Guest H.S. Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Kayman wrote: <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> Now, I have no idea why the application is trying to phone home. Why >> should it? The only reason I would accept is if it is trying to find >> updates. Well, in that case, I would rather do that myself, thank you >> very much. Online help? No, don't need it. Any other reasons? Sorry, now >> you are invading my privacy.</span> > > The situation is very simple; If you don't trust an application then don't > install it in the first place! </span> I have disabled the features of softwares I have no trust in. All is fine. And no thanks to Windows firewall. But please understand that I do realize Windows firewall is much better than having no firewall at all. The MS marketing drones must have finally listened to the developers (MS has some pretty nifty talent over there) to include that when they saw Windows OSes getting powned within minutes of being installed and while being patched and getting all the negative publicity. Actually, it can still happen. It you really think about it, it is quite hilarious. I have learned from those reports and never ever install Windows with the machine connected to the internet. Now, there is no image lost due to no outbound firewall, hence no outbound firewall. It is quite straightforward. If MS was so sensitive to programmers and computer savvy people, it could have included it and switched off by default thus letting users to choose. <span style="color:blue"> > Read EULA prior installing software and if deemed to be 'trustworthy' find</span> Ah, the EULA again. It makes so many things complicated at so many levels. Love open source for that though. No worries there at all. Quote
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 CORRECTION: <span style="color:blue"> > The Windows Firewall [iN VISTA] is inbound/outbound.</span> Quote
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Leonard Grey wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > "Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing > a full firewall..." > > Sheesh, they got into enough trouble for bundling a web browser and a > media player. Now you want them to bundle a firewall?</span> <guffaw & chortle> Pass the screen & keyboard wipes, please. Quote
Guest H.S. Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > CORRECTION: > <span style="color:green"> >> The Windows Firewall [iN VISTA] is inbound/outbound.</span></span> Yup, that I can agree with style_emoticons/ Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:53:14 -0700, Paul (Bornival) <PaulBornival@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >"Root Kit" wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> Outbound protection (host based) is not for free. It comes at a cost >> which can be hard for layman to asses. The added system complexity of >> installing a bunch of potentially vulnerable code of questionable >> quality and functionality and the cons that follow from that, must be >> weighed against the possible pros.</span> > >Can you be more specific in this. How much more resources are really needed >to set up outbound protection in addition to inbound. What is the payload in >terms of CPU and memory usage ? </span> I'm not addressing resource usage. I'm addressing system complexity. You add a lot of highly questionable code to an already critical network path. This leads to an increased risk of exploitable bugs as well as risks of misconfigured. Complexity has always been an enemy of computer security. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> You make a computer secure by removing unnecessary stuff and fixing >> what is broken - not by adding further potentially vulnerable code to >> an already insecure code base.</span> > >Again, not usre about that. If we were to follow you, the only solution is >to stop using Windows at all and moving to Linux or Apple... </span> How can you draw that conclusion based on my statement? What I said is true in general. Windows can be hardened, and if you believe apple software is generally more secure, think again. It's an indisputable fact that what isn't running can't be attacked. The more code you set you run (including security software) the more attack vectors you introduce. So the trick is to run only what is needed and to make sure that "something" is robust (which rules out software like IE) and kept patched. Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:07:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival) <PaulBornival@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >"Root Kit" wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:07:46 -0700, Paul (Bornival) >> <PaulBornival@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >> <span style="color:darkred"> >> >The sucessfull attacks on WinXP computers I was were before the introduction >> >of SP2. This was completely and effectively avoided after installing ZA. </span> >> >> True - but could easily have been avoided by shutting down unnecessary >> services, adding a simple packet filter or activating the build-in >> one.</span> > >- shutting down servies is nice ... but the trouble is that the MS >documentatin is so poor that you never know what you really do when you shut >down a service ... </span> Shutting down network services can be done in less than 1 minute using the proper tools. <span style="color:blue"> >untill someone comes and complain that things do not work >any longer as they did before... Then you realize that you better not shut >down any service ... (I could luch longer about that, but, believe me, ther >are so many softwares that capitalize on existing "default" Windows services >that you think twice before shutting one down...). </span> Well, I don't blindly shut down services.... <span style="color:blue"> >- packet filters are nice, but are you going to implement them on 30 >computers with different requirements ...</span> What makes you think it would be harder than implementing ZA on them? <span style="color:blue"> >- the build-in firewall was so well hidden that I only discovered its >existence by accident, and it was not very esay to master... I guess MS never >advertised it because they knew how weak and inefficient it was. If what I >say is not true, why did not advertise it ? </span> How did they not advertise it? <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >> >When SP2 was introduced, I compared ZA with the SP2 firewall, and found that >> >ZA was eventually easier to adjust to our needs. This is why I remained >> >faithfl to ZA (and I'm not the only one...). </span> >> >> I wonder what your needs are.</span> > >Oh simple... a workgroup with 30 computers in peer-to-peer configuration and >in a very open environment (each computer ahs a PUBLIC IP address - do not >ask me why, this is so - but each needs to be reachable from outside by me >and a few other authorized persons...; </span> For what purpose do you need access to them? And why would that require public IP's? Without knowing your exact setup, it sounds like a potentially very insecure environment to me. <span style="color:blue"> >no domain as we had no one to be its >administrator and if the domain server fails, evryting fails ...). Seems >crasy, but since we got ZA on all machines, we simply have no more any >problem ... </span> None that you noticed, that is.. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >> >Note that turning off WinXP network services was not possible (or largely >> >unpractical) given our needs of communication between computers. </span> >> >> How do you expect ZA to protect services you need to make available?</span> > >Well, did YOU really tested ZA ?</span> Ohh, on several occasions. How about answering my question? Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:06:50 -0400, "H.S." <hs.samREMOVEMEix@google.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Kerry Brown wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> I don't think very many people that understand security think outbound >> filtering is not a useful thing to do. Many people that understand how >> computers work think that relying on a software firewall to stop >> something that is running on the same computer and has the same or >> higher privileges as the firewall isn't a good thing or even possible. >> Outbound filtering is very useful for some situations. Outbound </span> > >Here is another one: I do not like that every time I open an MS >application (Word, Excel, Windows ... ), it tries to talk to Microsoft. </span> Then use something else. <span style="color:blue"> >My firewall warns me about it and I deny it.</span> Yes. That's called self-denial-of-service. <span style="color:blue"> >Now, I have no idea why the application is trying to phone home. </span> Exactly. So why assume it's bad? After all, since you installed and is running it on your machine you must fully trust it. <span style="color:blue"> >Why should it? </span> You better find that out instead of blindly shooting yourself in the foot. When you have found out, you may even realize it's configurable. <span style="color:blue"> >The only reason I would accept is if it is trying to find updates. </span> Finally some sense. <span style="color:blue"> >Well, in that case, I would rather do that myself, thank you >very much. Online help? No, don't need it. Any other reasons? Sorry, now >you are invading my privacy.</span> The usual paranoid BS.. Unless you know exactly what data is sent back and forth you have no reason to assume it's an invasion of privacy. If you don't trust a product, you better not run it at all. It's that simple. Quote
Guest Kayman Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:35:36 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Kayman wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote: >> >> <span style="color:darkred"> >>>Conversation in entirety: >>>http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...3486be8412ee2af >>> >>> >>> >>><reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only> >>> >>>This is one of those debates like nix vs. Windows vs. OS X. >>> >>>Nothing is proven on any side, examples abound (some truthful and realistic >>>from the single instance, some not so much) and nothing but emotions and >>>egos get exposed. >>> >>>Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some good for >>>that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and legend and still >>>others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the latter is often over-looked >>>in the debate and glossed over at every turn by those opposed to the topic.) >>> >>>Ideas like "outbound only catches the stuff you already have and who says >>>the application in question did not just change your outbound rules as you >>>installed it so you still don't know you have it?" and "I like to know when >>>something attempts to 'call home'" seem to cover most of the arguments. >>>(Sound like "Windows has more security holes than other OSes" and "Macs just >>>don't get viruses"...? Yeah - same type of arguments. heh) >>> >>>In the end - both are right, both are wrong. It's a personal preference. >>>It's a way of computing, a mind-set, a need. I know many people who have >>>ran many different OSes for many many years without a single instance of >>>infection/infestation and they run no antivirus software and no antispyware >>>software. They continuously (when someone finds out) get questions like >>>"how do you know you actually don't have a virus or spyware/adware if you >>>don't run anythign to prevent/check for it?" >>> >>>In the end - I just go by the idea that making things more complicated is >>>seldom the proper course of action... Simplistic solutions are usually the >>>most effective and the most eloquent. >>> >>>So which way do _I_ lean? Doesn't matter. >>> >>>Each person has their own reasoning behind whatever it is they do. I have >>>used many different solutions (I do like to try things - see what I can >>>learn and find) - and I do offer advice on the ones I tried that seemingly >>>did their jobs without _over-complicating_ my life just to keep it working. >>>However - I know that will be different for each person, and I cannot say >>>which is less complicated for any one of them. Advice: Try each solution >>> if this whole topic has any importance to you. >>> >>>All anyone here can offer is that someone practice some common sense. The >>>world is dangerous - your computer gives you options the rest of the world >>>does not (I cannot backup my car so that when I get in a wreck, I just >>>reload for near instant recovery) - use them. Protect yourself when you can >>>(Equate each of these to something on your computer: lock your doors to make >>>it harder for intruders to get in while you are there or away, wear a coat >>>when it is cold, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes, put on sunscreen to >>>protect your skin, brush your teeth to prevent cavities, pick up 'your >>>room', take out the garbage, cover your face when you cough/sneeze, store >>>copies of important documents(life insurance, will, deeds, etc) far away >>>from the originals, etc.) >>> >>>I know someone could pull one (or more) argument for one side or the other >>>out of those - I could do it right now. heh >>> >>>The point - if the solution for everyone was obvious and one-sided - there >>>would be no discussion. Being that each person is unique with differing >>>experiences and external facts that help support their own experiences - the >>>discussion is never-ending. Not one person here can definitively win their >>>argument (even if you get rid of every actual 'crazy argument' -- although >>>who decides that is yet another debate. hah) >>> >>>Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that exasperated a >>>problem in a particular piece of software could spawn a conversation along >>>these lines... And the subject line stays the same through out. Amazing >>>really. >>></span> >> >> >> Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software per se. >> Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the introduction of NT. >> Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles about this subject >> extensively. It's an important security subject and the message is not easy >> to convey, especially if one is blinded by the hype created by the makers >> of 3rd party software.</span> > > Before Windows XP what were people using?</span> I don't know but I was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner :-) <span style="color:blue"> > What were they using on NT4 and on Windows 2000?</span> I don't know. <span style="color:blue"> > Just because XP got a firewall now anything else has suddenly become > unfit for use? </span> Well, these are throwaway words; If you were more open-minded' in relation to OS's and read ( and comprehend) through pertinent write-ups (even in this thread), than it'd be obvious to you - and no, I am not a techie style_emoticons/ <span style="color:blue"> > Geez, I guess next the hype will be that anything but One Care will > be no good.</span> Irrelevant (but it's your guess, I guess). You may wish to communicate with Carey Frisch on this particular issue. What is relevant, noticeable and very encouraging is that some technically savvy MVP's expressing their doubts and/or speaking against of the use of 3rd party (so-called) firewall software application on WinXP and Vista platforms. I can only assume that the articles published by respected authors with outstanding credentials such as Jesper Johansson and Steve Riley may have triggered this recent phenomenon (though some articles are relatively dated). Not so long ago, this issue was avoided/sidelined by most MVP's. (And no, I can't provide any statistics but as a frequent lurker, these are my observations). In fact, whenever B.Nice (aka Straight Talk and now Root Kit) was touching this issue he was attacked from left, right and center, incl. MVP's; They were over him like a bad rash! I reiterate, the change of direction by some MVP's is a most welcome development and will without any doubt be beneficial for all lurkers and newcomers who'll be thinking twice before installing Illusion Ware :-) Quote
Guest Kayman Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:31:09 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Conversation in entirety: > http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...3486be8412ee2af > > > > Shenan wrote: > <snip><span style="color:green"> >> Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that >> exasperated a problem in a particular piece of software could >> spawn a conversation along these lines... And the subject line >> stays the same through out. Amazing really.</span> > > Kayman wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software >> per se. Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the >> introduction of NT. Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles >> about this subject extensively. It's an important security subject >> and the message is not easy to convey, especially if one is blinded >> by the hype created by the makers of 3rd party software.</span> > > Actually - if you read what I posted - this 'discussion' did start out as I > stated... > The subject line points this out quite readily. ;-) > > It "spawned" into what you are speaking of. > </span> Yes Shenan, you're right actually! Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:02:23 -0400, "H.S." <hs.samREMOVEMEix@google.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Paul (Bornival) wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> >> I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound >> filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people, not >> linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ?</span></span> Just for the record, I'm in no way connected to MS. I'm just able to distinguish between what makes sense and what doesn't. BTW, can someone point me to a list of personal firewalls for Linux? <span style="color:blue"> >Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing a >full firewall and is thus marketing and trying to convince its users >that outbound control is unnecessary.</span> First of all, and once again for the record: Outbound control can make good sense and is not considered unnecessary. Repeating this false statement doesn't make it right. Host based outbound application control on a windows OS as a security measure against malware on the other hand is nonsense . So to answer your question, a more likely but of course much less exiting explanation is that MS actually know their own OS well enough to know that such a thing as outbound application control would be waste of code. For such a concept to make sense it would have to be implemented as a core integrated part of an OS with very strong restrictions on what applications are allowed to do. <span style="color:blue"> >Historically, MS has wanted their OS to be used by dumb average Joe >users and thus tuned its system as such. </span> If you're unhappy about that feel free to use something else. <snipped the usual MS bashing> Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >In the end - both are right, both are wrong. </span> So there is no such things as indisputable facts? <span style="color:blue"> >It's a personal preference.</span> A preference which should be based mainly on facts instead of gut feelings. Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:35:36 -0300, "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Before Windows XP what were people using? What were they using on NT4 >and on Windows 2000? Just because XP got a firewall now anything else >has suddenly become unfit for use? </span> That hasn't really been the topic of discussion. The discussion has been about the value of outbound control. To the best of my knowledge no one has questioned the value of inbound protection. <span style="color:blue"> >Geez, I guess next the hype will be >that anything but One Care will be no good.</span> I doubt it. But a good technical discussion about the abilities of security software in general would probably be of value. Quote
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Conversation in entirety: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...3486be8412ee2af <actual posting being responded to in its whole form - as intended> Shenan Stanley wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > <reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only> > > This is one of those debates like nix vs. Windows vs. OS X. > > Nothing is proven on any side, examples abound (some truthful and > realistic from the single instance, some not so much) and nothing > but emotions and egos get exposed. > > Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some > good for that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and > legend and still others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the > latter is often over-looked in the debate and glossed over at every > turn by those opposed to the topic.) > > Ideas like "outbound only catches the stuff you already have and > who says the application in question did not just change your > outbound rules as you installed it so you still don't know you have > it?" and "I like to know when something attempts to 'call home'" > seem to cover most of the arguments. (Sound like "Windows has more > security holes than other OSes" and "Macs just don't get > viruses"...? Yeah - same type of arguments. heh) > > In the end - both are right, both are wrong. It's a personal > preference. It's a way of computing, a mind-set, a need. I know > many people who have ran many different OSes for many many years > without a single instance of infection/infestation and they run no > antivirus software and no antispyware software. They continuously > (when someone finds out) get questions like "how do you know you > actually don't have a virus or spyware/adware if you don't run > anythign to prevent/check for it?" > > In the end - I just go by the idea that making things more > complicated is seldom the proper course of action... Simplistic > solutions are usually the most effective and the most eloquent. > > So which way do _I_ lean? Doesn't matter. > > Each person has their own reasoning behind whatever it is they do. > I have used many different solutions (I do like to try things - see > what I can learn and find) - and I do offer advice on the ones I > tried that seemingly did their jobs without _over-complicating_ my > life just to keep it working. However - I know that will be > different for each person, and I cannot say which is less > complicated for any one of them. Advice: Try each solution if > this whole topic has any importance to you. > > All anyone here can offer is that someone practice some common > sense. The world is dangerous - your computer gives you options > the rest of the world does not (I cannot backup my car so that when > I get in a wreck, I just reload for near instant recovery) - use > them. Protect yourself when you can (Equate each of these to > something on your computer: lock your doors to make it harder for > intruders to get in while you are there or away, wear a coat when > it is cold, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes, put on sunscreen > to protect your skin, brush your teeth to prevent cavities, pick up > 'your room', take out the garbage, cover your face when you > cough/sneeze, store copies of important documents(life insurance, > will, deeds, etc) far away from the originals, etc.) > > I know someone could pull one (or more) argument for one side or > the other out of those - I could do it right now. heh > > The point - if the solution for everyone was obvious and one-sided > - there would be no discussion. Being that each person is unique > with differing experiences and external facts that help support > their own experiences - the discussion is never-ending. Not one > person here can definitively win their argument (even if you get > rid of every actual 'crazy argument' -- although who decides that > is yet another debate. hah) > > Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that > exasperated a problem in a particular piece of software could spawn > a conversation along these lines... And the subject line stays the > same through out. Amazing really.</span> <breaking it into fragments leave out the whole idea> <which was done below> Shenan Stanley wrote: <extremely snipped><span style="color:blue"> > In the end - both are right, both are wrong.</span> <extremely snipped> Root Kit wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > So there is no such things as indisputable facts?</span> Shenan Stanley wrote: <extremely snipped><span style="color:blue"> > It's a personal preference.</span> <extremely snipped> Root Kit wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > A preference which should be based mainly on facts instead of gut > feelings.</span> Response to:<span style="color:blue"> > So there is no such things as indisputable facts?</span> I covered that in the whole... <span style="color:blue"> > Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some > good for that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and > legend and still others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the > latter is often over-looked in the debate and glossed over at every > turn by those opposed to the topic.)</span> Whether or not a fact is actually indisputable seldom has the effect of those emotional charged in the opposite manner stopping their refuting of said fact. In other words - no matter what you do, people will believe what people will believe. Obstinance is a distinctly human trait. Seldom do you see other animals refusing to believe that the mountain that lies before them actually lies before them. ;-) Response to:<span style="color:blue"> > A preference which should be based mainly on facts instead of gut > feelings.</span> Without a doubt and pretty much what I said. <span style="color:blue"> > Advice: Try each solution if > this whole topic has any importance to you.</span> -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:24:04 +0700, Kayman <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >In fact, whenever B.Nice (aka Straight Talk and now Root Kit) was touching >this issue he was attacked from left, right and center, incl. MVP's; They >were over him like a bad rash! </span> "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." -Schoepenhouer Quote
Guest Kayman Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:20:55 GMT, Root Kit wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:24:04 +0700, Kayman > <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >>In fact, whenever B.Nice (aka Straight Talk and now Root Kit) was touching >>this issue he was attacked from left, right and center, incl. MVP's; They >>were over him like a bad rash! </span> > > "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it > is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." > -Schoepenhouer</span> Very true indeed style_emoticons/ Quote
Guest Leonard Grey Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 And then the fourth stage: "What were we thinking?!" --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Kayman wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:20:55 GMT, Root Kit wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:24:04 +0700, Kayman >> <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote: >><span style="color:darkred"> >>> In fact, whenever B.Nice (aka Straight Talk and now Root Kit) was touching >>> this issue he was attacked from left, right and center, incl. MVP's; They >>> were over him like a bad rash! </span> >> "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it >> is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." >> -Schoepenhouer</span> > > Very true indeed style_emoticons/</span> Quote
Guest Kayman Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:02:00 -0400, Leonard Grey wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > And then the fourth stage: "What were we thinking?!"</span> I wouldn't know, now would I? Do you consider your thoughts to be important? Do organized beliefs of a group or individual supercede facts? Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:24:00 -0700, "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c a m> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party application >couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files says >a lot about how well it's programmed.</span> Indeed. Quote
Guest John John (MVP) Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Kayman wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:35:36 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: > > <span style="color:green"> >>Kayman wrote: >> >><span style="color:darkred"> >>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Conversation in entirety: >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...3486be8412ee2af >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>><reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only> >>>> >>>>This is one of those debates like nix vs. Windows vs. OS X. >>>> >>>>Nothing is proven on any side, examples abound (some truthful and realistic >>> >>>>from the single instance, some not so much) and nothing but emotions and >>> >>>>egos get exposed. >>>> >>>>Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some good for >>>>that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and legend and still >>>>others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the latter is often over-looked >>>>in the debate and glossed over at every turn by those opposed to the topic.) >>>> >>>>Ideas like "outbound only catches the stuff you already have and who says >>>>the application in question did not just change your outbound rules as you >>>>installed it so you still don't know you have it?" and "I like to know when >>>>something attempts to 'call home'" seem to cover most of the arguments. >>>>(Sound like "Windows has more security holes than other OSes" and "Macs just >>>>don't get viruses"...? Yeah - same type of arguments. heh) >>>> >>>>In the end - both are right, both are wrong. It's a personal preference. >>>>It's a way of computing, a mind-set, a need. I know many people who have >>>>ran many different OSes for many many years without a single instance of >>>>infection/infestation and they run no antivirus software and no antispyware >>>>software. They continuously (when someone finds out) get questions like >>>>"how do you know you actually don't have a virus or spyware/adware if you >>>>don't run anythign to prevent/check for it?" >>>> >>>>In the end - I just go by the idea that making things more complicated is >>>>seldom the proper course of action... Simplistic solutions are usually the >>>>most effective and the most eloquent. >>>> >>>>So which way do _I_ lean? Doesn't matter. >>>> >>>>Each person has their own reasoning behind whatever it is they do. I have >>>>used many different solutions (I do like to try things - see what I can >>>>learn and find) - and I do offer advice on the ones I tried that seemingly >>>>did their jobs without _over-complicating_ my life just to keep it working. >>>>However - I know that will be different for each person, and I cannot say >>>>which is less complicated for any one of them. Advice: Try each solution >>>> if this whole topic has any importance to you. >>>> >>>>All anyone here can offer is that someone practice some common sense. The >>>>world is dangerous - your computer gives you options the rest of the world >>>>does not (I cannot backup my car so that when I get in a wreck, I just >>>>reload for near instant recovery) - use them. Protect yourself when you can >>>>(Equate each of these to something on your computer: lock your doors to make >>>>it harder for intruders to get in while you are there or away, wear a coat >>>>when it is cold, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes, put on sunscreen to >>>>protect your skin, brush your teeth to prevent cavities, pick up 'your >>>>room', take out the garbage, cover your face when you cough/sneeze, store >>>>copies of important documents(life insurance, will, deeds, etc) far away >>> >>>>from the originals, etc.) >>> >>>>I know someone could pull one (or more) argument for one side or the other >>>>out of those - I could do it right now. heh >>>> >>>>The point - if the solution for everyone was obvious and one-sided - there >>>>would be no discussion. Being that each person is unique with differing >>>>experiences and external facts that help support their own experiences - the >>>>discussion is never-ending. Not one person here can definitively win their >>>>argument (even if you get rid of every actual 'crazy argument' -- although >>>>who decides that is yet another debate. hah) >>>> >>>>Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that exasperated a >>>>problem in a particular piece of software could spawn a conversation along >>>>these lines... And the subject line stays the same through out. Amazing >>>>really. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software per se. >>>Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the introduction of NT. >>>Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles about this subject >>>extensively. It's an important security subject and the message is not easy >>>to convey, especially if one is blinded by the hype created by the makers >>>of 3rd party software.</span> >> >>Before Windows XP what were people using?</span> > > > I don't know but I was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application > and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner :-) </span> What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue? If third party firewalls are only "so-called firewalls" then the Windows XP firewall is no different, it too is nothing more than a personal firewall. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> What were they using on NT4 and on Windows 2000?</span> > > > I don't know.</span> That doesn't surprise me. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >>Just because XP got a firewall now anything else has suddenly become >>unfit for use? </span> > > > Well, these are throwaway words; If you were more open-minded' in relation > to OS's and read ( and comprehend) through pertinent write-ups (even in > this thread), than it'd be obvious to you - and no, I am not a techie style_emoticons/</span> I am more open minded than you are! I have no quibbles about which firewall people decide to use, if they want to use the Windows firewall that is fine, the Windows firewall offers protection for what it was design to do, there is nothing wrong with it at all. If users want to use other good firewalls that offer different features that is fine too, many of these other firewalls are also good and they do everything that the Windows firewall does plus they give users additional features that users have asked for. That is fine by me, I don't care what they use providing that they use something! You on the other hand think that you should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling them what to do. You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses. When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate them and try to impose your views on them. The fact is that there is nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there and if users want to use them it really is none of your business. You're attempt to discredit all third party firewalls is plainly misguided, the facts are that many of these other products are also good products and many are free. The bottom line is that you and others in your camp simply cannot back that notion that you perpetuate that all third party firewalls are incapable of protecting users. That is untrue, it is a lie, plain and simple, there is no other way to put it. John Quote
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 [This has got to be one of the longest & most crossposted 'Threads That Will Not Die' I've seen in quite some time. Now I wish I'd set the Followup-To in my original post for alt.zonies.misc_rant newsgroup! <eg>] Quote
Guest Stinger Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 "Kerry Brown" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > "Stinger" <Stinger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:B7A45133-F148-4507-85CB-> Bottom line, this update is important since > it was a gapping hole in Windows<span style="color:green"> > > for quite some time. Great that Windows decided to do something about it. > > Bad it renders tried and true helper 3rd party software that has been used > > for years by the general public trying its best to close that huge hole in > > Windows (with what is considered "overkill) and at the same time > > consumers > > are unable to even get on the internet without a single word of caution > > from > > the makers of the operating system. Ironically, they left it up to the > > geeks > > of the world to figure it out. Nice from a company that assumes it's the > > industry leader.</span> > > > You should do a bit of research before you post. The gaping hole was in the > way DNS worked. It was not Windows specific. Almost every OS was affected. > In fact almost everything that interacted with DNS in any way was affected. > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526 > > Take a look at some of the affected products. > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 > > We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day. I don't think > at the end of the debate either of us would change their mind. You think > they're great. I think they're mostly hype and snake oil. There is no > debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched and > it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows. > The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party application > couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files says > a lot about how well it's programmed. It wasn't any changes in the files > that broke your software. It was just the fact that the files changed that > broke it. If an application can't deal with the fact that an OS may update > itself it's not an application I would want on my computer. > > -- > Kerry Brown > MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration > http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ > http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ > > > > > </span> Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a static IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows firewall (since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and watch what happens. You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in your computer world. Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without the aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors. Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle. You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world outside of the protection of this forum? Sure, most computer users are small fish in a big see but not all of us....obviously. I for one would rather be safe with my firewall protection than to take the word of someone that discounts security as easliy as the like of this group. Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is "bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. Windows is also the most common OS in the world. But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web pages. Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really say that??) is laughable. Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS issue should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a firewall isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. What conduit is being used for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for those reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites --> "If the records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS problem. If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, ask yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm? Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic! You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself. Quote
Guest Root Kit Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:20:01 -0700, Stinger <Stinger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier >attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a static >IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows firewall >(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and >watch what happens. </span> So - what's going to happen? Please enlighten us. <span style="color:blue"> >You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in >your computer world. </span> I don't recall anyone claiming security isn't important. <span style="color:blue"> >Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without the >aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors. > >Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle. </span> Do you have any technical arguments to prove otherwise, or are you just babbling? <span style="color:blue"> >You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world >outside of the protection of this forum? </span> Feel free. <span style="color:blue"> >Sure, most computer users are small fish in a big see but not all of us.. >..obviously. I for one would rather be safe with my firewall protection >than to take the word of someone that discounts security as easliy as the >like of this group.</span> No one here forces you to stop using pseudo-security software. <span style="color:blue"> >Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is >"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. </span> Really? - I guess that comes as a major chock to all of us... <span style="color:blue"> >Windows is also the most common OS in the world. </span> It is? - You continue to surprise... <span style="color:blue"> >But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web >pages. </span> Well... it's also an ActiveX rich web client if you ask me. <span style="color:blue"> >Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really say >that??) is laughable. </span> I don't honestly think you understood what he said. <span style="color:blue"> >Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS issue >should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a firewall >isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. </span> Blasphemy? - Holy sh... <span style="color:blue"> >What conduit is being used for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via >ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for those >reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites --> "If the >records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your >ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand >the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS >problem. </span> Do you even understand the problem? <span style="color:blue"> >If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, ask >yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there >wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm? > >Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic! > >You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real >world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.</span> It's hard to avoid MS products also in the real world ;-) BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security software company do you represent? Quote
Guest Kerry Brown Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 "Stinger" <Stinger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:64031966-D4CF-4748-8D5D-A691A4F4D6C3@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > > "Kerry Brown" wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> "Stinger" <Stinger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:B7A45133-F148-4507-85CB-> Bottom line, this update is important >> since >> it was a gapping hole in Windows<span style="color:darkred"> >> > for quite some time. Great that Windows decided to do something about >> > it. >> > Bad it renders tried and true helper 3rd party software that has been >> > used >> > for years by the general public trying its best to close that huge hole >> > in >> > Windows (with what is considered "overkill) and at the same time >> > consumers >> > are unable to even get on the internet without a single word of caution >> > from >> > the makers of the operating system. Ironically, they left it up to the >> > geeks >> > of the world to figure it out. Nice from a company that assumes it's >> > the >> > industry leader.</span> >> >> >> You should do a bit of research before you post. The gaping hole was in >> the >> way DNS worked. It was not Windows specific. Almost every OS was >> affected. >> In fact almost everything that interacted with DNS in any way was >> affected. >> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526 >> >> Take a look at some of the affected products. >> >> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >> >> We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day. I don't >> think >> at the end of the debate either of us would change their mind. You think >> they're great. I think they're mostly hype and snake oil. There is no >> debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched >> and >> it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows. >> The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party >> application >> couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files >> says >> a lot about how well it's programmed. It wasn't any changes in the files >> that broke your software. It was just the fact that the files changed >> that >> broke it. If an application can't deal with the fact that an OS may >> update >> itself it's not an application I would want on my computer. >> >> -- >> Kerry Brown >> MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration >> http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ >> http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> >></span> > Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier > attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a > static > IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows > firewall > (since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and > watch what happens. You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in > your computer world. Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without > the > aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors. > > Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle. > You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world > outside of the protection of this forum? Sure, most computer users are > small > fish in a big see but not all of us....obviously. I for one would rather > be > safe with my firewall protection than to take the word of someone that > discounts security as easliy as the like of this group. > > Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is > "bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. Windows is also the > most > common OS in the world. But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web > pages. Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really > say > that??) is laughable. Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS > issue > should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a > firewall > isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. What conduit is being used > for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via > ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for > those > reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites --> "If the > records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your > ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to > understand > the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS > problem. If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, > ask > yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there > wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm? > > Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic! > > You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real > world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.</span> I live in the real world. I manage networks for a living. This includes managing the network security for a government contractor who gets audited for security yearly. I use real firewalls (not software firewalls) every day. The networks I manage use many products and OS's, other than Microsoft's, that do DNS lookups. Here's what happened with the DNS changes. Windows was using DNS as it was supposed be used. A flaw was found in the way DNS communications work. This flaw had nothing to do with Windows. All of the major networking hardware and software developers were made aware of this and as a group decided to make a change in the way DNS communications worked to close this possible exploit. This change in the way DNS communications worked meant some low level system files in Windows needed to be updated. FWIW my Linux computers and some of the hardware firewall appliances I manage also had some low level changes because of this as well. The change was made and some Windows files were updated via Windows Updates. At this point some versions of Zone Alarm barfed. I don't use Zone Alarm so the rest of the story I gleaned from reading Zone Alarm forums and official announcements. The Zone Alarm application noticed that some Windows files had changed and decided not to allow these files to communicate to the Internet. It wasn't anything in the way the files worked, merely that they had changed, that caused the problem. Because these are system files Zone Alarm doesn't ask about them. Clearing the Zone Alarm database so that it would not think the files were changed fixed the problem. How is an OS supposed to update itself if it can't change files? The way that Zone Alarm monitors and responds to system file changes is flawed. You have misquoted me. I never said "firewalls are all hype and snake oil". I said "We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day." followed by "I think they're mostly hype and snake oil." Of course not all firewalls are hype and snake oil. Software firewalls that advertise they can stop malicious outbound traffic are. If you want to quote me anywhere, including this forum, please quote me verbatim without changes. Oh and by the way, I know of of many people using both XP and Vista with only the Windows firewall running on their computer. What am I supposed to see happen? They have no more problems with malware than anyone else. In fact the ones that I set up have almost no malware problems at all. Many of them don't have a router (i.e. dialup) yet they don't have any problems with malware. How will your preferred firewall solution help protect them better than they are now? Maybe you could tell us exactly how their security will be improved by using a different software firewall? -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ Quote
Guest Stinger Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 "Root Kit" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > > BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes > you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security > software company do you represent? ></span> The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in taking things out of context. It's boring when people do that. Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from others. Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word... "There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows." Nothing to do with Windows?????????? Why didn't you copy and paste the most important part of my last post Root Kit? You know the one... "Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the OS?" PS - don't see you posting a static IP yet Root Kit... style_emoticons/ Quote
Guest Kerry Brown Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 "Stinger" <Stinger@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:88C199ED-4893-4EB2-81F3-1053114DB96A@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > > > "Root Kit" wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> >> BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes >> you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security >> software company do you represent? >></span> > > The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission > statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in > taking > things out of context. It's boring when people do that. > > Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from > others. > > Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word... > "There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to > be > patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do > with > Windows." > > Nothing to do with Windows??????????</span> I stand by the statement. The flaw iself had nothing to do with Windows. It was a flaw in the DNS communications protocol. Windows was using the existing protocol which was flawed. This meant that Windows had to be changed to work with the new protocol or it would be vulnerable. How is this a Windows problem? It's a DNS problem that all developers that make products that communicate with DNS servers have had to deal with. I agree with Root Kit. You havn't provided technical details of how a software firewall that does outbound monitoring improves security over the Windows firewall. You haven't tried to refute the fact that Zone Alarm's monitoring of and reaction to system file changes is flawed. You obviously misunderstand what caused Microsoft to update the DNS client in Windows. I'm done with the conversation unless you can provide us with some technical reasons that back up your assertions. I like a good debate as much as anybody but it's pointless unless you at least try to back up your statements. -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/ Quote
![Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]](https://offtopic.forum/uploads/set_resources_2/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png)
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.