Attention Everybody ...

... with an AT&T, SBC Global or a Yahoo email account:

Likely every direct or indirect Yahoo user got this or an email similar to this:

DO NOT CLICK on the RESET link! This email is a scam!

As you can see my cursor was on the RESET link in the text when I took this screenshot.

Please look at the red framed box in the left bottom corner. You can easily see that the link would take you to helpdeskhomezone.com, a web site that obviously has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Yahoo! It is your guess what might happen if you do click on it.

Just the line where these crooks address me, "Dear ejkheinze@att.net" is another simple giveaway. No even vaguely reasonable company would address a customer like that!

Again, check every link in emails in this way BEFORE you click!

THINK TWICE and stay safe!

"Security" software breaks Windows

It gets fun again - my life I mean; the rest of this blog post is dead serious, please make no mistake.

For years I have recommended NOT TO USE products from Webroot. I remember too many bad experiences with and infections on computers that were presumably "protected by Webroot".

In NBC's words:

An antivirus service used by tens of thousands of businesses and millions of home users shut down an untold number of computers around the world Monday after it mistakenly identified core parts of Microsoft Windows as threats, the company confirmed.

Similar events have occurred in the past; sadly they are much more common than we would like and the public hardly knows about it. Some well known companies in the "computer security" or "anti virus" business have had similar snafus. Here is a quote from a blog post at Bleepingcomputer.com:

... Such mishaps have been reported for years to include major anti-virus/security vendors such as Panda, avast, AVG, BitDefender, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, McAfee and Symantec. In most cases when these issues occur, the anti-virus vendors and security tool developers take quick action to correct the problem and provide support to those users who have been affected.

To call such blunders a "mishap" is not a euphemism, IMHO it is outright glossing over or covering up a major blunder.

Things like this should not happen and they don't need to happen, they are major avoidable blunders. In every case we can only speculate about the "why" and I don't like to speculate.

What does all the above tell us? IMHO very simple:

Do not trust a single word in high gloss, pretty brochures.
Do not believe the words in computer related advertisements on TV.

What you find in high gloss publications is mostly marketing hype and likely not really trustworthy. And when certain "security" software seemingly out-of-the-blue suddenly is being hyped over the moon in TV advertisements it IMHO is time to run for the hills. It tells me that very likely a marketing campaign has to cover up some so called "mishap".

-----

So far I have used the acronym IMHO three times in this blog post. Generally there are always at least two ways to look at something, as we say around computers YMMV. If you have a different opinion - or maybe simply think I am a dumba.s then I ask you to please leave a comment, state your case or blow off steam below. 

Thank you in advance.

Norton Internet Security - Final Words?

Again I ran into a customer who almost insisted on keeping "his" Norton Internet Security package against my recommendation. I decided to write yet another diatribe against NIS and the reasons behind my stance.

This morning I got the current edition of a computer related newsletter that covers this very issue more concisely and better than I ever could. The text about NIS is buried in the article under the sub-heading "Why doesn’t Fred ever mention Norton/Symantec?". I want to save you the trouble of having to read (or skim) through the quite technical and lengthy discussion of file name length limitations that is the first part of the article; later in my article (what you are reading) I will quote the complete part about NIS as Fred Langa wrote it.

Who is Fred Langa? Here is the "About Fred Langa" copied directly from Windows Secrets:

Fred Langa is senior editor. His LangaList Newsletter merged with Windows Secrets on Nov. 16, 2006. Prior to that, Fred was editor of Byte Magazine (1987 to 1991) and editorial director of CMP Media (1991 to 1996), overseeing Windows Magazine and others.

In short and simple words: Fred Langa is a veteran in the field of PCs and IMHO one of the most trustworthy authors about PCs out there!

Now to above mentioned quote about Norton Internet Security products. The only alteration: I shortened the name of the original questioner for obvious privacy reasons to just the initials.

Why doesn’t Fred ever mention Norton/Symantec?

P F wonders about a long-standing omission in this column.

“Is there a reason we never hear about Symantec/Norton Internet Security from Fred Langa?”

Yes, there’s a reason, Paul. The omission is quite deliberate.

I absolutely loved Norton software way back when Peter Norton was running the company. But after Symantec bought him out in the 1990’s (keeping the “Norton” name, but little else) Symantec/Norton products gained a reputation as bloated and slow; and periodically they contained extremely serious flaws.

Symantec has addressed some of the bloat problems in recent years, but shockingly severe problems still crop up.

For example, as recently as this past summer, researchers found truly frightening, flagrant flaws in all Symantec/Norton antivirus software. Some security researchers said those flaws were “as bad as it gets.”

I agree with that assessment: Due to these flaws, even an unopened email or an unclicked link could compromise your PC at its deepest level!

For more specifics, see the U.S. Government warning, “Symantec and Norton security products contain critical vulnerabilities,” the Fortune Magazine article, “Google found disastrous Symantec and Norton vulnerabilities,” and the Ghacks.net article, “Google shames Symantec for security issues.” A web search will turn up lots of other coverage, too.

Those egregious vulnerabilities were patched, but they never should have happened in the first place — especially in a nominal “security” product.

And note: That’s just one recent problem. There have been numerous other problems extending back for years. For example, I just did a general web search on ‘norton security’ problems, and found over 13 million hits!

The above are objective facts you can check for yourself. But what follows is my personal opinion:

I think running Symantec products is worse than running no security software at all. With no security software, at least you know you’re not protected. But millions of Symantec/Norton customers think the software is keeping them safe, when there’s strong evidence that it might actually be creating new vulnerabilities and system problems that wouldn’t otherwise exist. To me, that’s unconscionable in security software.

I haven’t had any Symantec products on my PCs since the early 1990s, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. I’ve seen too many problems with Symantec/Norton’s software.

Your experience might be different, and you’re certainly free to use what you like.

But now you know why you don’t see any coverage of Symantec products from me.

Personally I fully and wholeheartedly agree with Fred Langa!

As usual I welcome comments and suggestions right here in the blog. Thank you in advance.

Stay safe.

AVG and McAfee - Not Safe

Again, please give up on so-called "security" products from AVG and McAfee.

As reported here they are not safe!

Should you not know what to replace them with then give me a call at four.one.four-seven.one.nine-two.nine.seven.seven. I look forward to hearing from you.

Stay safe!

Norton "Security" Software - REALLY INSECURE

It is a shame that "the media" ignore these facts and thus allow millions of computer users to live with unsafe computers.

A few quotes from The Register's recent article: 

• Scores (or thousands, or millions) of enterprise and home Symantec users are open to remote compromise through multiple now-patched (where possible) wormable remote code execution holes described by Google as 'as bad as it gets'.
• They [the security flaws] don’t require any user interaction, they affect the default configuration...
• Victims would not even need to open the malicious files to be compromised.
• Some of those [affected] platforms cannot be upgraded. 

Towards the end of the article The Register seems to quote six actions users should take to secure their systems. Four of those six are impossible to even think of for normal home users; they require corporate installations and corporate management structures that just are non-existent in home installations.

The other two require a level of know-how and technical expertise that is equally non-existent in the average home user environment.

The only consequent reaction for home user is what I preach to my customers for years:

Ditch any and all Norton products.

If you have allowed that Norton automatically charges your credit card you have to revoke that permission. You can get their phone number(s) through this web page.

Normally uninstalling them from Programs and Features in the Control Panel is not enough. I recommend to additionally run the Norton Removal Tool downloaded from this page; click on either of the links "Download@MajorGeeks".

Stay safe.

Norton Software IS RISKY!

For years I recommend to my customers and on my radio shows to stay away from so called "security products" from the big names like Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro and many others.

The makers of the Norton branded software is a company called Symantec.

Here is revealing and interesting article about Symantec and some of the major security problems in some of their software.

If you want to entrust the security of your computer to Norton software be my guest. I don't mind at all to clean up the mess.

Stay safe!

Wrong, Every Step She Took Wrong

Original text of email I got from a long ago customer:

Recently our Microsoft Essentials "little house"  has been erratic in its stability.  We have done full scans and quick scans with it staying green for a short period of time changing to orange and then eventually to red.

I googled this question and received an answer that Microsoft is not updating this since last year - so the definitions are not really up to date.  Is this true?
It was suggested that I get AVG Anti Virus which is Free.  I did do this and it  appears to be doing the job with the green circles, etc. 

On that same page there is a area where I can check to "fix performance".  It is a PC Analyzer - After doing this, the report was: many errors in various areas and they said it could be fixed for fee/one time and/or I could get a program for 1 year.  I would not need one for one year but I would like take advantage of the free analyzing of this performance.  Do you think I should do this and is AVG a good solution if indeed Microsoft has stopped updating?

... [I] realize we will have to update to windows 10 when they force us to do so.  If we do not do this will they charge us?

 And here is the original text of my reply, please judge for yourself:

Thanks for asking. If you remember I do not express myself politically correct so please brace yourself for some rough truths:

• The "little house" you refer to represents Microsoft Security Essentials which was your anti virus program until you installed AVG.
• ANY anomaly with your anti virus should have rang a LOUD alarm bell.
• If it has not updated since last year your computer potentially was not protected against common viruses.
• AVG is a program that I urge my customers to stay away from!
• It installs really crappy programs, that is how AVG (the company) makes money nowadays.
• PC Analyzer IMHO is known malware.
• I bet you that almost ALL the errors that you get shown are false messages meant to scare you into installing even more useless programs.
• Keep going with these silly suggestions and soon your computer will likely not be usable any longer.
• No, DO NOT take "advantage" of the "free" solution that you mention, it will make it only worse.

I believe I still could fix the situation and hopefully repair your computer. I guarantee that the free solution will not work to your satisfaction. 

The question about "they" ( I assume you mean Microsoft?) charging you only Microsoft can answer and they, MS, has been asked the same thing thousands of times; so far MS has only replied with marketing blah-blah; we just do not know. My personal suspicion is yes, no later than January 2020 when in MS's view Windows 7 comes to the end of it's supported lifetime.

In case my replies offended you I apologize, that was and is not my intention at all.

For my readers here: No further comment from my side; please come to your own conclusion and PLEASE, don't make similar or the same mistakes.

Stay safe.
 

2016-01-28 WBKV Talking Points

Through 20 years of effort, we have successfully trained every computer user
to use passwords that are hard for humans to remember,
but easy for computers to guess.

10 most used passwords in 2015 (truly a list of shame!):

123456
password
12345678
qwerty
12345
123456789
football
1234
1234567
baseball

Please, in the interest of privacy and safety, use a password manager and let it create long passwords.

Wifatch virus actively protects its victims from other forms of malware;
It infects routers, not computers;

It is written in the Perl programming language
It targets so far only ARM (83%), MIPS (10%), and SH4 (7%) processors
It connects infected devices to a peer-to-peer network

Basically it only infects devices that are not protected at all in the first place!

A Symantec (Norton) partner company in India uncovered as major player in the all too common technical support scam. 

Security Suites from AVG and Avast install dangerous browser add-ons!

McAfee and Norton tell Windows 10 users that they better use Internet Explorer, a browser so bad that Microsoft gave up on it!

For years I advise against ALL of the well known “security suites”, free or paid versions, no difference.

Why Not Windows 10?

I have been asked one too many times why I oppose Windows 10. Here is some more fodder for thought.

Besides all eventual arguments for or against technical merit here are only three facts that everybody can check out in Microsoft's Terms of Use for Windows 10. Every single install of Windows 10 must agree to Microsoft's Terms And Conditions for use of Windows 10. This is (supposedly) a 12,000 word document. Everybody I know, me included, just clicks on Agree - and Microsoft knows that.


We usually allow Windows 10 to install with Express Settings (the default that most people choose!); in the Terms of Use we can find that we agree among others goodies to:

1. Windows 10 is logging all keystrokes
    
2. Windows 10 is always listening to the microphone
    
3. Microsoft will turn over all your data and info about you to authorities

Re. point #1: 

Programs that log our keystrokes on the functional level of the operating system (or even below that) have always been called Key Loggers and always have by all security systems been flagged as viruses and removed.

Just think of every keystroke being logged and stored at MS (Microsoft); what about your username(s) and password(s)? What about account details like credit card or bank or investment account numbers?

Re. point #2:

Many desktop computers and virtually all laptop computers have a microphone. Windows 10 will record and store on MS's servers every spoken word that reaches the microphone while the computer is running. Big Brother is always listening!

Windows 10 will (at least try to) make an automatic backup copy of every file you create on your computer and store that copy on MS's servers. What about confidentiality requirements? No lawyer, doctor, real estate agent, CPA or PI can ever use Windows 10; actually everybody who by law is required to respect and guarantee any degree of confidentiality should never use Windows 10. 

Re. point #3:

That sounds kind of "normal" and okay - on the surface at least.

BUT: MS does not say that they require a court order or warrant for that.
Any "authority" can request and will receive all your files and all information about you that MS has gathered.

With no court order at all!

Then there is yet another side to the whole thing that, for me at least, is even more scary; although I have to warn you, it will take 30 minutes away from your busy day to listen to this "video" - which actually is a recorded audio interview.

As usual I welcome comments and suggestions right here in the blog. Thank you in advance.

For whatever reason the darned TOC (Table Of Contents) feature that I got from Google does not work any longer, sorry. And I just don't have the time to hunt down another solution; if you know one please tell me in a comment. Thank you.

"Tests" of Security Software

Again it is a customer question that triggers new information on this blog; Thank you Frank C.

The customer asked what I think about the results of a test of Security Software in Consumer Reports' June 2014 issue.

I am not subscribed to Consumer Reports and the contents of their publication is not available online. Luckily the customer had attached a pdf file of the article. Without permission from CR I can not publish it here.

Needless to say that Microsoft Security Essentials/Windows Defender ended up on one of the last places in the rankings. That is very relevant to me because all my home customers use either one of these anti virus programs.

Here is my reply, almost verbatim from the email.

Thank you for the question. A few points in no special order as a reply.

Who actually ran these tests?
And who financed them?
Consumer Reports certainly does not have a proper test lab; that takes years to develop and a big lot of money to finance and run.

I have seen dozens and dozens of "tests" that were paid for by manufacturers of "security software".
And guess what, the result was always that their specific product ended up on top of the list.

Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Defender on Windows 8 are not "security" programs, they are classic anti virus programs. Anti virus programs protect against getting virus infected files on your computer. And in my limited experience of 12 years and ca. 6000 distinct home customers these two programs do an excellent job at that.

To compare the two MS programs 1:1 against security suites is ridiculously wrong and done to dupe the un-informed into wrong conclusions.

Security suites try to supervise every click and input in web pages.

An endeavor that brings additional computing burdens but is doomed to fail because most errors are or are a result of an EBKAC (Error Between Keyboard And Chair).
Please see an irreverent remark below.

Most security suites are a very noticeable additional work load even for well equipped computers.

Just today I had been called to "slow" computer. After removing the PuPs the machine was still sluggish. After removing an older version of Norton Internet Security (about 4 years old)  the computer suddenly worked just fine. It was a BIG perceivable difference; I have seen that many, many times. This effect is not specific to Norton, it applies to many brands of security suites; in my experience especially (but not limited) to AVG, Avast, Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro.

Many of these "tests" do not talk about the curse of free security suites, that is false positives. Erroneously marking a benign program as malicious leaves the non-geek home user clueless and helpless.

Avast especially has last year broken quite a few computers with insufficiently tested updates.

AFAIK only one of the programs in the CR test can even detect Poweliks, the worst and best hidden virus currently around.

AFAIK the only AV program that currently detects Poweliks is MS's Security Essentials/Defender! Although I use third party tools to remove it completely and terminally.

Re. EBKAC errors:IMHO no software in the world can protect irresponsible people from themselves.

We need to pay attention to the details and we need to heed #6 of my 10 commandments for safe computing.

Frank, please do not take the last paragraph personally; it only reflects general observations that I make all too often.

Please let me know in the comments what you think; thank you in advance

As usual I welcome suggestions and comments right here in the blog.

Click here for a categorized Table Of Contents.