Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THE TOP

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

> RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2

> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt?number=1831

>

> It clearly calls RPC a protocol and says it is for the internet.</span>

 

You show somewhere in that article that Remote Procedure Call is for the

Internet. The word Internet is loosely in the article, but no where in

the article that I can see that it's solely for the Internet.

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

> news:udlTaoqkJHA.3480@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:darkred">

>>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OM2Q6ClkJHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>>> "mayayana" <mayayaXXna@rcXXn.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:%23FbIbxdkJHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Complicating matters, Microsoft shrouds a number of

>>>>>> services in the svchost.exe process, which can run in

>>>>>> multiple instances. So if you allow svchost through the

>>>>>> firewall it's not so easy to know exactly what you're

>>>>>> allowing. And ZA can't differentiate between the actual

>>>>>> processes running under the svchost "hat".

>>>>>

>>>>> Actually it is possible to determine what each instance of svchost

>>>>> is doing. WMI can show what is executed by each instance and you

>>>>> can use the Task Manager interactively to determine that

>>>>> information (you probably need to modify the view to show the

>>>>> columns). The sysinternals site in Microsoft has a process monitor

>>>>> that can show the information.

>>>>>

>>>>> The ZoneAlarm people are technical enough that they could hook each

>>>>> instance of svchost if necessary.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Look man, those users using ZA (home users most likely) or any other

>>>> personal FW solutions are not savvy enough to find a hidden process,

>>>> because I have talked with them in other NG(s) including ZA users

>>>> about using PE, how to use it and they couldn't find a thing,

>>>> probably looking right at it in their face.

>>>

>>> I said nothing about users. I said "ZoneAlarm people", not ZoneAlarm

>>> users.</span>

>>

>> You make no sense none whatsoever. If one using the ZA application,

>> then one is a user of ZA. style_emoticons/</span>

>

>

> I know you are an intelligent person, therefore you are using your

> intelligence to be ignorant. Obviously you don't want to understand.</span>

 

Understand what? And you're sitting there and saying that some software

developer for ZA is going to tap into SVChost.exe? What are are they

going to be doing?

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

+Bob+ wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:18:46 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>

> wrote:

> <span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

>>>> You are an idiot. Why I bother with you is beyond me?

>>>

>>> When the verbal going gets tough, people with lower IQ's and

>>> difficulties articulating (or even formulating) an arguable position

>>> tend to fall back to personal insults. </span>

>> Pfft, you are a llort, a responder, and you can reverse spell the word.</span>

>

> Might want to check your system time there, smart guy, for a guru you

> seem to have some real issues.</span>

 

You lunatic, the clock on my machine is correct. Now how long it takes

to get there once I send it is another story. Old man, you are really silly.

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

+Bob+ wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:18:46 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack@Rripper.com>

> wrote:

> <span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

>>>> You are an idiot. Why I bother with you is beyond me?

>>>

>>> When the verbal going gets tough, people with lower IQ's and

>>> difficulties articulating (or even formulating) an arguable position

>>> tend to fall back to personal insults. </span>

>> Pfft, you are a llort, a responder, and you can reverse spell the word.</span>

>

> Might want to check your system time there, smart guy, for a guru you

> seem to have some real issues. </span>

 

 

The clock in the link is not US, but old man, you had better calculate

what time it is when you see "On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:18:46 -0500" and

what that -0500 means, smart guy.

 

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/

[Guest Root Kit]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:41:45 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

<Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>The ZoneAlarm people are technical enough that they could hook each instance

>of svchost if necessary.</span>

 

And at the same time you are pointing directly at one of the main

problems with outbound control. You are saying they could hook.

Well, maybe they could (even that is questionable) - but are they

doing it? The key point here is that it's simply practically

impossible to hook into each and every possibility for malware to use.

It's a game you can only loose.

[Guest Root Kit]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:00:41 -0500, +Bob+ <nomailplease@example.com>

wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:17:30 -0500, "FromTheRafters"

><erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

><span style="color:green">

>><span style="color:darkred">

>>> In my experience, ZA has no trouble blocking unauthorized

>>> software from going online</span>

>>

>>Why are you running unauthorized software?</span>

>

>'nuther strawman. </span>

 

Strawman or not - it hits the nail on the head. And it was your own

wording.

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

news:OrVZvztkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>> news:udlTaoqkJHA.3480@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred">

>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:OM2Q6ClkJHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>>>> "mayayana" <mayayaXXna@rcXXn.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:%23FbIbxdkJHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Complicating matters, Microsoft shrouds a number of

>>>>>>> services in the svchost.exe process, which can run in

>>>>>>> multiple instances. So if you allow svchost through the

>>>>>>> firewall it's not so easy to know exactly what you're

>>>>>>> allowing. And ZA can't differentiate between the actual

>>>>>>> processes running under the svchost "hat".

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Actually it is possible to determine what each instance of svchost is

>>>>>> doing. WMI can show what is executed by each instance and you can use

>>>>>> the Task Manager interactively to determine that information (you

>>>>>> probably need to modify the view to show the columns). The

>>>>>> sysinternals site in Microsoft has a process monitor that can show

>>>>>> the information.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The ZoneAlarm people are technical enough that they could hook each

>>>>>> instance of svchost if necessary.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Look man, those users using ZA (home users most likely) or any other

>>>>> personal FW solutions are not savvy enough to find a hidden process,

>>>>> because I have talked with them in other NG(s) including ZA users

>>>>> about using PE, how to use it and they couldn't find a thing, probably

>>>>> looking right at it in their face.

>>>>

>>>> I said nothing about users. I said "ZoneAlarm people", not ZoneAlarm

>>>> users.

>>>

>>> You make no sense none whatsoever. If one using the ZA application, then

>>> one is a user of ZA. style_emoticons/</span>

>>

>>

>> I know you are an intelligent person, therefore you are using your

>> intelligence to be ignorant. Obviously you don't want to understand.</span>

>

> Understand what? And you're sitting there and saying that some software

> developer for ZA is going to tap into SVChost.exe? What are are they going

> to be doing?</span>

 

 

There you go, you are getting it correct now; I knew you could. Yes, I was

talking about the developers of ZoneAlarm.

 

You will likely respond by saying that since I did not answer your question

about how they would do it, that I don't know what I am talking about. So go

ahead, have the last word; this discussion is getting too off-topic.

 

I trimmed all newsgroups from my reply except

microsoft.public.windows.vista.security. I don't know what newsgroup you are

replying through.

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Root Kit" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6dasp4p5hnvqkr5npvpfrr066l0f443bjd@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue">

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:41:45 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

><span style="color:green">

>>The ZoneAlarm people are technical enough that they could hook each

>>instance

>>of svchost if necessary.</span>

>

> And at the same time you are pointing directly at one of the main

> problems with outbound control. You are saying they could hook.

> Well, maybe they could (even that is questionable) - but are they

> doing it? The key point here is that it's simply practically

> impossible to hook into each and every possibility for malware to use.

> It's a game you can only loose.</span>

 

 

And if the United States was to take that attitude about terrorism then the

USA would have been attacked by terrorists again such as in 9/11. Just

because it is impossible to be totally thorough, that is not justification

for not trying.

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

news:OkcIOxtkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Sam Hobbs wrote:

><span style="color:green">

>> RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2

>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt?number=1831

>>

>> It clearly calls RPC a protocol and says it is for the internet.</span>

>

> You show somewhere in that article that Remote Procedure Call is for the

> Internet. The word Internet is loosely in the article, but no where in the

> article that I can see that it's solely for the Internet.</span>

 

 

Note that you clipped the part where I said "the internet was built upon

existing software". Yes, RPC existed in Unix before the internet.

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

Except I don't know how to determine the newsgroup that a person is replying

from so I might clip the newsgroup that a person is replying from. Most of

the discussion in this thread is not important so I will take a chance that

the reply does not get to the person I am replying to.

 

 

 

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message

news:eYIFh0rkJHA.4372@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Hey Root, Jack, Sam, Rafters, and Bob --

>

> Would y'all mind taking microsoft.public.vb.vista.compatibility out of the

> discussion?

>

> This thread seems to have nothing at all to do with Visual Basic.

>

> Thanks... Karl

> --

> .NET: It's About Trust!

> http://vfred.mvps.org

> </span>

[Guest Root Kit]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:33:01 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

<Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>And if the United States was to take that attitude about terrorism then the

>USA would have been attacked by terrorists again such as in 9/11. Just

>because it is impossible to be totally thorough, that is not justification

>for not trying. </span>

 

You're taking this pretty off topic now, but okay let's have a look at

your flawed analogy.

 

First of all you should be very careful about making analogies between

the real and the virtual world in the first place. They seldom

compare.

 

You're saying "it's no justification for not trying". This is a

nonsense comment, because I have never advocated anything like "not

trying". I'm advocating using countermeasures that actually work

effectively and has a positive cost/benefit outcome.

 

It's actually quite amusing that you start mentioning

counter-terrorism, because if you look at it, the US has in fact put

in place lot of countermeasures that have a lot in common with host

based per application outbound control: They are close to useless and

easily bypassed but they serve the purpose of giving the users (the

public) a warm feeling of security. For your government it's not

enough to just put in place countermeasures that have a proven record

of actually making a difference. It's equally important just to make

you believe they are doing something.

 

I can highly recommend listening to what security expert Bruce

Schneier has to say about these things. He is excellent at looking

through the smoke and go right to the point.

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

> news:OrVZvztkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:darkred">

>>>

>>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>>> news:udlTaoqkJHA.3480@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:OM2Q6ClkJHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>>>>> "mayayana" <mayayaXXna@rcXXn.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:%23FbIbxdkJHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Complicating matters, Microsoft shrouds a number of

>>>>>>>> services in the svchost.exe process, which can run in

>>>>>>>> multiple instances. So if you allow svchost through the

>>>>>>>> firewall it's not so easy to know exactly what you're

>>>>>>>> allowing. And ZA can't differentiate between the actual

>>>>>>>> processes running under the svchost "hat".

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Actually it is possible to determine what each instance of

>>>>>>> svchost is doing. WMI can show what is executed by each instance

>>>>>>> and you can use the Task Manager interactively to determine that

>>>>>>> information (you probably need to modify the view to show the

>>>>>>> columns). The sysinternals site in Microsoft has a process

>>>>>>> monitor that can show the information.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The ZoneAlarm people are technical enough that they could hook

>>>>>>> each instance of svchost if necessary.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Look man, those users using ZA (home users most likely) or any

>>>>>> other personal FW solutions are not savvy enough to find a hidden

>>>>>> process, because I have talked with them in other NG(s) including

>>>>>> ZA users about using PE, how to use it and they couldn't find a

>>>>>> thing, probably looking right at it in their face.

>>>>>

>>>>> I said nothing about users. I said "ZoneAlarm people", not

>>>>> ZoneAlarm users.

>>>>

>>>> You make no sense none whatsoever. If one using the ZA application,

>>>> then one is a user of ZA. style_emoticons/

>>>

>>>

>>> I know you are an intelligent person, therefore you are using your

>>> intelligence to be ignorant. Obviously you don't want to understand.</span>

>>

>> Understand what? And you're sitting there and saying that some

>> software developer for ZA is going to tap into SVChost.exe? What are

>> are they going to be doing?</span>

>

>

> There you go, you are getting it correct now; I knew you could. Yes, I

> was talking about the developers of ZoneAlarm.</span>

 

How is anyone suppose to know the "ZA people" actually means "software

developer"?<span style="color:blue">

>

> You will likely respond by saying that since I did not answer your

> question about how they would do it, that I don't know what I am talking

> about. So go ahead, have the last word; this discussion is getting too

> off-topic.</span>

 

Well what can be said about it? After all, you're the one that put it

out there.<span style="color:blue">

>

> I trimmed all newsgroups from my reply except

> microsoft.public.windows.vista.security. I don't know what newsgroup you

> are replying through.</span>

 

Where do you think I am replying from?

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

> news:OkcIOxtkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>><span style="color:darkred">

>>> RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2

>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt?number=1831

>>>

>>> It clearly calls RPC a protocol and says it is for the internet.</span>

>>

>> You show somewhere in that article that Remote Procedure Call is for

>> the Internet. The word Internet is loosely in the article, but no

>> where in the article that I can see that it's solely for the Internet.</span>

>

>

> Note that you clipped the part where I said "the internet was built upon

> existing software". Yes, RPC existed in Unix before the internet.</span>

 

The IBM mainframes using CICS was there long before Unix and the Internet.

[Guest FromTheRafters]

"Sam Hobbs" <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote in message

news:u7dhH8$kJHA.5124@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> "Root Kit" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:6dasp4p5hnvqkr5npvpfrr066l0f443bjd@4ax.com...<span style="color:green">

>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:41:45 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

>> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

>><span style="color:darkred">

>>>The ZoneAlarm people are technical enough that they could hook each

>>>instance

>>>of svchost if necessary.</span>

>>

>> And at the same time you are pointing directly at one of the main

>> problems with outbound control. You are saying they could hook.

>> Well, maybe they could (even that is questionable) - but are they

>> doing it? The key point here is that it's simply practically

>> impossible to hook into each and every possibility for malware to

>> use.

>> It's a game you can only loose.</span>

>

>

> And if the United States was to take that attitude about terrorism

> then the USA would have been attacked by terrorists again such as in

> 9/11. Just because it is impossible to be totally thorough, that is

> not justification for not trying.</span>

 

Sure, all we would have to do is monitor the border checkpoints for

terrorist suspects leaving the US!

 

....I feel safer already. style_emoticons/D

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

news:u5GG7oBlJHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

>

> How is anyone suppose to know the "ZA people" actually means "software

> developer"?</span>

 

Mis-communication happens. Most people attempt to reconcile

mis-communications and are satisfied when mis-communications are resovled.

Trouble makers attempt to feed on mis-communication to make trouble. Any

mis-communication that existed here has been resolved and continuation of

this has no value other than degrading into useless attacks in the manner I

see elsewhere.

<span style="color:blue">

> Where do you think I am replying from?</span>

 

From a newsgroup of course. If you don't understand that then you are

intentionally being ignorant just to make trouble.

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Root Kit" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:g8gvp4dukhtfdsta4jn3pcqpeueepl0u0s@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue">

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:33:01 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

>

> You're taking this pretty off topic now, but okay let's have a look at

> your flawed analogy.</span>

 

You clipped the comment that I replied to and that takes my comment out of

context. Your comment implied that it is not worth trying to protect our

systems from malicious software and my reply is a response to that. If I

misunderstood you then let's attempt to reconcile our misunderstandings

instead of .... whatever.

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

news:%23kUZiqBlJHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:green">

>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>> news:OkcIOxtkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred">

>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>

>>>> RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2

>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt?number=1831

>>>>

>>>> It clearly calls RPC a protocol and says it is for the internet.

>>>

>>> You show somewhere in that article that Remote Procedure Call is for the

>>> Internet. The word Internet is loosely in the article, but no where in

>>> the article that I can see that it's solely for the Internet.</span>

>>

>>

>> Note that you clipped the part where I said "the internet was built upon

>> existing software". Yes, RPC existed in Unix before the internet.</span>

>

> The IBM mainframes using CICS was there long before Unix and the Internet.</span>

 

A year is not long compared to nearly 40 years of existence of Unix.

ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet, was created about that same time.

 

This is certainly getting way off-topic.

[Guest Root Kit]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:31:04 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

<Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

<span style="color:blue">

>"Root Kit" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:g8gvp4dukhtfdsta4jn3pcqpeueepl0u0s@4ax.com...<span style="color:green">

>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:33:01 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"

>> <Gateremovethis@SamHobbs.org> wrote:

>>

>> You're taking this pretty off topic now, but okay let's have a look at

>> your flawed analogy.</span>

>

>You clipped the comment that I replied to and that takes my comment out of

>context. </span>

 

Your comment can easily stand alone.

<span style="color:blue">

>Your comment implied that it is not worth trying to protect our

>systems from malicious software and my reply is a response to that. </span>

 

I would never imply something like that. I'm pretty sure we agree on

the goal. We only disagree on the means.

<span style="color:blue">

>If I misunderstood you then let's attempt to reconcile our misunderstandings

>instead of .... whatever. </span>

 

Yearh. Well.

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

> news:u5GG7oBlJHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> How is anyone suppose to know the "ZA people" actually means "software

>> developer"?</span>

>

> Mis-communication happens. Most people attempt to reconcile

> mis-communications and are satisfied when mis-communications are

> resovled. Trouble makers attempt to feed on mis-communication to make

> trouble. Any mis-communication that existed here has been resolved and

> continuation of this has no value other than degrading into useless

> attacks in the manner I see elsewhere.

> <span style="color:green">

>> Where do you think I am replying from?</span>

>

> From a newsgroup of course. If you don't understand that then you are

> intentionally being ignorant just to make trouble.</span>

 

You are becoming very boring now. style_emoticons/

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

> news:%23kUZiqBlJHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:darkred">

>>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OkcIOxtkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2

>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt?number=1831

>>>>>

>>>>> It clearly calls RPC a protocol and says it is for the internet.

>>>>

>>>> You show somewhere in that article that Remote Procedure Call is for

>>>> the Internet. The word Internet is loosely in the article, but no

>>>> where in the article that I can see that it's solely for the Internet.

>>>

>>>

>>> Note that you clipped the part where I said "the internet was built

>>> upon existing software". Yes, RPC existed in Unix before the internet.</span>

>>

>> The IBM mainframes using CICS was there long before Unix and the

>> Internet.</span>

>

> A year is not long compared to nearly 40 years of existence of Unix.

> ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet, was created about that same time.

>

> This is certainly getting way off-topic.</span>

 

You don't even know what CICS is do you? A year? A year? CICS running on

the IBM mainframes is the forerunner to all of this Internet stuff you

see today, which happened in the late 60's that CICS hit the scene and

is still going strong to this day.

 

CICS just happened to be running on closed/protected IBM networks and

you never saw it. But also, a form of CICS is running on the mainframes

and other platforms that provide SOA solutions on the Internet to SOA

clients.

[Guest MikeD]

Did you all NOT see the previous request to remove

microsoft.public.vb.vista.compatibility from your discussion? This has

NOTHING to do with Visual Basic so please QUIT posting to this newsgroup.

 

--

Mike

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

You did not see the ones that you did not see, so your comments are

incorrect. I did do as requested but instead of getting credit I get a

criticism. I am sorry I missed one but I would be more responsive if I got

credit for doing as requested in other replies.

 

I hope this thread dies quickly but this message is more likely to keep it

going.

 

 

"MikeD" <nobody@nowhere.edu> wrote in message

news:OK7MBLSlJHA.4252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

>

> Did you all NOT see the previous request to remove

> microsoft.public.vb.vista.compatibility from your discussion? This has

> NOTHING to do with Visual Basic so please QUIT posting to this newsgroup.

>

> --

> Mike

> </span>

[Guest Sam Hobbs]

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

news:O3QPH3RlJHA.1388@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Sam Hobbs wrote:<span style="color:green">

>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>> news:%23kUZiqBlJHA.2460@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred">

>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:OkcIOxtkJHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2

>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt?number=1831

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It clearly calls RPC a protocol and says it is for the internet.

>>>>>

>>>>> You show somewhere in that article that Remote Procedure Call is for

>>>>> the Internet. The word Internet is loosely in the article, but no

>>>>> where in the article that I can see that it's solely for the Internet.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Note that you clipped the part where I said "the internet was built

>>>> upon existing software". Yes, RPC existed in Unix before the internet.

>>>

>>> The IBM mainframes using CICS was there long before Unix and the

>>> Internet.</span>

>>

>> A year is not long compared to nearly 40 years of existence of Unix.

>> ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet, was created about that same

>> time.

>>

>> This is certainly getting way off-topic.</span>

>

> You don't even know what CICS is do you? A year? A year? CICS running on

> the IBM mainframes is the forerunner to all of this Internet stuff you see

> today, which happened in the late 60's that CICS hit the scene and is

> still going strong to this day.

>

> CICS just happened to be running on closed/protected IBM networks and you

> never saw it. But also, a form of CICS is running on the mainframes and

> other platforms that provide SOA solutions on the Internet to SOA clients.</span>

 

 

I am not sure you know what CICS is; see:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICS

 

Which says that the "first release of CICS was made available on July 8,

1969".

 

Then see:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

 

Which says

 

- "of what would become the ARPANET were interconnected" .... "on

October 29, 1969"

- "first description of the TCP protocols during 1973"

- use of the term internet "to describe a single global TCP/IP network

originated in December 1974 with the publication of RFC 675"

 

And when you read that you will see that the internet is based on software

that was developed much before that time, but 1974 is a little later than

1970 as I stated previously; there is no clear date of the birth of the

internet.

 

CICS is not a communication protocol; it is a transaction processor. It uses

SNA to communicate, although SNA did not exist when CICS was first used.

CICS is not part of SNA but it is part of SAA; do you know what they are?

SAA is an architecture so it does not specify CICS; CICS though is an

implementation of the relevant portion (transaction processing?) of SAA.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the organization "Guide"; it is an

organization of IBM customers. I remember being at Guide when SAA was

announced.

 

CICS has had such a small influence on the internet that it can be

considered to be none. Can you provide an authoritative article saying that

the internet was developed based on CICS?

 

This is getting way too off-topic; we can continue this elsewhere and if you

want to choose where then let me know where.

[Guest Jack the Ripper]

Re: Microsoft Windows Vista includes a two-way firewall. TO THETOP

 

Sam Hobbs wrote:

 

Yeah, I snipped the rest of it. So what? I don't need a lecture from you

on technology I use to use and knew it well.

<span style="color:blue">

>

> CICS has had such a small influence on the internet that it can be

> considered to be none. Can you provide an authoritative article saying

> that the internet was developed based on CICS?</span>

 

But it had an influence is the bottom line. I don't care if it was a

small or large influence either. CICS was there before the Internet and

was a forerunner to cloud technology as well. They are doing the same

thing that were doing 30 to 40 years ago. It's the same old dance, just

another tune. The only difference is that the masses can use it.<span style="color:blue">

>

> This is getting way too off-topic; we can continue this elsewhere and if

> you want to choose where then let me know where.

> </span>

 

Then why do you keep harping on it?

[Guest Mark H]

I'm noticing three things about you "Jack" based on a few threads:

 

You always end up off-topic.

You seem to need to have the last word.

You reply to what you feel you can contest while ignoring the context of

the prior post.

 

Sounds more like a troll.

But, don't worry. If you must have the last word, again. I won't be

following any of your other posts.

 

 

"Jack the Ripper" <Jack@Rripper.com> wrote in message

news:Ol9iJ3plJHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

> Sam Hobbs wrote:

>

> Yeah, I snipped the rest of it. So what? I don't need a lecture from you

> on technology I use to use and knew it well.

><span style="color:green">

> >

> > CICS has had such a small influence on the internet that it can be

> > considered to be none. Can you provide an authoritative article saying

> > that the internet was developed based on CICS?</span>

>

> But it had an influence is the bottom line. I don't care if it was a

> small or large influence either. CICS was there before the Internet and

> was a forerunner to cloud technology as well. They are doing the same

> thing that were doing 30 to 40 years ago. It's the same old dance, just

> another tune. The only difference is that the masses can use it.<span style="color:green">

> >

> > This is getting way too off-topic; we can continue this elsewhere and if

> > you want to choose where then let me know where.

> ></span>

>

> Then why do you keep harping on it?</span>