How-To Geek

I just spent over a week getting the settings for these things all straight. Mostly because I switched from McAfee and ZA, and the GUI's for Comodo and AntiVir are substantially different.

The learning curve was steep, but I think now I have them the way I want them . . . essentially the way I had McAfee and ZA configured.

The reason I'm making this post is to broadcast an offer of help to anyone who wants to shorten their learning curve and benefit from my own questions and recent experience.

Don't misunderstand . . . there are still things I haven't learned, and there are many on here that are much more experienced with these things than I am . . . so I'm not saying that I can answer all questions.

Nevertheless, while the steep learning curve this first week is still fresh in my mind, I may be able to give some tips in initially configuring these things.

For example, the "Computer Security Policy" in Comodo is not that intuitive, and it took me about a week to figure it out.

And testing AntiVir's email filtering with the eicar standard, especially if it's a compressed file, is not necessarily as straightforward as you would think.

So, if you're new to these things, you may be able to benefit from all the iterations I went through that first week.

Bob, with all of that knowledge fresh in your mind, you should write a wiki article. You could get some great screen shots with that nifty SnagIt program and put some text with it. Then, it would be around to help people even after the freshness of the knowledge has faded.

EDIT: you may know that MysticGeek has already covered some aspects of AntiVir in a blog posting:
http://blogs.howtogeek.com/mys.....l-edition/

Hey OzSpitt (curious screen name . . . where'd that come from?),

I'm assuming the Mods here deleted your hack link because posted hacks can be a potential source of legal hot water for the site owner . . . I've seen many forums where hack links are immediately deleted for that very reason (for example, one site has a "rule" that says in part: "Users cannot post hacks . . ." . . . that's on the Tech Support Guy forum: http://www.techguy.org/rules.html ).

In any case, a "legitimate" way to get rid of that Avira nag screen can be found in the comments to that link that ScottW gave . . . the MysticGeek blog: http://blogs.howtogeek.com/mys.....l-edition/ . Admittedly, I'm not sure of the distinction between a registry hack and a simple routine solution, but since the blog comment was not edited out, I assume there is. If that's considered a hack, then I guess my post here will be . . . censored, and that solution in the blog may be edited likewise.

Don't want to expose the Geek to any legal stuff from a pissed off Avira, so if this is inappropriate, then by all means Mods . . . delete this. And I guess then some of those comments on that blog are inappropriate too . . . the line between a hack and a simple solution may be thin.

I don't disagree that lifehacker is a credible site (TIME magazine named Lifehacker one of their "Sites We Can't Live Without" in 2006, and one of their 50 Coolest Web Sites in 2005 and PC Magazine named Lifehacker in "Our Favourite 100 Blogs" in October 2007 . . . and more). Nevertheless, posting a link to a hack, no matter how credible the site it's listed on is, can get this site owner in hot water.

But, as I said in my previous post, I don't know where to draw the line between a hack that can get a forum owner in trouble, and a solution like those listed in the MysticGeek blog.

Plus, I don't know the actual reason for the Mods deleting your link. I'm just guessing here. I could be WAY off the mark.

Finally, we're getting WAY off topic here. Maybe we should start a new topic on this 'cause I'd really like to see a definitive answer to this issue . . . for this forum, that is. Title would be something like "Links to hacks". Maybe I'll do that.

OK . . . looks like I was maybe wrong about my guess. Indeed, according to the info in my "Links to Hacks" thread, it's only "cracks" and not "hacks" that are a no-no here (and "cracks", as I understand the term, mostly applies to "code cracking" that is designed to circumvent password protection or authentication algorithms . . . such as pirated unlicensed Windows OS's).

So, apologies OzSpitt, if they are needed. Will be intersting to see this mystery answered. Clearly I was, as I thought maybe, WAY off the mark.