VUZE and AV settings

[Veep Peep 13]

Hello,

 

Is the Vuze VPN plugin of any help for security during use?

 

I assume all my traffic is already going through my AV client.

 

Thanks,

 

Mr. V

[OmniNegro 155]

While I understand that most malware seeks out Internet connectivity, I still fail to see why your AV software should have anything to do with networking. Any good application level firewall will prevent any programs you do not want to access the Internet from being able to.

 

Trusting a single application to do more than a few things is usually a bad idea. I use a firewall that does absolutely nothing but what a firewall should do. And my AV is the same. Here are links to the programs I use.

http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall.html

http://www.clamwin.com/

 

Both of those are totally free and have no "premium" version for any amount of money. They work great and have for many years.

 

Clamwin is basically the Windows compile of ClamAV for Linux. ClamAV is one of the best AV programs ever made just because it has been around forever and does not want your money. In particular they are better than most AV because they absolutely do not add a plethora of false positives to the AV list to make the world look unsafe to you. Occasionally I play old games that had annoying CD checks for copy protection. So I replace the executable with one lacking the check. Every single AV suite but Clamwin detects these as malware because they get money from the copy protection industry.

 

But I have not forgotten to answer your question. In a way I already have. You are asking about security plugins for a torrent client. This is something you can use, but you are universally going to be better served with individual programs than with one big bloated program to handle more things. In particular, the Eddie client of AirVPN is excellent. I have no idea what the "VPN plugin" for Vuze does, but I doubt very much it can improve upon Eddie.

 

Sorry for the long winded rant. I wish you the best with your choice of software.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

I find your view of AV software disturbing. I think I already wrote this somewhere around here, yet you continue advertising your own agenda to the detriment of all those who need it because their brain.exe, also referred to as "common sense", is not good enough (yet).

 

Trusting a single application to do more than a few things is usually a bad idea.

 

A software package with modules written to work together is still the better choice. Any AV software coupled with other security-related software can influence each other in terms of performance and security.

 

ClamAV is one of the best AV programs ever made just because it has been around forever and does not want your money. In particular they are better than most AV because they absolutely do not add a plethora of false positives to the AV list to make the world look unsafe to you.

 

Right! Because they don't even add a plethora of right positives to the AV list. In 2015 ClamAV performed so bad on Linux it got on the last rank by AV-Test.org. Low detection rates, high false positive rates. What does this tell you about ClamWin? I hope either your brain.exe is trained enough or you configured your OS well.

 

Occasionally I play old games that had annoying CD checks for copy protection. So I replace the executable with one lacking the check. Every single AV suite but Clamwin detects these as malware because they get money from the copy protection industry.

 

No, because they detect abnormal patterns. Also, while it can ease your life, it's generally still an illegal act because modifying software is forbidden in almost every closed-source EULA. Do not forget this.

If you have a directory of file hashes for certain software under your ass and you see that an exe file differs from the one in the database, would you not say it could be maliciously edited? I as a copyright troll would indeed consider the idea of giving an AV software company money but quickly forget it because it'd mean to pay every (or most, at least) AV company for this service, resulting in a smaller revenue. I'd work against my own interest.

 

I assume all my traffic is already going through my AV client.

 

Yes.

[Staff 9972]

 

Occasionally I play old games that had annoying CD checks for copy protection. So I replace the executable with one lacking the check. Every single AV suite but Clamwin detects these as malware because they get money from the copy protection industry.

 

No, because they detect abnormal patterns. Also, while it can ease your life, it's generally still an illegal act because modifying software is forbidden in almost every closed-source EULA. Do not forget this.

 

If there was an EULA article forbidding the action described by OmniNegro, the article would be void in the EU.

Article 6 of Directive 2009/24/EC covers this act to underline that it remains perfectly legal and that it can't be forbidden by any Member State when the specified conditions are met (the case with OmniNegro is exactly the case defined by the article).

 

The fact that we need an article in an EU Directive to specify that such an action can't be forbidden unilaterally by a private business entity is perhaps a consequence of the attempts of the so called "copyright industry" to interfere with the private, inviolable sphere of a citizen. 

 

Actually, the right to force a code to inter-operate properly with your own machinery/software combination can also be seen as a special case of issues of great importance in every day life, including (but not limited to, of course) health care and public safety issues.

 

Kind regards

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

Article 6 of Directive 2009/24/EC covers this act to underline that it remains perfectly legal and that it can't be forbidden by any Member State when the specified conditions are met (the case with OmniNegro is exactly the case defined by the article).

 

Thanks for your input, I found this also in german legislation. Though it's paradox since circumventing copy protection is forbidden by §95 UrhG, and §69 UrhG allows this for interoperability. The latter also seems to be a direct copy of the EU text.

[Staff 9972]

 

Article 6 of Directive 2009/24/EC covers this act to underline that it remains perfectly legal and that it can't be forbidden by any Member State when the specified conditions are met (the case with OmniNegro is exactly the case defined by the article).

 

Thanks for your input, I found this also in german legislation. Though it's paradox since circumventing copy protection is forbidden by §95 UrhG, and §69 UrhG allows this for interoperability. The latter also seems to be a direct copy of the EU text.

 

Probably it's the transposition (implementation of the Directive in national laws). A word-by-word transposition is generally very good. Commissioners and Directors of the DGs have often underlined the issue of imprecise transpositions (which can happen even NOT in good faith). Changing even a few words in the transposition can cause significant differences for national courts and law interpretation (we know something about it very well in Italy, sadly).

 

Copy protection circumvention prohibition is inapplicable in so many cases, for example when it prevents the effective exercise of some constitutional right of a citizen as well as human rights, of course. The case of interoperability of software is probably a gray area, because right to interoperability, in several cases, could be very hard to be proved as a part of a constitutional right of any kind, and that could have been the reason for which an explicit authorization by law was felt as necessary.

 

Kind regards