Security Updates

[dazdaz1]

Since buying my new laptop (Windows 7) near every day I'm receiving updates, such as security updates and updates for Windows defender.

I'm running Avast and Spy Bot. Is it beneficial to constantly download these updates from MS?

D1

[BOAC]

Wait until Tuesday:confused:

[Tarq57]

Some users have had problems with Spybot installed on a machine running Avast.
I suggest you remove any S&D resident protection (Teatimer etc).

You may prefer to remove Spybot completely, and use the better performing MBAM instead. (If you do this, undo the immunity-if set- first. SpywareBlaster, by Javacool offers an excellent freeware alternative.)

Regarding updates, Avast typically updates the database once to three times daily, I can't speak for WD, and MS issue updates on the second Tuesday of every month. Occasionally (seems to be more frequently, recently) MS will issue an out-of-band update for a vulnerability, as happened last week.

It is a good idea to, as a minimum, have the security centre notify the user when updates are available. If you're a "hands-on" sort of user, you'll notice the yellow shield and manually download/install them when it suits.

If you don't want to be bothered with monitoring that level of detail (which is most users, I guess) set them to be automatically downloaded and installed.

Updates are considered important. They are usually patches for exploits/vulnerabilities. New vulnerabilities are constantly being found, if not patched, it increases the chance of malware installing. Every time MS software is installed, new updates for same are likely to be found, as most of the software is not downloaded/installed in an already-updated state.

There is not much point in using an AV unless the definitions are kept up to date. After a few days or weeks, it simply becomes the software equivalent of a paperweight. It will offer some protection, as Avast has fairly good heuristics, and new variants of old trojans might have some files detected and blocked, but the longer it's left without updates, the more holes it gets in it.

[BOAC]

I think the default Avast update is 4 hourly - see 'settings'. Mine is et for 8 hourl so I get morning and afternoon/evening.

Tarq - I don't think MBAM has the same registry protection as TeaTimer, does it? I use it just for that.

[Tarq57]

BOAC, no, there is no active protection in the free version of MBAM.

I guess if a user has no problems with Teatimer running with Avast, that's good, for as long as it lasts, but I have read of such problems.

I set Avast to check for updates hourly. The most I've seen in about a 12 hour period was 4. Normally one or two.

[mixture]

Is it beneficial to constantly download these updates from MS?


Is it beneficial to have your car / aircraft serviced on a regular basis ?

Is it beneficial to visit the dentist / doctor once in a while for a checkup ?

Don't tell me it's not the same thing, because it is.

Do you think Microsoft spend millions of dollars on employing people, plus associated infrastructure just to issue these regular updates for fun ?

Honestly ! I can't belive you even asked the question ! :ugh:

Please don't let your computer become yet another botnet member ! If your computer is connected to the internet, you have an unwritten obligation (well, actually, it's probably in your ISP's contract) to do your bit to protect the rest of the internet by taking reasonable precautions. Failing to patch up your computer on a regular and timely basis is just asking for trouble.

[Saab Dastard]

Is it beneficial to constantly download these updates from MS

Yes.

You can, however, regulate the frequency that you download and install updates and patches.

At home, I update Sophos AV daily, MS patches monthly, but have been known to apply screamingly important security patches sooner. Other apps tend to be monthly, or as required (or as the mood seizes me).

I do get bugged by having lots of apps nagging at me to upgrade, download, install. But you can manage it, either by adjusting the auto-frequency or disabling it and going to manual.

Bottom line is they have to be installed, but you have a choice to have them drip fed or do one big time-consuming hit.

SD

[Keef]

I'm the dissenting voice!

Long ago, an MS update hosed my machine. Since then, I look at MS updates before I install them. If it's updating something I don't have (such as Office 2007), then I tell it no. If it's the MS monthly "spy on your computer" update, also called WGA, then I tell it no. Otherwise, mostly yes.

Avast updates at whatever frequency Avast set as default, but it's several times a day. It does catch a lot of nasties in incoming e-mails, too. With that, and WOT on Firefox, I'm constantly reminded what a dangerous place the Internet is.

Spamcop these days takes 95% or more of all my incoming e-mail and correctly puts it into the spambox. If there were a way to stop spammers using the Internet for their own silly purposes I'm sure the service would improve for the rest of us.

[dazdaz1]

Mixture: What I'm trying to get across (original post, may have been slightly ambiguous) is it necessary to update Windows Defender updates, as I'm using Avast for virus detection? Thanks for replies.

D1

[BOAC]

Keef - a couple of points there:

As far as I know,Windows should not offer an update for a non-existent programme!

Avast update frequency is set, as I said, in 'Settings'.-4 hrs, 20 hrs,.2 weeks - whatever you want.

[cats_five]

<snip>Since then, I look at MS updates before I install them. If it's updating something I don't have (such as Office 2007), then I tell it no.
<snip>

Something strange is going on with your machine - the Update never offers me updates for software I don't have installed. :confused:

[Saab Dastard]

Keef,

If you have an Office 2007 viewer installed, then updates will be offered for that, titled "Office 2007 update", or some such.

I suspect this is your scenario.

SD

[Keef]

That could be! I installed Office 2007, used it for a couple of days, and removed it. I went back to Office XP (2003) which I find far preferable because the toolbars aren't crowded with stuff that I'll never use.

I do indeed have the "plugin" that allows Office 2003 to read .docx and .xlsx files, so maybe that's what it's trying to update. I assumed it was looking for the Office 2007 that I zapped. Same difference :)


No idea about Avast. I just installed it, said "Yes" to everything, and let it get on with it. It works! I'm impressed, in fact - it caught another wriggly nasty today, trying to sneak in under the radar and pretending to be from my Bank.

[Tarq57]

dazdaz,
Windows Defender and Avast are likely to have some overlap in detection; that is, their databases will each share certain items.

I've heard of Defender (very occasionally) catching stuff that Avast missed. It's not considered a top notch antispyware by most, but has its moments, apparently. I wouldn't know; I haven't run it since it's much earlier incarnation as Giant AS, prior to purchase by Ms).

But if you choose to keep it, and have it run at start up, there is no reason not to keep it updated.

If you keep it running, but don't bother updating it, it's just an anchor. Useless except for contributing a little to drag.

[green granite]

I have Windows Defender and Avast running on my beast no problems at all.

[BOAC]

gg - I've looked at the M$ 'anti-nasty' suite and wondered, but not used apart from MSRT - what do you reckon the combination gives you?

[BEagle]

Since getting my current Dell Vostro 3300 in early April 2010, Uncle Bill has sent me no less than 122 second Tuesday of the month Bill-bombs....14 of which came tonight :uhoh:

Some were due to Dell keeping software sitting around on the shelf for weeks, if not months. I haven't bothered with my 'upgradeable' Win7 as I'm quite happy with WinXP SP3. I hate Office 2007 with a vengeance, but am stuck with the damn thing. Internet Explorer 8 works fine though. The computer came with Trend Micro Internet Security, which seems a lot better than Norton AntiVirus 2010 was in my old PC.

I managed to kill off the stupid Windows Live Mail / Messenger / Hippy Village crap and still use good old Outlook Express as my e-mail system. But to get the English spell-checker working, I had to download 3rd party software from Australia - Uncle Bill's geeks have porked up the Office 2007 spell checker with OE...:\

And I so wish I could have the simple, straightforward Microsoft Photo Editor back instead of the pointless Microsoft Office Picture Manager and Windows Live Photo Gallery or whatever the POS is called..... Is it legally possible to download Photo Editor from a reliable site?

[IO540]

Updates are worth downloading, because most of them plug bugs and virus back doors in Micro$oft software.

But if you have a machine used for something critical (e.g. Accounts, flight planning while travelling, etc) then you should update it fully and then disable all updates on it, because updates have been known to break things. For example WinXP SP3 trashed the hard drives of thousands of PCs around the world - including a pricey Thinkpad laptop of mine. But then you have to enforce a strict internet usage policy on that machine (no kids, no general browsing of dodgy websites, no M$ email or browser software).

I run XP SP3 normally and use Kaspersky antivirus - the only AV software which has never given me trouble, across a fair range of machines.

You must disable all updates (which is actually quite tricky, given how many apps do this) if you use mobile internet, especially outside the UK ;)