Guest sharon Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 I am running Windows Vista Starter and I am having problems allowing exceptions to work through my firewall. In particular I want to be able to use Remote Assistance. I can check it in the exceptions list but when I try to run it I get a message that tells me it is being blocked by Windows Firewall. I also have tried to turn the Windows firewall off completely but the “Turn Windows Firewall on and off†screen is greyed out and so I cannot change that setting either. There is a message on the screen that says “For your security some settings are controlled by Group Policy†I bought this pc a month ago. It was brand new and I set myself up as a user. It is for home use only and has never been a part of a network. I am the only user set up on my system and so am an administrator with full rights. I do not have any other firewall installed and I do not have a router either. Could somebody help me please? As I am a novice in computer systems an answer in non technical language would be very much appreciated. If there is any other information that you require I will be pleased to give it to you Many thanks Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 "sharon" <sharon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A14BFA2B-C092-4CBC-B4AE-ECF6DEEEC11C@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > > I am running Windows Vista Starter and I am having problems allowing > exceptions to work through my firewall. In particular I want to be able > to > use Remote Assistance. I can check it in the exceptions list but when I > try > to run it I get a message that tells me it is being blocked by Windows > Firewall. > > I also have tried to turn the Windows firewall off completely but the > “Turn > Windows Firewall on and off†screen is greyed out and so I cannot change > that > setting either. There is a message on the screen that says “For your > security > some settings are controlled by Group Policyâ€Â</span> Did you try to run the short-cut/program with Run as Administrator to escalate your privileges, even as admin?<span style="color:blue"> > > I bought this pc a month ago. It was brand new and I set myself up as a > user. It is for home use only and has never been a part of a network. > > I am the only user set up on my system and so am an administrator with > full > rights. ></span> No, that may not be so on Vista. In some cases, even someone with admin rights, the user is locked down with standard user rights, which must be escalated by using Run as Administrator. Quote
Guest Chappy Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 Hi Try disabling the Windows Firewall Service itself, that's how I disabled it to run another Firewall, since the built-in Windows firewall is kinda cr@ppy.. In Control Panel, Admin tools, click Services, scroll to Windows Firewall. Dbl-clk it to open the properties, click Stop the Service and then set the Startup Type to Disabled. Reboot and this should take care of that for you. When you're done with Remote help be sure to reverse those settings...even tho it's a cr@ppy firewall it's better than no firewall at all. Dave Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:3127838B-EB9A-4B68-8C21-2B24B39629D4@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > Hi > > Try disabling the Windows Firewall Service itself, that's how I disabled > it > to run another Firewall, since the built-in Windows firewall is kinda > cr@ppy.. ></span> If you have made this statement about the Vista FW/packet filter, then you do not know what you are talking about. <span style="color:blue"> > In Control Panel, Admin tools, click Services, scroll to Windows Firewall. > Dbl-clk it to open the properties, click Stop the Service and then set the > Startup Type to Disabled. Reboot and this should take care of that for > you. > When you're done with Remote help be sure to reverse those settings...even > tho it's a cr@ppy firewall it's better than no firewall at all.</span> You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Vista FW/packet filter. I suspect that you have installed some kind of a 3rd party snake-oil crap solution that's your security blanket that's trying to protect you from you that it cannot do, with all the little bells and whistles. What is it? Quote
Guest Chappy Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 LOL Mr Arnold....you're talking out of yous @ss! I've been in the AV & security field for over 20 years, so I DO know what I'm talking about. I run Comodo Firewall Pro and if you need confirmation of just how bad the Windows firewall is, check out the highest ranked Firewall testing facility, Matousec http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/ and see for yourself. Snake oil crap....security blanket...you're Funny!!! Except, I forgot to laugh because I know more about securing a Windoes box than you'll learn in your lifetime...a$$hole "Mr. Arnold" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > > "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:3127838B-EB9A-4B68-8C21-2B24B39629D4@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> > > Hi > > > > Try disabling the Windows Firewall Service itself, that's how I disabled > > it > > to run another Firewall, since the built-in Windows firewall is kinda > > cr@ppy.. > ></span> > If you have made this statement about the Vista FW/packet filter, then you > do not know what you are talking about. > <span style="color:green"> > > In Control Panel, Admin tools, click Services, scroll to Windows Firewall. > > Dbl-clk it to open the properties, click Stop the Service and then set the > > Startup Type to Disabled. Reboot and this should take care of that for > > you. > > When you're done with Remote help be sure to reverse those settings...even > > tho it's a cr@ppy firewall it's better than no firewall at all.</span> > > You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Vista > FW/packet filter. > > I suspect that you have installed some kind of a 3rd party snake-oil crap > solution that's your security blanket that's trying to protect you from > you that it cannot do, with all the little bells and whistles. > > What is it? > > </span> Quote
Guest Chappy Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Mr Arnold I'm a HijackThis teacher and an Independent Malware tester for new & unknown varients. I was awarded a Lifetime membership to Virus Bulletin for my work. In case you don't know what Virus Bulletin is...well, if you don't know then that says it all about your security knowledge. I have personally tested and written solutions for over 1000 Windows Security Vulnerabilities. I currently have over 750 Trojans and Virus in my testbed machine that I've fully decompiled and written signature files for...what's your security experience? Running an AV scan weekly? I also was a Beta tester for Eset with their Eset Security suite (Firewall mostly), and Comodo V3 Firewall for 64bit. Before you go shooting your wad again, maybe you should stop & think that there are True security experts out there. Quote
Guest Nonny Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:50:00 -0700, Chappy <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > >Mr Arnold > >I'm a HijackThis teacher and an Independent Malware tester for new & unknown >varients. >I was awarded a Lifetime membership to Virus Bulletin for my work. In case >you don't know what Virus Bulletin is...well, if you don't know then that >says it all about your security knowledge. > >I have personally tested and written solutions for over 1000 Windows >Security Vulnerabilities. I currently have over 750 Trojans and Virus in my >testbed machine that I've fully decompiled and written signature files >for...what's your security experience? Running an AV scan weekly? >I also was a Beta tester for Eset with their Eset Security suite (Firewall >mostly), and Comodo V3 Firewall for 64bit. > >Before you go shooting your wad again, maybe you should stop & think that >there are True security experts out there.</span> Mr. Arnold, consider yourself properly bitch-slapped. Quote
Guest Dave Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 My money is on Arnold. -- Vista Home Premium 32 SP1 http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hgjj7496oapip1ed9k6ki5b1s87ijf8uie@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:50:00 -0700, Chappy > <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> >>Mr Arnold >> >>I'm a HijackThis teacher and an Independent Malware tester for new & >>unknown >>varients. >>I was awarded a Lifetime membership to Virus Bulletin for my work. In case >>you don't know what Virus Bulletin is...well, if you don't know then that >>says it all about your security knowledge. >> >>I have personally tested and written solutions for over 1000 Windows >>Security Vulnerabilities. I currently have over 750 Trojans and Virus in >>my >>testbed machine that I've fully decompiled and written signature files >>for...what's your security experience? Running an AV scan weekly? >>I also was a Beta tester for Eset with their Eset Security suite (Firewall >>mostly), and Comodo V3 Firewall for 64bit. >> >>Before you go shooting your wad again, maybe you should stop & think that >>there are True security experts out there.</span> > > Mr. Arnold, consider yourself properly bitch-slapped. </span> Quote
Guest the Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Nonny wrote: <snipped> Nonny, why would make up such a lie about someone? There is obviously something wrong with you, you have serious mental issues and you need to be locked up. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:961E9B3B-BDA5-4D1E-AFEF-86492F7B53EF@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > LOL Mr Arnold....you're talking out of yous @ss! > > I've been in the AV & security field for over 20 years, so I DO know what > I'm talking about. > I run Comodo Firewall Pro and if you need confirmation of just how bad the > Windows firewall is, check out the highest ranked Firewall testing > facility, > Matousec http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/ and see for > yourself. ></span> That is BS you're talking about Comodo. Something like that junk Comodo is not even a FW. It's a machine level packet filter that protects at the machine level. That junk you're talking about doesn't fit the definition of FW. That junk doesn't not separate two networks. A FW will protect from the network it's protecting from usually the Internet and the network it is protecting the LAN. A FW sits at the junction point between the two networks. In either case, a FW must have have two network interfaces. One interface must face the network it is protecting from, and the other interface must be facing the network it is protecting. It doesn't matter if it is a hardware device such as a FW appliance or a host based network FW running on a secured/locked down gateway computer, with the gateway computer using two NIC(s). A FW segments networks and reduces the risk of damage between networks. What is being talked about are FW(s) and some junk like Comodo and other 3rd party solutions are not FW(s). http://www.more.net/technical/netserv/tcpip/firewalls/ <span style="color:blue"> > Snake oil crap....security blanket...you're Funny!!!</span> Well, that's exactly what they are 3rd party snake-oil solutions that introduces more security i8ssues/risks to the machine. <span style="color:blue"> > Except, I forgot to laugh because I know more about securing a Windoes box > than you'll learn in your lifetime...a$$hole</span> Sure you do. So you know how to lock down a machine whether it be a workstation or server running IIS with the machine facing the public Internet. You know how to secure/lockdown the O/S, IIS, file system, registry and user accounts for a machine that's facing the public Internet. I would much rather use the Vista packet filter or FW if you like and IPsec, with the Vista packet filter being an intergrated part of the O/S which will hold connections to a newtork until its FW/packet filter is up and running before inbound or outbound connections can be made based on filtering rules set, which can be done by the advanced features of the Vista packet filter, if I need be. http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-...11-6098592.html I also like to use IPsec in a supplement fashion behind the Vista packet filer in case its packet filter or any 3rd party packet filter, which most won't even call a 3rd party solution a packet filter, is taken out or circumvented on the machine. http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_traffic_with_ipsec.htm http://www.analogx.com/CONTENTS/articles/ipsec.htm http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813878 That's when any machine I have has a direct connection to the modem and to the Internet. When the machines are behind my Watchguard FW appliance, the Windows and Linux machins have no need to run a FW/packet filter. BTW, I have been doing this since 1971, and I am still going strong in Information Thecnology. style_emoticons/ Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F0DB430D-0F4E-41DD-9B31-E3EDCCC14998@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > Mr Arnold > > I'm a HijackThis teacher and an Independent Malware tester for new & > unknown > varients. > I was awarded a Lifetime membership to Virus Bulletin for my work. In case > you don't know what Virus Bulletin is...well, if you don't know then that > says it all about your security knowledge. ></span> Ooo we, I am happy for you. <span style="color:blue"> > I have personally tested and written solutions for over 1000 Windows > Security Vulnerabilities. I currently have over 750 Trojans and Virus in > my > testbed machine that I've fully decompiled and written signature files > for...what's your security experience? Running an AV scan weekly? > I also was a Beta tester for Eset with their Eset Security suite (Firewall > mostly), and Comodo V3 Firewall for 64bit.</span> I am happy for you.<span style="color:blue"> > > Before you go shooting your wad again, maybe you should stop & think that > there are True security experts out there.</span> I don't think you're one off them, and if you must show your wares, then I think I could beat you if I choose to do so. And I am a programmer, and I have been doing it since 1980, and I came to the MS platform in 1996. Everything you're talking about, I could probably beat it. All it takes is the user with the happy fingers that will point and click on everything under Sun, which is not that hard to do. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274314,00.html Detection software using signature files must know about the signature that it must detect. If the signature is unknown, then the signature file is useless on zero day exploits. And on top of that, a serious malware threat is going to hide itself and most likely have itself hosted by a legitimate process running on the machine such as SVChost.exe or DLLhost.exe. I had a poster come into the FW and Security NG talking about the small company she was consulting at had an exploit running on the MS O/S Small Business server that was affecting IIS that circumvented all that stuff you're talking about, which even the experts were indicating to toss at it, and she tossed the kitchen sink at it and could find nothing. I gave her the proper tools and showed her how to find the exploit when even the security experts in the NG couldn't do it, which was because of my programming expertise that I could help her. It was due to the knowledge I passed on how to find it, and the ability to use the proper tools and go look. <http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Hidden_Backdoors_Trojan_Horses_and_Rootkit_Tools_in_a_Windows_Environment.html> But if I had known what I do now, I would just told her to flatten the drive. If the O/S can be fooled then anything that runs with the O/S like detection software that you're harping about can be fooled to with exploits still left undetected on the machine. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc512587.aspx I use Eset, and if you have anything to do with Eset, then I might be kicking Eset to the curb and finding something else. Quote
Guest Chappy Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 <span style="color:blue"> > It was due to the knowledge I passed on how to find it, and the ability to > use the proper tools and go look. > </span> As you so "Intelligently' state...Ooo, I'm so happy for you. <span style="color:blue"> > I use Eset, and if you have anything to do with Eset, then I might be > kicking Eset to the curb and finding something else.</span> Well, then you're not a complete moron I guess. I don't come here looking to Flame or Be flamed by anyone. I simply stated what is very commonly known about the Windows Firewall, it sux and is easily defeated by even the most basic firewall exploits. It has no real Advanced rules interface so anyone but the basic user finds out in a hurry just how unfriendly it is to work with. If you read the testing done at Matousec for Firewalls for Windows Platform and the testing modules used, you'll see very clearly that it's a very complete test of a firewall's capabilities in today's OS with the multiple attack vectors available. You won't find a more intense & comprehensive suite of testing on firewalls available for the Win platform anywhere and the results speak fo themselves. The current version of the Win firewall scores miserable 5% but at least that better than the first version which was the only firewall to score a perfect 0 out of a possible 9625 points. If after reading the test methods and results @ Matousec, you still wish to put your faith in the Windows Firewall than that's certainly your prerogative friend. Myself I would rather have one that I can configure to my personal needs, and one that at least scores a 95% in the latest tests. And I try to get others to at least have a look at the tests and make a choice for themselves after getting a bit of information regarding how todays firewalls can be circumvented and what firewalls can catch these exploits. You're a programmer, I'm a programmer. You've done this since whenever, I 1st used a computer in 1973 that was bigger than my cottage and ran on punch cards....big deal. That means nothing today and means nothing about our respective knowledge bases. When it comes to my security and the security of others, I prefer to have the best possible and that's why we both use Eset Nod32 (excellent choice Mr Arnold) but I'll taks Comodo over the Win Firewall in a heartbeat. May I suggest that you at least look into it? When I beta tested the Eset ESS and their firewall, I was in constant contact with the Eset engineers as I reported over 12 bugs to them. I made several suggestions to them and they replied that they weren't able to get these into the first iteration of their firewall, they weren't able to make it too complex yet and meet their internal deadlines, but they were definitely going to be implemented in V2 if possible. Because of the lack of configuration and certain other matters, myself and other beta testers for Eset couldn't use their suite as it was released and we went to Comodo for their beta testing. The difference was measurable and it shows in how the Eset Security Suite firewall performed in the Matousec tests compared with Comodo Firewall Pro. In any case, you can type "this" and I can type "that" and both of us can continue this crap forever if we wish too, but I've been doing these forums far too long to want to get into that kind of wasteful fluff and I believe you have also. So in the end, if you wish to use the Win Firewall...again, I wish you luck. But if you're going to recommend it to others, at least have some testing results to back it up so the users can make an informed & educated decision. Dave Quote
Guest Chappy Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 Oh yes, I forgot I wanted to comment on this statement. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >>Detection software using signature files must know about the signature that</span></span> it must detect. If the signature is unknown, then the signature file is useless on zero day exploits. And on top of that, a serious malware threat is going to hide itself and most likely have itself hosted by a legitimate process running on the machine such as SVChost.exe or DLLhost.exe. Yep, you are correct there, and that's why they have a heuristics engine, but they still require sig files don't they and those sig files have to be able to recognize many aspects of behavior as well. Some AV programs still fail the VB100% tests even after they've been given the testing sig files well in advance, so as that tells you also, it's not everything to have the sig files, they have to be implemented properly as well and that's the differences between an Eset quality AV and the garbage AV programs available (hello AVG) And please, you're telling me basic malware techniques that have been well known for years...of course I know that. I've seen almost every available obfuscation technique in my day..I went thru the LOP.com heydays with the HijackThis team when they threw over 100 different variants at us every single day from over 25,000 partner sites. Those guys were committed I tell ya and we estimated they probably made over $100,000.00 a month with their malware and they weren't happy about us specifically targeting their operations, but we were just as committed and kept them on the run for over 3 years until we finally broke them up. Well, along with the Authorities that is, but we were responsible for Spybot S&D and HijackThis keeping users clean of their crapware. Ok, that's my last here. Have a Good Day everyone, and to you also Mr Arnold. Dave Quote
Guest Chappy Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 Sorry, this is required. I do have to apologize, I didn't have time to read the entire replies from you and I just noticed that you indeed have put links into your post to relevant articles and pretty much most of them I've read before. Still doesn't change my opinion of Comodo or Win Firewall, and I probably won't change yours either, so as is now and always will be when software solutions are involved...nobody agrees on everything and everyone has an opinion. To each their own, but I suggest you not go "Name calling" as you did in your original reply, and you'll find yourself in less arguments and your blood pressure will thank you for it. You have no clue about the person on the other end, and you are not the only long time computer guy out there either, and by far are not the best. Then again neither am I, and I don't claim to be anyway. I'm outta here, this has gotten old fast. Dave Quote
Guest John Amendall Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:39:02 -0700, Chappy <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >I'm outta here, this has gotten old fast.</span> It soitanly has. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:ADE2D421-2EE8-4DA1-99AA-0C048EF1ACEC@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > ><span style="color:green"> >> It was due to the knowledge I passed on how to find it, and the ability >> to >> use the proper tools and go look. >></span> > As you so "Intelligently' state...Ooo, I'm so happy for you.</span> Well I am. I am glad you can ware that big security badge on your chest, that doean't mean anything to me.<span style="color:blue"> > > ><span style="color:green"> >> I use Eset, and if you have anything to do with Eset, then I might be >> kicking Eset to the curb and finding something else.</span> > > Well, then you're not a complete moron I guess.</span> No I am not, which who you thought you were conversing with and I am far from that.<span style="color:blue"> > > > I don't come here looking to Flame or Be flamed by anyone. I simply stated > what is very commonly known about the Windows Firewall, it sux and is > easily > defeated by even the most basic firewall exploits.</span> The same thing can be said about Comodo or any 3rd party solution, which I am going to tell you that what you're talking about are not FW solutions. They are NOT firewalls. I don't come here either to look for trouble. But what I don't like is someone popping his or her mouth giving out mis-information on something they really don't know how to use. <span style="color:blue"> > It has no real Advanced rules interface so anyone but the basic user finds > out in a hurry just how unfriendly it is to work with.</span> I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the Vista FW/packet filter, which does have Adv packet filtering rules interface, which is just a little more shophistcated than doing some mouse pointing and clicking on some 3rd party clicking solution for idiots. <span style="color:blue"> > If you read the testing done at Matousec for Firewalls for Windows > Platform > and the testing modules used, you'll see very clearly that it's a very > complete test of a firewall's capabilities in today's OS with the multiple > attack vectors available.</span> And I am going to tell you again, that the solutions you are talking about are NOT firewalls. They are machine level packet filters that protect at the machine level. I only want something like the Vista FW/packet filter or any solution of this nature to do one thing, which is to stop unsolicited inbound traffic from reaching the services running on the machine and set filtering rules for inbound and outbound traffic when needed, by port, protocl, IP or subnet mask, which the one on Vista does very well. If the packet filter or (FW if you like) starts going beyond that with a bunch bells and whistles in it in areas it has no business being in, then that is not FW or packet filter technology. And that junk in 3rd party solutions can be circumvented and defeated. <span style="color:blue"> > You won't find a more intense & comprehensive suite of testing on > firewalls > available for the Win platform anywhere and the results speak fo > themselves. ></span> Everyone has got one which was put out there for the clueless home user to give them a false sense of security wrapped up in their security blanket. <span style="color:blue"> > The current version of the Win firewall scores miserable 5% but at least > that better than the first version which was the only firewall to score a > perfect 0 out of a possible 9625 points.</span> I don't agree with the assesments. And FW(s) are NOT suppose to be in the area of or doing malware fuctionality. A FW(s) job is the stop unsolicted inbound traffic from reaching services running on the computer, and if need be, the ability to set packet filtering rules to stop inbound or outbound packets. <span style="color:blue"> > If after reading the test methods and results @ Matousec, you still wish > to > put your faith in the Windows Firewall than that's certainly your > prerogative > friend. Myself I would rather have one that I can configure to my personal > needs, and one that at least scores a 95% in the latest tests. And I try > to > get others to at least have a look at the tests and make a choice for > themselves after getting a bit of information regarding how todays > firewalls > can be circumvented and what firewalls can catch these exploits.</span> And I can configure the solution on Vista to fit my personal needs. What I don't need is the snake oil useless crap in 3rd party solutions which can easily be circumvented and defeated trying to be a stops all and ends all solution that it can not be and can be fooled. You don't see that garbage in FW's that run on Linux nor do you see that garbage in the Vista FW/packet filter. And I am going to tell you once again that the junk you are talking about are NOT FIREWALLS. <span style="color:blue"> > > You're a programmer, I'm a programmer. You've done this since whenever, I > 1st used a computer in 1973 that was bigger than my cottage and ran on > punch > cards....big deal. That means nothing today and means nothing about our > respective knowledge bases.</span> So? You tossed up your BS 20 years of experience like a badge and I did the same. <span style="color:blue"> > When it comes to my security and the security of others, I prefer to have > the best possible and that's why we both use Eset Nod32 (excellent choice > Mr > Arnold) but I'll taks Comodo over the Win Firewall in a heartbeat. May I > suggest that you at least look into it? > > When I beta tested the Eset ESS and their firewall, I was in constant</span> That's were Eset went out of control with chasing the money was a real disappointment. Eset has no business with anything to do with FW technology, NONE. <span style="color:blue"> > contact with the Eset engineers as I reported over 12 bugs to them. I made > several suggestions to them and they replied that they weren't able to get > these into the first iteration of their firewall, they weren't able to > make > it too complex yet and meet their internal deadlines, but they were > definitely going to be implemented in V2 if possible. Because of the lack > of > configuration and certain other matters, myself and other beta testers for > Eset couldn't use their suite as it was released and we went to Comodo for > their beta testing. The difference was measurable and it shows in how the > Eset Security Suite firewall performed in the Matousec tests compared with > Comodo Firewall Pro. ></span> I don't care about any of that and no ridiculous security suite will ever see the light of day on any machine I own nor will some junk like Comodo ever be installed on any machine of mine either, ever. <span style="color:blue"> > In any case, you can type "this" and I can type "that" and both of us can > continue this crap forever if we wish too, but I've been doing these > forums > far too long to want to get into that kind of wasteful fluff and I believe > you have also.</span> Well you need to stop right now, because I am not impressed with you. <span style="color:blue"> > So in the end, if you wish to use the Win Firewall...again, I wish you > luck. > But if you're going to recommend it to others, at least have some testing > results to back it up so the users can make an informed & educated > decision. ></span> I don't need testing results, because testing results are a dime a dozen for the crapware solutions running on the Windows workstations. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:E0DD957F-663C-4768-9C4B-F60193CA4DAA@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > Oh yes, I forgot I wanted to comment on this statement. ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>>Detection software using signature files must know about the signature >>>that</span></span> > it must detect. If the signature is unknown, then the signature file is > useless on zero day exploits. And on top of that, a serious malware threat > is going to hide itself and most likely have itself hosted by a legitimate > process running on the machine such as SVChost.exe or DLLhost.exe. > > Yep, you are correct there, and that's why they have a heuristics engine, > but they still require sig files don't they and those sig files have to be > able to recognize many aspects of behavior as well.</span> Which I knew you were going to toss out there, the heuristics , and it can be fooled like anything else that runs with the O/S that can be fooled. <span style="color:blue"> > Some AV programs still fail the VB100% tests even after they've been given > the testing sig files well in advance, so as that tells you also, it's not > everything to have the sig files, they have to be implemented properly as > well and that's the differences between an Eset quality AV and the > garbage > AV programs available (hello AVG)</span> I like this Eset promotion here, which has nothing to do with FW technolgy that you started harping about. <span style="color:blue"> > And please, you're telling me basic malware techniques that have been well > known for years...of course I know that.</span> I didn't say that you didn't know that. <span style="color:blue"> > I've seen almost every available > obfuscation technique in my day..I went thru the LOP.com heydays with the > HijackThis team when they threw over 100 different variants at us every > single day from over 25,000 partner sites. Those guys were committed I > tell > ya and we estimated they probably made over $100,000.00 a month with their > malware and they weren't happy about us specifically targeting their > operations, but we were just as committed and kept them on the run for > over 3 > years until we finally broke them up. Well, along with the Authorities > that > is, but we were responsible for Spybot S&D and HijackThis keeping users > clean > of their crapware.</span> I am happy for you. You do wear it like a badge. It can all be and does get defeated if the right exploit can get there and is executed. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 14, 2008 Posted July 14, 2008 "Chappy" <Chappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A4A6E3A2-6C5E-4061-BBFE-005F43BC381B@microsoft.com... <snipped> Man, get out of here with this garbage. Comodo, Commodore or Commode whatever you want to call it is junk. You started right of of the gate with the name calling in a Windows Vista NG. <Your statement that set off the fireworks.> Try disabling the Windows Firewall Service itself, that's how I disabled it to run another Firewall, since the built-in Windows firewall is kinda cr@ppy.. <end> The other links I provided which I know you know nothing about firewalls was to reinforce to you that the junk Comodo is not a FW. The other links about IPsec is another measure to protect the O/S and works very well with the Vista FW/packet filter, which most don't know about it. You have done three things well here: 1) You beating your chest. 2) Your two bit promotion of Eset. 3) Your two bit promotion of Commode. You come back again with this nonsense, and you're going to face me again. style_emoticons/ Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.