Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SP2 just released and Antivirus Programs

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:41:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

One of the Micorosft customer service reps told me that I didn't need my
Symantec anti-virus software anymore because this new SP2 that was just
released (in Feb 2005) covered that just as well. Is this true or should I
continue to purchase a separate antiviurs software?
February 17, 2005 11:15:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

There's no chance that my firm would ever trust our security to Microsoft.
For a individual end-user, their firewall and antivirus solution *may* be
good enough, but I wouldn't risk it. I would at least keep paying for NAV
for the next year or two. After that, everyone should have a good read on
how reliable the MS firewall and antivirus solutions are.

For my firm we use the following products:
Antivirus - Symantec Antivirus Corp edition
Spyware - PestPatrol Corp. edition (still demo'ing it)
Firewall - Black Ice corp edition (Network Ice).

If MS stays true to form, I'm suspect that when you compare their antivirus
product to other Professional AntiVirus products, it will be like comparing
'Notepad' to 'MS Word' or 'WinXP's built in .ZIP support' to 'WinZip or
PowerArchiver', 'WinXp Fireall' to 'BlackIce, ZoneAlarm, etc', "Internet
Explorer" to "Fire Fox", or "MS Instant Messanger" to "Trillian". Basically,
the feature will be there but you'll quickly find out that it doesn't fit all
your needs and ends up being just more bloat to the OS (when looking at it
from a Corp perspective primarily).

All that being said, I do give respect to MS for trying to come up with a
Firewall and Antivirus solution for the end user... certainly if they keep it
free for them. Many users and corps may not have the money to spend on
seperate firewall/antivirus products, so it's nice to see that those unable
to unwilling to spend the money on professional products still have an avenue
for production. Something is always better than nothing. The more they can
do to help keep their products from so easily being taken over by malware,
the better their corp. image will be as well. I just hope it's easily
uninstalled/disabled for us corps that don't want the added bloat.


"MayhemMom" wrote:

> One of the Micorosft customer service reps told me that I didn't need my
> Symantec anti-virus software anymore because this new SP2 that was just
> released (in Feb 2005) covered that just as well. Is this true or should I
> continue to purchase a separate antiviurs software?
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:43:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

"CB" wrote:

> There's no chance that my firm would ever trust our security to Microsoft.
> For a individual end-user, their firewall and antivirus solution *may* be
> good enough, but I wouldn't risk it. I would at least keep paying for NAV
> for the next year or two. After that, everyone should have a good read on
> how reliable the MS firewall and antivirus solutions are.

I don't think anyone on the planet knows more about security issues with
Windows XP than Microsoft. At least from my perspective as an individual
user, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt before just about
anyone else -- especially third party vendors who make a living by convincing
people that their systems are dangerous and unsafe unless they add the
additional bells and whistles that they are selling. There is an additional
second reason, which I mention below, why I am so willing to give Microsoft
more benefit of the doubt than other vendors.

[...]

> If MS stays true to form, I'm suspect that when you compare their antivirus
> product to other Professional AntiVirus products, it will be like comparing
> 'Notepad' to 'MS Word' or 'WinXP's built in .ZIP support' to 'WinZip or
> PowerArchiver', 'WinXp Fireall' to 'BlackIce, ZoneAlarm, etc', "Internet
> Explorer" to "Fire Fox", or "MS Instant Messanger" to "Trillian". Basically,
> the feature will be there but you'll quickly find out that it doesn't fit all
> your needs and ends up being just more bloat to the OS (when looking at it
> from a Corp perspective primarily).

What will probably happen is that their stuff will be more basic, and "good
enough" to secure systems operating Windows, but without the additional bells
and whistles that third party vendors provide. Whether that is a good thing
or a bad thing is a subject that is open to debate -- as may be obvious by
now, I happen to come down on the side that "good enough" security is (by
definition) good enough and you therefore don't need the additional bells and
whistles at the cost of a hit on system performance or stability.

[...]

> The more [Microsoft] can do to help keep their products from so easily being
> taken over by malware, the better their corp. image will be as well. I just hope
> it's easily uninstalled/disabled for us corps that don't want the added bloat.

This is the other major reason I referred to above. When it comes to the
actual or perceived security of Windows systems, no one has a bigger dog in
the fight than Microsoft. Unlike other security software vendors, however,
Microsoft has additional dogs in the fight besides security, such as the
overall performance and stability of its operating system. That's why I
think that Microsoft will ultimately do the best job of striking the right
balance between performance, stability, and security. There is no such
thing as a system that is too well-performing or too stable, but there is
such a thing as a computer that is so burdened with redundant and unnecessary
security protection that performance and even stability begin to suffer.
Again, when it comes to security, good enough is good enough.

Ken
Related resources
February 17, 2005 1:27:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Exactly, for simple end users that don't know (or care) any better, the the
MS solution would probably work for them. With you being a single user with
a single computer (hopefully behind a hardware firewall/router), you can
think that MS offers sufficient security and you may be right. With me in an
NetAdmin of a large firm, I know that isn't the case. It's all about scope.

MS has made great strides in trying to make their products more secure.
However, they do still have a ways to go, it simply takes time. That is why
I said that I would wait at least a year or two. For example, (correct me if
I'm wrong MS), but MS's first shot at creating a firewall solution was a
joke. It's configurabilty was a joke and I believe (again, correct me if I'm
wrong) it didn't even start protecting your machine until after the user
logged in. So, if you are sitting there at a logon prompt (IE, you machine
rebooted during the night), it's unprotected until the user logs back in. in
XP SP2, MS re-did the firewall. It certainly much better. However, it's
still only protects you one way. It can protect people from 'hacking' into
your machine from the outside world, however.. it does not alert you if a
program is already on your machine and is going out to the internet with your
knowledge. (IE: a piece of malware that is reporting back to server about
your personal data on your PC). Other professional products will alert you
about this.

You're arguement about bells and whistles is actually ironic. I've always
thought of MS as a company that cared more about making something 'pretty' as
opposed to making it work. Looks at Windows XP... They spend a lot of money
making it dumbed down and pretty. (fading menus, mouse shadows, beeps and
sounds everywhere, 'clippy' the paperclip', etc). Security has actually
been after thought of sorts (because it wasn't a huge deal in the past. It's
was more of a culture thing than a MS thing in my opinion). That's one of
the reasons why you see so many security updates time and again for Windows
itself. There's a ton of unsecure code in windows (which MS is doing their
best to patch), but since MS products of so heavily intergrated, you can
actually find a bug in 'Microsoft Instand Messanger' and use it to cause
havok on the OS itself
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05...). It's
just the nature of the best. One benefit of 'professional products' is they
don't always rely on MS's potentionally buggy code base.

MS knows a lot. I would never take that away from them. However, I would
never be as careless as to say "I don't think anyone on the planet knows more
about security issues with Windows XP than Microsoft". I would think those
companies directly involved with viruses know more abotu viruses than MS,
same is true about companies that are involves with firewalls day in and day
out.

Again, back to my original point.. MS's Antivirus and Firewall products
will probably be just fine for the common end user. But from a corp
prospective, there's no way we'd risk our network until after at least a year
or two.... until the reports came back on how good it is. In the mean time,
I strongly recommand a good firewall for it can help you gaurd against MS's
bugs. I also recommand a good virus scanner because it can help you guard
against yourself (running viruses without thinking).

"Ken Gardner" wrote:

> "CB" wrote:
>
> > There's no chance that my firm would ever trust our security to Microsoft.
> > For a individual end-user, their firewall and antivirus solution *may* be
> > good enough, but I wouldn't risk it. I would at least keep paying for NAV
> > for the next year or two. After that, everyone should have a good read on
> > how reliable the MS firewall and antivirus solutions are.
>
> I don't think anyone on the planet knows more about security issues with
> Windows XP than Microsoft. At least from my perspective as an individual
> user, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt before just about
> anyone else -- especially third party vendors who make a living by convincing
> people that their systems are dangerous and unsafe unless they add the
> additional bells and whistles that they are selling. There is an additional
> second reason, which I mention below, why I am so willing to give Microsoft
> more benefit of the doubt than other vendors.
>
> [...]
>
> > If MS stays true to form, I'm suspect that when you compare their antivirus
> > product to other Professional AntiVirus products, it will be like comparing
> > 'Notepad' to 'MS Word' or 'WinXP's built in .ZIP support' to 'WinZip or
> > PowerArchiver', 'WinXp Fireall' to 'BlackIce, ZoneAlarm, etc', "Internet
> > Explorer" to "Fire Fox", or "MS Instant Messanger" to "Trillian". Basically,
> > the feature will be there but you'll quickly find out that it doesn't fit all
> > your needs and ends up being just more bloat to the OS (when looking at it
> > from a Corp perspective primarily).
>
> What will probably happen is that their stuff will be more basic, and "good
> enough" to secure systems operating Windows, but without the additional bells
> and whistles that third party vendors provide. Whether that is a good thing
> or a bad thing is a subject that is open to debate -- as may be obvious by
> now, I happen to come down on the side that "good enough" security is (by
> definition) good enough and you therefore don't need the additional bells and
> whistles at the cost of a hit on system performance or stability.
>
> [...]
>
> > The more [Microsoft] can do to help keep their products from so easily being
> > taken over by malware, the better their corp. image will be as well. I just hope
> > it's easily uninstalled/disabled for us corps that don't want the added bloat.
>
> This is the other major reason I referred to above. When it comes to the
> actual or perceived security of Windows systems, no one has a bigger dog in
> the fight than Microsoft. Unlike other security software vendors, however,
> Microsoft has additional dogs in the fight besides security, such as the
> overall performance and stability of its operating system. That's why I
> think that Microsoft will ultimately do the best job of striking the right
> balance between performance, stability, and security. There is no such
> thing as a system that is too well-performing or too stable, but there is
> such a thing as a computer that is so burdened with redundant and unnecessary
> security protection that performance and even stability begin to suffer.
> Again, when it comes to security, good enough is good enough.
>
> Ken
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:44:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

He's *COMPLETELY* wrong !

While there may be those who don't like Symantec AV software, you NEED to have AV software
on your WinXP PC no matter what Service Pack is installed.

--
Dave




"MayhemMom" <MayhemMom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E705BC7-F3D3-4480-8B0C-70BC26371220@microsoft.com...
| One of the Micorosft customer service reps told me that I didn't need my
| Symantec anti-virus software anymore because this new SP2 that was just
| released (in Feb 2005) covered that just as well. Is this true or should I
| continue to purchase a separate antiviurs software?
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

"CB" wrote:

> Exactly, for simple end users that don't know (or care) any better, the the
> MS solution would probably work for them. With you being a single user with
> a single computer (hopefully behind a hardware firewall/router), you can
> think that MS offers sufficient security and you may be right. With me in an
> NetAdmin of a large firm, I know that isn't the case. It's all about scope.

Of course, as a NetAdmin, you need to worry about lots of people who are
complete novices (or dumbasses, like my younger brother) when it comes to
security. Thus, I fully understand where you are coming from.

> MS has made great strides in trying to make their products more secure.
> However, they do still have a ways to go, it simply takes time. That is why
> I said that I would wait at least a year or two. For example, (correct me if
> I'm wrong MS), but MS's first shot at creating a firewall solution was a
> joke. It's configurabilty was a joke and I believe (again, correct me if I'm
> wrong) it didn't even start protecting your machine until after the user
> logged in. So, if you are sitting there at a logon prompt (IE, you machine
> rebooted during the night), it's unprotected until the user logs back in. in
> XP SP2, MS re-did the firewall. It certainly much better. However, it's
> still only protects you one way. It can protect people from 'hacking' into
> your machine from the outside world, however.. it does not alert you if a
> program is already on your machine and is going out to the internet with your
> knowledge. (IE: a piece of malware that is reporting back to server about
> your personal data on your PC). Other professional products will alert you
> about this.

I don't know whether the old ICF started up prior to the login point (in
fairness, I think it did, but I can't remember), but I do remember that it
was not turned on by default. And neither the old ICF nor the new and
improved Windows Firewall block outbound communications. If you want the
additional feature of blocking outbound communications with your firewall,
you will need a third party firewall -- and I have no problem recommending
one for anyone who is a security novice. That's not me. My strategy, which
has worked 100% for years, is to be proactive, i.e. to use other software
(antivirus and antispyware) to block the crudware from getting on my machine
in the first place, and to stay fully informed and up to date on what I user
need to do to prevent security breaches, e.g. configuring IE and Outlook to
stop malware from installing on my machine without my knowledge or consent.


> You're arguement about bells and whistles is actually ironic. I've always
> thought of MS as a company that cared more about making something 'pretty' as
> opposed to making it work. Looks at Windows XP... They spend a lot of money
> making it dumbed down and pretty. (fading menus, mouse
> shadows, beeps and sounds everywhere, 'clippy' the paperclip', etc).

True enough. :)  I always turn that stuff off whenever I can.

> Security has actually been after thought of sorts (because it wasn't a huge deal in the
> past. It's was more of a culture thing than a MS thing in my opinion). That's one of
> the reasons why you see so many security updates time and again for Windows
> itself. There's a ton of unsecure code in windows (which MS is doing their
> best to patch), but since MS products of so heavily intergrated, you can
> actually find a bug in 'Microsoft Instand Messanger' and use it to cause
> havok on the OS itself (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05...
> 009.mspx). It's just the nature of the best. One benefit of 'professional products' is
> they don't always rely on MS's potentionally buggy code base.

All this is true, but it is fair to say that at least since SP1, security is
now on everyone's radar screen, especially Microsoft's. And it is more so
with each passing week and month, it seems.

> MS knows a lot. I would never take that away from them. However, I would
> never be as careless as to say "I don't think anyone on the planet knows more
> about security issues with Windows XP than Microsoft". I would think those
> companies directly involved with viruses know more abotu viruses than MS,
> same is true about companies that are involves with firewalls day in and day
> out.

I'm still not sure that my statement is incorrect, although obviously it is
merely an opinion rather than a statement of known fact. Of course companies
that specialize in particular areas, such as viruses, are going to know more
about their specialized field than Microsoft. But Microsoft is going to know
much more about how these virus products (to continue with your example)
interact with the OS, for better or worse. More generally, Microsoft is
going to know more about how to strike the most reasonable balance between
performance requirements, stability requirements, and security requirements.
There is much more to computing than security, which is why I say again that
the goal of security should be to be secure enough. Every computer need not
be the equivalent of Fort Knox, just good enough to stop malware peddlers
from ruining computing for the rest of us. Security is like food: you need a
certain amount, but if you eat too much you get fat, start slowing down, and
start experiencing health problems.

> Again, back to my original point.. MS's Antivirus and Firewall products
> will probably be just fine for the common end user.

And in all fairness, that's me, although I consider myself more
knowledgeable than most such users.

>But from a corp prospective, there's no way we'd risk our network until after at least a
>year or two.... until the reports came back on how good it is. In the mean time,
> I strongly recommand a good firewall for it can help you gaurd against MS's
> bugs. I also recommand a good virus scanner because it can help you guard
> against yourself (running viruses without thinking).

I can't really disagree here, except that for a person like me Windows
Firewall is plenty good enough and I have used it without a hitch since SP2
came out in public beta.

Ken
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:45:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

"MayhemMom" <MayhemMom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E705BC7-F3D3-4480-8B0C-70BC26371220@microsoft.com...
> One of the Micorosft customer service reps told me that I didn't need my
> Symantec anti-virus software anymore because this new SP2 that was just
> released (in Feb 2005) covered that just as well. Is this true or should
> I
> continue to purchase a separate antiviurs software?

Windows XP SP2 was released in September last year (2004) not Feb 2005.
And no it does not contain any significant antivirus protection.
Contiune to buy your AV software.
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"MayhemMom" <MayhemMom@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E705BC7-F3D3-4480-8B0C-70BC26371220@microsoft.com...
> One of the Micorosft customer service reps told me that I didn't need my
> Symantec anti-virus software anymore because this new SP2 that was just
> released (in Feb 2005) covered that just as well. Is this true or should
> I
> continue to purchase a separate antiviurs software?
February 17, 2005 7:05:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

David H. Lipman wrote:
> He's *COMPLETELY* wrong !
>
> While there may be those who don't like Symantec AV software, you NEED to have AV software
> on your WinXP PC no matter what Service Pack is installed.
>
Read these before posting again: The way you are posting, ANY GOOD
NEWSREADER will STRIP the post YOU are replying to.

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

--
Interim Systems and Management Accounting
Gordon Burgess-Parker
Director
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 7:05:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Stop harassing me - NOW !

--
Dave




"Gordon" <gordonbp1@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:%239BZbsQFFHA.3312@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

| Read these before posting again: The way you are posting, ANY GOOD
| NEWSREADER will STRIP the post YOU are replying to.
|
| http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|
| http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
February 17, 2005 7:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Ahh.. here's the quote I was looking for. ICF wasn't disabled until logon,
there was a time lapse at boot between when the system started accepting
network request, and when the ICF kicked in:
<quote>
# Boot time security. (On PC's running Windows XP Service pack 1, there is a
window of time between when your PC can "see" the network and when Windows
Firewall provides protection. This results in the ability for a "packet(s)"
of data to be received and delivered to a service without Windows Firewall
performing ANY filtering. This potentially exposes YOUR computer to
vulnerabilities. In Windows XP Service Pack 2, this vulnerability has been
stopped using a new "policy" that works during boot up. However, there is no
boot-time security if Windows Firewall is disabled.)
</quote>

I just found this funny in the fact that it came out just today:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/212437_rsaclarke...

I just happened to run across it.

Personaly, I think MS should implement a new feature to where if an end user
doesn't stay up to date with windowsupdate.com, that a big burly guy with
come to their house and smack them around a bit, heh.




"Ken Gardner" wrote:

> "CB" wrote:
>
> > Exactly, for simple end users that don't know (or care) any better, the the
> > MS solution would probably work for them. With you being a single user with
> > a single computer (hopefully behind a hardware firewall/router), you can
> > think that MS offers sufficient security and you may be right. With me in an
> > NetAdmin of a large firm, I know that isn't the case. It's all about scope.
>
> Of course, as a NetAdmin, you need to worry about lots of people who are
> complete novices (or dumbasses, like my younger brother) when it comes to
> security. Thus, I fully understand where you are coming from.
>
> > MS has made great strides in trying to make their products more secure.
> > However, they do still have a ways to go, it simply takes time. That is why
> > I said that I would wait at least a year or two. For example, (correct me if
> > I'm wrong MS), but MS's first shot at creating a firewall solution was a
> > joke. It's configurabilty was a joke and I believe (again, correct me if I'm
> > wrong) it didn't even start protecting your machine until after the user
> > logged in. So, if you are sitting there at a logon prompt (IE, you machine
> > rebooted during the night), it's unprotected until the user logs back in. in
> > XP SP2, MS re-did the firewall. It certainly much better. However, it's
> > still only protects you one way. It can protect people from 'hacking' into
> > your machine from the outside world, however.. it does not alert you if a
> > program is already on your machine and is going out to the internet with your
> > knowledge. (IE: a piece of malware that is reporting back to server about
> > your personal data on your PC). Other professional products will alert you
> > about this.
>
> I don't know whether the old ICF started up prior to the login point (in
> fairness, I think it did, but I can't remember), but I do remember that it
> was not turned on by default. And neither the old ICF nor the new and
> improved Windows Firewall block outbound communications. If you want the
> additional feature of blocking outbound communications with your firewall,
> you will need a third party firewall -- and I have no problem recommending
> one for anyone who is a security novice. That's not me. My strategy, which
> has worked 100% for years, is to be proactive, i.e. to use other software
> (antivirus and antispyware) to block the crudware from getting on my machine
> in the first place, and to stay fully informed and up to date on what I user
> need to do to prevent security breaches, e.g. configuring IE and Outlook to
> stop malware from installing on my machine without my knowledge or consent.
>
>
> > You're arguement about bells and whistles is actually ironic. I've always
> > thought of MS as a company that cared more about making something 'pretty' as
> > opposed to making it work. Looks at Windows XP... They spend a lot of money
> > making it dumbed down and pretty. (fading menus, mouse
> > shadows, beeps and sounds everywhere, 'clippy' the paperclip', etc).
>
> True enough. :)  I always turn that stuff off whenever I can.
>
> > Security has actually been after thought of sorts (because it wasn't a huge deal in the
> > past. It's was more of a culture thing than a MS thing in my opinion). That's one of
> > the reasons why you see so many security updates time and again for Windows
> > itself. There's a ton of unsecure code in windows (which MS is doing their
> > best to patch), but since MS products of so heavily intergrated, you can
> > actually find a bug in 'Microsoft Instand Messanger' and use it to cause
> > havok on the OS itself (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05...
> > 009.mspx). It's just the nature of the best. One benefit of 'professional products' is
> > they don't always rely on MS's potentionally buggy code base.
>
> All this is true, but it is fair to say that at least since SP1, security is
> now on everyone's radar screen, especially Microsoft's. And it is more so
> with each passing week and month, it seems.
>
> > MS knows a lot. I would never take that away from them. However, I would
> > never be as careless as to say "I don't think anyone on the planet knows more
> > about security issues with Windows XP than Microsoft". I would think those
> > companies directly involved with viruses know more abotu viruses than MS,
> > same is true about companies that are involves with firewalls day in and day
> > out.
>
> I'm still not sure that my statement is incorrect, although obviously it is
> merely an opinion rather than a statement of known fact. Of course companies
> that specialize in particular areas, such as viruses, are going to know more
> about their specialized field than Microsoft. But Microsoft is going to know
> much more about how these virus products (to continue with your example)
> interact with the OS, for better or worse. More generally, Microsoft is
> going to know more about how to strike the most reasonable balance between
> performance requirements, stability requirements, and security requirements.
> There is much more to computing than security, which is why I say again that
> the goal of security should be to be secure enough. Every computer need not
> be the equivalent of Fort Knox, just good enough to stop malware peddlers
> from ruining computing for the rest of us. Security is like food: you need a
> certain amount, but if you eat too much you get fat, start slowing down, and
> start experiencing health problems.
>
> > Again, back to my original point.. MS's Antivirus and Firewall products
> > will probably be just fine for the common end user.
>
> And in all fairness, that's me, although I consider myself more
> knowledgeable than most such users.
>
> >But from a corp prospective, there's no way we'd risk our network until after at least a
> >year or two.... until the reports came back on how good it is. In the mean time,
> > I strongly recommand a good firewall for it can help you gaurd against MS's
> > bugs. I also recommand a good virus scanner because it can help you guard
> > against yourself (running viruses without thinking).
>
> I can't really disagree here, except that for a person like me Windows
> Firewall is plenty good enough and I have used it without a hitch since SP2
> came out in public beta.
>
> Ken
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:33:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

"CB" wrote:

> Personaly, I think MS should implement a new feature to where if an end user
> doesn't stay up to date with windowsupdate.com, that a big burly guy with
> come to their house and smack them around a bit, heh.

To within about four inches of his life. :) 

Ken
!