OnePlus 5 review
Using Comodo Firewall I noticed the following under "Connections"
Protocol: TCP In/Out
Traffic: 689kb(and it was increasing..)
Details: Security Risk:Unknown
Path C:\Program Files\Symanted\LiveUpdate\LuComServer_3_0.EXE
Description: Liveupdate Engine COM Module
The think is I dont have Norton installed! I got a 3 month version of its Internet Security with the laptop but have since uninstalled it! or have I??!!
Part 2 of my question is general, re Comodo
It keeps giving me warnings about everything trying to connect to the internet, Firefox in particular. Now i presume i should "allow" and get it to remember, but the thin is sometimes it says they may be attemptin a hijack! this is scary, as I really dont know what is safe and what is not! What is one supposed to do? beginning to wonder if I'd be better off without a firewall....
you need the norton removal tool to get rid of it for good,
Unfortunately Norton has roots all over your computer which are almost impossible to move unless you use the removal tool,My advice would be to use the tool and never download Norton again,
Thanks, got the tool and presumably i now have nothing of Norton left....apart from the removal tool!
You should try removing Live Update from Add/Remove programs first. It may tell you that another Symantec program requires it still but if you haven`t anything else installed from Symantec you can ignore the message.
Start,Search,Type in Norton,If the tool appears Delete it,Then run C Cleaner,That should get rid of it,Try the search again,It should be clear,You can type in Symantec just to make sure that there are no Norton or Symantec parts left,Norton is easy to download,But hard to get rid off,I think that is why so many folk dislike it.
“It keeps giving me warnings about everything trying to connect to the internet, Firefox in particular. Now i presume i should "allow" and get it to remember, but the thin is sometimes it says they may be attemptin a hijack! this is scary, as I really dont know what is safe and what is not! What is one supposed to do? beginning to wonder if I'd be better off without a firewall....”
I suppose that depends on what you are expecting your firewall to do. If one just wants a software layer pretty much attempting to duplicate the functions of a decent router then I can totally see where Creature of the Nite is coming from with “prefer zone alarm personally, [i]as it is less destressing for people to use[/i]”. In fact, although it is a little reckless for my own taste, I can see why many believe running a software firewall in addition to router is unnecessary.
The thing is, modern software firewalls are attempting to tackle tasks beyond what they once did. The thing that made Zone Alarm free so great in the days of way back when was that aside from hardening against intrusions from the front, it also had the properties of being able to regulate applications out from behind. Many people use it specifically for that function alone.
The thing is, we've all past much water since then. Supposing that ticking a box to allow program “X” to allow access to the net will be exclusive to that program now appears crude and lumpen. Features such as OLE and hooking etc. allow applications to press other applications into service and are readily exploitable. To think that allowing program “X” to allow net access will necessarily allow that program and only that program is simplistic.
Essentially, in order to remain competitive, modern firewalls aim to deliver a level of protection one would customarily have had to achieve by layering several applications. To illustrate, look at the meager results some firewalls achieve here - click here . In contrast, ones that do better usually feature aspects we would expect from other programs such as ProcessGuard click here , System Safety Monitor click here , SpyCatcher Express click here , Spyware Terminatorclick here , that often use all sorts of things like r00tkit techniques / HIPS to detect for changes is states and /or one program subordinating another. Unsurprisingly, firewalls tested as a stand alone application that feature these components will tend to fair better at defeating leak tests. [Here are some expamples - click here ].
The moral to the story I suppose is either get a firewall that implements as many of these features as possible well, or adopt a good layering system to augment a lesser one. The thing is, none of these routes will overcome “giving me warnings about [i]everything[/i] trying to connect to the internet” or “i presume i should "allow" and get it to remember, but the thin is sometimes it says they may be attemptin a hijack! [i]this is scary[/i]”. None of these things can tell you the answer to that. The real power of them comes from affording the user the opportunity to intervene. For that to at all be effective obviously the user must [i]know[/i] the answer. That's not mean to be patronizing, just an observation that there really are only two routes out of the “scariness”, learn Comodo or switch to a lesser one. Given the shortsightedness of only relocating the scariness, 'cos it gonna come up again in the layering system, as you'll need to shore up a lesser one, the later doesn't sound too inviting.
if you have a security suite such as nis, or any other, you usually have av, smart firewall, anti spyware, protection against online transactions, a root kit detector and email filter, all in one program, this is why i choose it, its simple!
if you want to remove it you use the removal tool from symantec, macafee etc, its really pretty basic stuff, but you must use the removal tool as there is simply a lot of programs in one.
This machine is running the Zone Alarm pro suit, and yes, the operator must still make decisions.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.