert.com/

  3. #3
    dfinc
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Hi Bojack,
    run the free verision of Super AntI Spyware and/or Malware Bytes.
    Thier free verisions also remove most common spywares and malwares
    MalwareBytes download
    http://darfuns.com/download-malwarebytes/
    Suer AntiSpyware download
    http://darfuns.com/download-super-anti-spyware/

  4. #4
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    bojack01 wrote:
    > Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    > doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    > mechanic 9 and anti-virus. I have spent money on all of these and its
    > gotten crazy. I'm looking for either one program or two at the most that
    > does all of this. I'm confused and don't know what I need or what works.


    Hello:

    In the minds of some, you don't require any registry utilities at all.
    The other antimalware applications is the price of keeping a system
    secure. Many find that an investment in a so-called security suite is
    an expensive undertaking that of course expires at the end of the
    "lease" period and may still be troublesome.

    Many have found that best in breed security applications give them
    greater peace of mind and in fact much better provable protection.

    Welcome to today's cyberspace and stop looking for easy-out solutions
    to absolutely immense security problems. BTW - Do you have a good NAT
    router in use?

    The folks at your forum reposted this to the comp.security.firewalls
    Usenet newsgroup. What was your firewall question again? :-)

    HTH

    --
    1PW

  5. #5
    Jon Solberg
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    > bojack01 wrote:
    >> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    >> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    >> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]

    >
    > [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?


    'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  6. #6
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Jon Solberg wrote:
    > On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >> bojack01 wrote:
    >>> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    >>> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    >>> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]

    >> [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?

    >
    > 'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.


    How so Jon? Inquiring minds...

    --
    1PW

  7. #7
    Jon Solberg
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    > Jon Solberg wrote:
    >> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>> bojack01 wrote:
    >>>> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    >>>> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    >>>> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]
    >>> [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?

    >>
    >> 'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.

    >
    > How so Jon? Inquiring minds...


    Because NAT breaks things.

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  8. #8
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Jon Solberg wrote:
    > On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >> Jon Solberg wrote:
    >>> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>>> bojack01 wrote:
    >>>>> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    >>>>> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    >>>>> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]
    >>>> [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?
    >>> 'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.

    >> How so Jon? Inquiring minds...

    >
    > Because NAT breaks things.


    Hello Jon:

    If it breaks 'your' specific things, then of course it's a serious
    issue for you and I understand. However, as a generality nearly 100%
    of enterprise must be using NAT routers now.

    Without question, NAT routers have certainly helped the average home
    user greatly enhance their security in the last few years.

    What sort of trouble has a NAT router given you? If my NAT router
    failed, I'd be terribly frightened about bypassing it till the trouble
    was resolved. Therefore, I do have a spare.

    --
    1PW

  9. #9
    Jon Solberg
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    > Jon Solberg wrote:
    >> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>> Jon Solberg wrote:
    >>>> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>>>> bojack01 wrote:
    >>>>>> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    >>>>>> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    >>>>>> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]
    >>>>> [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?
    >>>> 'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.
    >>> How so Jon? Inquiring minds...

    >>
    >> Because NAT breaks things.

    >
    > If it breaks 'your' specific things, then of course it's a serious
    > issue for you and I understand.


    No, it doesn't break 'my' things since I don't use it. It breaks how
    protocols are designed to function.

    > However, as a generality nearly 100% of enterprise must be using NAT
    > routers now.


    ********. There's no NAT at my present (or any of my previous work
    places, ranging from universities to smaller consulting firms), we all
    have/had public IPs behind a firewall. That NAT must be used together
    with firewalls is one of the most widespread misconceptions about
    firewalls there is. Please don't spread that misconception any
    further. NAT is address translation, not a security policy.

    > What sort of trouble has a NAT router given you? If my NAT router
    > failed, I'd be terribly frightened about bypassing it till the trouble
    > was resolved. Therefore, I do have a spare.


    I don't have one, will never get one, so hence none whatsoever.

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  10. #10
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Jon Solberg wrote:
    > On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >> Jon Solberg wrote:
    >>> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>>> Jon Solberg wrote:
    >>>>> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> bojack01 wrote:
    >>>>>>> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    >>>>>>> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    >>>>>>> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]
    >>>>>> [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?
    >>>>> 'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.
    >>>> How so Jon? Inquiring minds...
    >>> Because NAT breaks things.

    >> If it breaks 'your' specific things, then of course it's a serious
    >> issue for you and I understand.

    >
    > No, it doesn't break 'my' things since I don't use it. It breaks how
    > protocols are designed to function.
    >
    >> However, as a generality nearly 100% of enterprise must be using NAT
    >> routers now.

    >
    > ********. There's no NAT at my present (or any of my previous work
    > places, ranging from universities to smaller consulting firms), we all
    > have/had public IPs behind a firewall. That NAT must be used together
    > with firewalls is one of the most widespread misconceptions about
    > firewalls there is. Please don't spread that misconception any
    > further. NAT is address translation, not a security policy.


    I too have come from one of the above environments. Years ago we
    began to turn away from "public" static IPs and move to "hidden"
    networks with DHCP for better user safety.

    >> What sort of trouble has a NAT router given you? If my NAT router
    >> failed, I'd be terribly frightened about bypassing it till the trouble
    >> was resolved. Therefore, I do have a spare.

    >
    > I don't have one, will never get one, so hence none whatsoever.


    For the average home user, would you say that a NAT router is just
    "snake oil", or do you believe the average home user can benefit from
    the use of a NAT router?

    --
    1PW

  11. #11
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Hello Jon:

    I checked out your web site. Simply excellent. You need to add some
    photos of your cats and wife.


    --
    1PW

  12. #12
    Jon Solberg
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    > Jon Solberg wrote:
    >> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> However, as a generality nearly 100% of enterprise must be using NAT
    >>> routers now.

    >>
    >> That NAT must be used together with firewalls is one of the most
    >> widespread misconceptions about firewalls there is. Please don't
    >> spread that misconception any further. NAT is address translation,
    >> not a security policy.

    >
    > I too have come from one of the above environments. Years ago we
    > began to turn away from "public" static IPs and move to "hidden"
    > networks with DHCP for better user safety.


    IP masquerading in itself is not a security policy, even though some
    still seems to believe that. It's a bit like saying 'if I cut my
    network cable, I'm secure'.

    > For the average home user, would you say that a NAT router is just
    > "snake oil".


    Yes, mainly due to the lousy IP masquerading implementation used in
    many 'broadband routers' and because it tend to break things general
    users do (Torrent traffic, VoIP, FTP, different gaming protocols et
    c). It causes more problems than it solve.

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  13. #13
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    In article <h9virc$f4u$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se says...
    >
    > On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    > > Jon Solberg wrote:
    > >> On 2009-09-30, 1PW <1PW@INVALID.com> wrote:
    > >>> bojack01 wrote:
    > >>>> Is there a program out there that does the Job of spyware
    > >>>> doctor,registry mechanic,registry booster,system tweaker,Regtool,system
    > >>>> mechanic 9 and anti-virus. [...]
    > >>> [...] BTW - Do you have a good NAT router in use?
    > >>
    > >> 'Good' and 'NAT' is a contradiction on terms.

    > >
    > > How so Jon? Inquiring minds...

    >
    > Because NAT breaks things.


    NAT doesn't break much, mostly poorly designed applications, and most
    apps work very well with NAT.

    The benefit of NAT to protect a home network is far more important than
    being without it.

    Stangely enough, almost all companies use some form of NAT for their
    public <> lan mapping.

    --
    You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
    Trust yourself.
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  14. #14
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    In article <h9vko2$jou$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se says...
    > ********. There's no NAT at my present (or any of my previous work
    > places, ranging from universities to smaller consulting firms), we all
    > have/had public IPs behind a firewall. That NAT must be used together
    > with firewalls is one of the most widespread misconceptions about
    > firewalls there is. Please don't spread that misconception any
    > further. NAT is address translation, not a security policy.
    >


    The your places of work were wasting IP space.

    We've got hundreds of corporate networks, all behind NAT, since the
    firewalls implement it perfectly.

    We have the option of not using NAT, but have yet to find anything the
    businesses need that it causes a problem with.

    NAT used in home/residential class routers IS a protection, it blocked
    unsolicited connections to the LAN.

    --
    You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
    Trust yourself.
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  15. #15
    Jon Solberg
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    On 2009-09-30, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:
    > In article <h9vko2$jou$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    > jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se says...
    >> ********. There's no NAT at my present (or any of my previous work
    >> places, ranging from universities to smaller consulting firms), we all
    >> have/had public IPs behind a firewall. That NAT must be used together
    >> with firewalls is one of the most widespread misconceptions about
    >> firewalls there is. Please don't spread that misconception any
    >> further. NAT is address translation, not a security policy.
    >>

    >
    > The your places of work were wasting IP space.


    No they are using IPv6. The problem of limited addressing is not
    solved by using NAT:ed IPv4. It's a broken solution.

    NAT is not equal to IP Masquerading.

    > [...] We have the option of not using NAT, but have yet to find
    > anything the businesses need that it causes a problem with.


    Like VoIP then?

    > NAT used in home/residential class routers IS a protection, it blocked
    > unsolicited connections to the LAN.


    But a false one due to crappy NAT/IP Masquerading implementations in
    consumer broadband routers.

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  16. #16
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Jon Solberg wrote:
    > On 2009-09-30, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:
    >> In article <h9vko2$jou$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    >> jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se says...
    >>> ********. There's no NAT at my present (or any of my previous work
    >>> places, ranging from universities to smaller consulting firms), we all
    >>> have/had public IPs behind a firewall. That NAT must be used together
    >>> with firewalls is one of the most widespread misconceptions about
    >>> firewalls there is. Please don't spread that misconception any
    >>> further. NAT is address translation, not a security policy.
    >>>

    >> The your places of work were wasting IP space.

    >
    > No they are using IPv6. The problem of limited addressing is not
    > solved by using NAT:ed IPv4. It's a broken solution.
    >
    > NAT is not equal to IP Masquerading.
    >
    >> [...] We have the option of not using NAT, but have yet to find
    >> anything the businesses need that it causes a problem with.

    >
    > Like VoIP then?


    My only expertise here is as a user. My VoIP works amazingly well on
    a resource starved system I use but through a very recently
    manufactured and more recently updated NAT router. Strictly as a
    guess, I wonder if those VoIP failures are incorrect implementations
    because several VoIP standards are in use?

    dd-wrt.com appears to be taking corrective steps for VoIP for one.

    >> NAT used in home/residential class routers IS a protection, it blocked
    >> unsolicited connections to the LAN.

    >
    > But a false one due to crappy NAT/IP Masquerading implementations in
    > consumer broadband routers.


    I wonder here too if recent NAT router updates, that accept multiple
    VoIP standards, have corrected this?

    --
    1PW

  17. #17
    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Jon Solberg <jon@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote:
    > It [NAT] breaks how protocols are designed to function.


    Please elaborate. How exactly does NAT "break how protocols are designed
    to function"? Some special cases (particularly IPSec AH) aside I fail to
    see how that would be.

    cu
    59cobalt
    --
    "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
    their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
    --Mark Russinovich

  18. #18
    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    1PW <1PW@invalid.com> wrote:
    > Without question, NAT routers have certainly helped the average home
    > user greatly enhance their security in the last few years.


    No, it hasn't. NAT was never designed, nor is it suited, to be a
    security feature.

    What you're referring to is dropping inbound connection attempts, which
    any even halfway decent packet filter should be able to do.

    cu
    59cobalt
    --
    "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
    their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
    --Mark Russinovich

  19. #19
    1PW
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
    > 1PW <1PW@invalid.com> wrote:
    >> Without question, NAT routers have certainly helped the average home
    >> user greatly enhance their security in the last few years.

    >
    > No, it hasn't. NAT was never designed, nor is it suited, to be a
    > security feature.
    >
    > What you're referring to is dropping inbound connection attempts, which
    > any even halfway decent packet filter should be able to do.
    >
    > cu
    > 59cobalt


    Hello 59cobalt:

    When an unwise user installs their new computer, with XP & only SP2
    from an OEM build over a year old, no AV, no antimalware, and little
    self control, and their sweaty shaking hands connects that system to a
    NAT router's LAN port, I'd feel just a tiny bit better than if they'd
    connected directly to a bare cable modem. Wouldn't you? :-)

    Respectfully,

    --
    1PW

  20. #20
    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
    Guest

    Re: software help needed

    1PW <1PW@invalid.com> wrote:
    > Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
    >> 1PW <1PW@invalid.com> wrote:
    >>> Without question, NAT routers have certainly helped the average home
    >>> user greatly enhance their security in the last few years.

    >>
    >> No, it hasn't. NAT was never designed, nor is it suited, to be a
    >> security feature.
    >>
    >> What you're referring to is dropping inbound connection attempts,
    >> which any even halfway decent packet filter should be able to do.

    >
    > When an unwise user installs their new computer, with XP & only SP2
    > from an OEM build over a year old, no AV, no antimalware, and little
    > self control, and their sweaty shaking hands connects that system to a
    > NAT router's LAN port, I'd feel just a tiny bit better than if they'd
    > connected directly to a bare cable modem. Wouldn't you? :-)


    No.

    cu
    59cobalt
    --
    "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
    their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
    --Mark Russinovich

Similar Threads

  1. Battle of 35 Antivirus, Who's The Champion?!
    By akbarri in forum Software Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-17-09, 01:28 PM
  2. Disreputable anti-parasite software
    By George Orwell in forum alt.computer.security
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-13-09, 07:09 AM
  3. software needed.
    By 24giovanni in forum Software Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-15-08, 03:25 AM
  4. Linksys tech support live chat transcript - enjoy!!!!
    By jim in forum ms.public.windows.networking.wireless
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-08, 11:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •