*groan* More on Comodo Firewall Pro 3.
John Corliss
2.1.5 and rebooted. After setting a restore point, I then installed
Comodo Firewall Pro 3 (monitoring the installation -thank God- with
Total Uninstall 2.35). During the installation, I opted not to have it
include HIPS (Host Intrusion Protection System) by unchecking "Firewall
with Defense+ (Recommended)" I also left the check by where it says,
"Leak Protection (Recommended)"
The first time I installed CFP3, I didn't do this. I also didn't allow
the installation to scan my system for malware. This time though, I not
only unchecked HIPS, I allowed the scan to run to completion.
Here's what the PDF manual for the program says about these options
during installation:
________________________________________________________________________
The choices explained:
Firewall with Defense+ (Recommended) - This is the most complete option
and offers the greatest level of security. Choosing this will install
Comodo Firewall Pro's Host Intrusion Prevention System - "Defense+" - in
addition to the packet filtering firewall. Defense+ can stop malware,
viruses, trojans and worms before they ever get a chance to install
themselves by blocking their ability to make changes to your operating
system, applications, registry, running processes and important system
files. This extra layer of protection represents an significant increase
in security and is recommended for the vast majority of users.
Firewall ('Leak Protection' option NOT checked)- This option is only
recommended for experienced firewall users that have alternative Host
Intrusion Prevention software installed on their systems. Choosing this
option will install ONLY the packeting filtering network and will not
offer leak protection - essential for blocking malicious software (like
worms and trojans) from making outgoing connection attempts. This isn't
to say this option is an unwise choice (the network firewall is one of
the strongest available - offering highly effective and configurable
inbound and outbound protection) but it is important to realise that, on
it's own, it does not offer the leak protection afforded by Defense+. If
you do not wish to install the full Defense+ option but still want leak
protection then we advise you choose:
Firewall (with 'Leak Protection' option checked) - This option installs
the packet filtering firewall as above and some, but not all, Defense+
functionality to provide effective leak protection against malware.
Simplistically speaking, this option will monitor the activities of
suspicious executables and will alert the user when an internet
connection leak could occur. Certain monitoring and file/folder
protection is, however, disabled under this configuration. This option
will create a protection level that is similar to, but slightly more
secure than, the protection offered by Comodo Firewall Pro 2.4.
________________________________________________________________________
So what I'd done was to go with option 3, "Firewall (with 'Leak
Protection' option checked)".
What the description means is that, AFAICT, Defense+ is STILL installed
in its entirety, only with some of the options disabled.
After a little research, my understanding is that if you instead opt to
go with option 2, "Firewall ('Leak Protection' option NOT checked)", you
will STILL get Defense+ installed!
If the protection of the third option is equivalent to version 2.4, then
maybe I should be looking at that version more closely. It certainly has
a smaller installation footprint.
All of this reminds me very much of how Kerio went downhill in
popularity when they started including HIPS in versions newer than 2.1.5.
Somebody else complained in the CFP3 forum about not being able to
install CFP3 without Defense+ despite telling the installation program
not to do so. If you want to read one of the the most infuriating
discussions ever held, check this out:
Mainly what the OP got in answer was that they "need a behavior blocker
like D+". Gee, what a lot of help that was.
His or her question never was answered as far as I can tell
I've removed Comodo and reinstalled Kerio 2.1.5.
What a PITA.
--
John Corliss BS206. I use nFilter to block all Google Groups posts
because of Googlespam. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, dotnet,
nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
VanguardLH
In a virtual machine:
- Downloaded their setup program.
- Ran their setup program.
- Click "Yes" to continue (no other firewall installed).
- Click "Next".
- Click "I Accept" (the license).
- Click "Next" (to accept default install path).
- Files get extracted for the installer.
- Click "Next" to start their config wizard.
- Default selection is "Firewall with Defense+ (Recommended)".
- Instead I chose "Firewall".
- That displays the "Leak Protection (Recommended)" option, and enabled
by default. I deselected the leak protection option.
- In next screen, deselect all of the following choices (enabled by
default):
o SafeSurf toolbar
o Make Comodo the default search provider.
o Make Comodo the default home page.
- In the progress screen next display, yes, it says "Installing Defense+
kernel".
- Click "Next" in next screen since I'm not interested in e-mailings.
- Next screen offers to scan the host for malware (that would only be
known as the time of when the installer package was compiled).
Deselected that option and clicked "Finish".
- Rebooted as prompted.
- After reboot, screen appears asking if I want to upgrade. Clicked No.
- Right-clicked on CPF's tray icon and Defense+ is listed and configured
to its default "Clean PC Mode" setting.
So, yep, their installer does not comply with the user's choice of NOT
including their Defense+ module (and having it enabled). In their entry
in the Add/Remove Programs applet, you only get to choose to uninstall
the entire product. There is no Remove button to choose to remove
components from the installation, like the Defense+ module. I did not
test the other complaint by forum users that D+ continues to prompt even
after you have elected to permanently disable it.
So their installer is screwed up and something to report to Comodo
(https://support.comodo.com/index.php?_m=tickets&_a=submit). The more
users that submit complaint tickets to Comodo the more likely they'll
get off their butts and either make the installer comply (or the config
options comply to disable or permanently remove D+) or they'll decide
that their product will always have D+ enabled (in which case, users
that don't want it will need to use a different firewall without all the
bundleware). Complaining about it here certainly won't be noticed by
Comodo. I already submitted my trouble ticket. If you want Comodo to
fix or change their behavior, I suggest you do the same. Make for a
really squeaky wheel to force them to address the issue.
VanguardLH
I think the real problem is misleading text in the installer, config
GUI, and tray icon.
The option of "Firewall" which the user is told will not include
Defense+ should more accurately be named "Firewall with Defense+
deactivated". That was the state of the firewall after its installation
when I chose this install-time option.
The tray icon's context menu still shows "Defense+ Security Level"
although Defense+ has been deactivated (and effected after a required
reboot). This entry should not appear if Defense+ was truly
deactivated.
The entire Defense+ config panel should disappear if this component is
deactivated. The option "Deactivate Defense+ permanently" should get
moved to under the Misc config panel. Alternatively, when this option
is enabled under the Defense+ config panel (advanced settings) then all
settings for Defense+ should be disabled (greyed out). They should not
be enable until this option is disabled (to activate Defense+) and after
the required reboot. Obviously this component does get installed for
this option to even exist. You can't deactivate something that was
never installed. That's why I say the installer needs to have its
option renamed and description text updated because what it says is not
what it does.
I could not get Defense+ alerts by downloading programs (that didn't
require an install process; you just run the downloaded file) and
running them. I even ran some Nirsoft utilities which anti-malware
programs often falsely alert on (they aren't malware because the user
chooses to download them and the user chooses to run them and they are
documented). So while I could reproduce the misleading config and tray
icon entries which makes it look like Defense+ got installed (but is
merely deactivated), I could not reproduce the reports in their forums
about getting Defense+ alerts when this component was deactivated.
Ron May
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> I've removed Comodo and reinstalled Kerio 2.1.5.
>
> What a PITA.
I never tried anything but Kerio 2.1.5 on my current XP box.
Just recently dumped Comodo on my Vista laptop and went back to the
latest version of PCTools Firewall Plus for another try. Still
looking for something closer to Kerio, but not having much success.
--
Ron M. (I filter Googlespam)
Known sock puppets and forged messages are deleted unread.
alt.comp.freeware information pages:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/Index.php
Root Kit
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>After setting a restore point, I then installed Comodo Firewall Pro 3
Why do you continue to hurt yourself installing software that:
1) you don't need
2) you have been told several times is crap ware
3) by design cannot work as advertised (host based outbound control is
an illusion)
.. aren't you being a little masochistic?
>I've removed Comodo and reinstalled Kerio 2.1.5.
Ouch... I cannot know your reasons for installing Kerio. But it cannot
possibly for security reasons.
>What a PITA.
A self-induced PITA.
elaich
@registered.motzarella.org:
> Complaining about it here certainly won't be noticed by
> Comodo. I already submitted my trouble ticket. If you want Comodo to
> fix or change their behavior, I suggest you do the same. Make for a
> really squeaky wheel to force them to address the issue.
>
It certainly was back over a year ago when the creator of Comodo was
reading this group. He was unbelievably obstinate about getting rid of some
bundleware that came with the program. Methinks he's just found a new way
to include it, this time making it look like part of Comodo's "defense
system."
VanguardLH
It was disappointing to see how many checkboxes that I had to UNcheck
(and nothing about CFP itself) to prevent alterations by their
installer. From the number of these interference "options", I was
half-expecting to see them offer the Yahoo or Google toolbar and also
checked by default. Well, at least, that crap didn't show up during the
install.
John Corliss
My experience was that the Comodo Firewall Pro 3 installation program
downloads an updated signature file from their server at this point. It
waits until you have a connection again, so I turned my cable modem back
on. I presumed that Comodo had their inbound packet filter running at
the very least. In any event, the installation program downloaded the
updated signature file and then started the scan. After it downloaded
the updated signature file though, I pressed the (questionably
operational) button on top of my Motorola Surfboard which is supposed to
block access to the internet until you press it again. The scan
proceeded unhindered.
> Deselected that option and clicked "Finish".
> - Rebooted as prompted.
> - After reboot, screen appears asking if I want to upgrade. Clicked No.
> - Right-clicked on CPF's tray icon and Defense+ is listed and configured
> to its default "Clean PC Mode" setting.
>
> So, yep, their installer does not comply with the user's choice of NOT
> including their Defense+ module (and having it enabled). In their entry
> in the Add/Remove Programs applet, you only get to choose to uninstall
> the entire product. There is no Remove button to choose to remove
> components from the installation, like the Defense+ module. I did not
> test the other complaint by forum users that D+ continues to prompt even
> after you have elected to permanently disable it.
What happened in my case was that when I attempted to run Riva FLV
Encoder, I was suddenly barraged with a slew of warning messages telling
me that the program was trying to run another program, make registry
changes, etc. Click click click click click click click click click
click click click click click click click click click. I finally shut
Riva down using the Task Manager and the warnings stopped. This is what
alerted me to the fact that Defense+ was installed and running full bore.
> So their installer is screwed up and something to report to Comodo
> (https://support.comodo.com/index.php?_m=tickets&_a=submit). The more
> users that submit complaint tickets to Comodo the more likely they'll
> get off their butts and either make the installer comply (or the config
> options comply to disable or permanently remove D+) or they'll decide
> that their product will always have D+ enabled (in which case, users
> that don't want it will need to use a different firewall without all the
> bundleware). Complaining about it here certainly won't be noticed by
> Comodo.
But of course, in my case the intent wasn't to get Comodo to notice,
rather to alert other people to this problem.
> I already submitted my trouble ticket. If you want Comodo to
> fix or change their behavior, I suggest you do the same.
> Make for a really squeaky wheel to force them to address the issue.
I already did. Even got the following email from them:
____________________________________________________________________________
Your ticket has not been accepted into the system. You are required to
register at the following URL to submit any issues via Email:
https://support.comodo.com/
Once registered please submit your email again.
Once you are registered you will be able to submit any issues directly
by sending us Email. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have
caused.
Note that if you are trying to submit malware samples to us and do not
want to register with our support system, please send files to
malwar...@avlab.comodo.com
____________________________________________________________________________
I registered, verified that I was registered and then resent the email.
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> I've removed Comodo and reinstalled Kerio 2.1.5.
>>
>> What a PITA.
>
> I never tried anything but Kerio 2.1.5 on my current XP box.
>
> Just recently dumped Comodo on my Vista laptop and went back to the
> latest version of PCTools Firewall Plus for another try. Still
> looking for something closer to Kerio, but not having much success.
That's pretty much my experience too Ron. However, I downloaded Comodo
2.4 last night and might be giving it a try. The well-written manual for
the program:
http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/Comodo_Firewall_Pro_2.4_User_Guide.pdf
says, in reference to the "News" section of the UI:
"News
This section contains direct news feeds from from the Comodo Server. You
can also download the latest information
about critical security updates and latest news about Comodo from the
News section."
Not too sure I like the program continuously calling home. I noticed in
the EULA for ver. 3 during installation that Comodo collects cable modem
Mac addresses that way too. I *REALLY* don't like that!
Speaking of that EULA, I couldn't find a copy of it on Comodo's website
and was unable to copy and paste from it when it ran during
installation. I might be missing something though.
John Corliss
> Root Kit <b__...@hotmail.com> trolled:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> After setting a restore point, I then installed Comodo Firewall Pro 3
>>
>> Why do you continue to hurt yourself installing software that:
>> 1) you don't need
>> 2) you have been told several times is crap ware
>> 3) by design cannot work as advertised (host based outbound control is
>> an illusion)
>>
>> .. aren't you being a little masochistic?
>>
>>> I've removed Comodo and reinstalled Kerio 2.1.5.
>>
>> Ouch... I cannot know your reasons for installing Kerio. But it cannot
>> possibly for security reasons.
>>
>>> What a PITA.
>>
>> A self-induced PITA.
What a troll.
> I'me behind a router so why shouldn't I install and rely on Kerio 2.1.5
> for outgoing protection.
Ignore "Root Kit" AKA "b_nice". He's an obsessive troll who lives to
discredit software firewalls and whenever there's a discussion about
them in this group, he pipes up and starts badmouthing them. I've had
him killfiled for a long time, he knows it and yet he keeps replying to me.
I've been runnning Kerio 2.1.5 for years now, and the only time I got
infected was via a Trojan contained in an email a friend sent me. I was
tired and missed it, but Kerio immediately alerted me to the Trojan
attempting to call out and bring in more infections. I immediately
turned off the cable modem and it took about 15 minutes to completely
remove the Trojan. Never been infected otherwise. When the MBlaster
virus was hitting everybody, Kerio kept me nice and safe.
b_nice might be a malware author, working for some Russian mob probably.
His job here and elsewhere is to spread FUD about software firewalls so
that more people will be exposed so they can be exploited as bots.
That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with that covers
his obsessiveness.
My advice is to totally ignore the fool.
Ron May
My problem with Comodo was that I wasn't satisfied with the way the
basic firewall was configured out of the box, but trying to strike a
happy medium between it providing the security settings I wanted, and
having the program constantly in my face was a real chore. I'll look
at the manual in the link you provided and see if I can get a better
understanding of how to get it to work the way I want. I probably
won't be reinstalling it soon though, unless I start having a repeat
of the problems I had with PCTools before. So far, though, the latest
version of PCTools seems to be working okay.
Ari
>>After setting a restore point, I then installed Comodo Firewall Pro 3
>
> Why do you continue to hurt yourself installing software that:
> 1) you don't need
> 2) you have been told several times is crap ware
> 3) by design cannot work as advertised (host based outbound control is
> an illusion)
>
> .. aren't you being a little masochistic?
You just don't get it, do you? Corlis, Butt Buttoms, Homobird, they all
see their PCs as reeeeeealy important data centers.
Kayman
<snip>
> Ignore "Root Kit" AKA "b_nice". He's an obsessive troll who lives to
> discredit software firewalls and whenever there's a discussion about
> them in this group, he pipes up and starts badmouthing them. I've had
> him killfiled for a long time, he knows it and yet he keeps replying to me.
You don't seriously think for one nano-second that RootKit really is
addressing you personally. He is intelligent enough to know that your
misguided and silly notions in relation to Internet security (in particular
the need for f/w outbound control) is firmly embedded within your skull
(Elvis lives...but you knew that too, didn't you).
For the benefit to all the uninformed lurkers, your misinformed posts beg
to be corrected!
> I've been runnning Kerio 2.1.5 for years now, and the only time I got
> infected was via a Trojan contained in an email a friend sent me. I was
> tired and missed it, but Kerio immediately alerted me to the Trojan
> attempting to call out and bring in more infections. I immediately
> turned off the cable modem and it took about 15 minutes to completely
> remove the Trojan. Never been infected otherwise. When the MBlaster
> virus was hitting everybody, Kerio kept me nice and safe.
A great story; Very impressive indeed. Ever considered getting your
writing(s) published?
> b_nice might be a malware author, working for some Russian mob probably.
> His job here and elsewhere is to spread FUD about software firewalls so
> that more people will be exposed so they can be exploited as bots.
> That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with that covers
> his obsessiveness.
Yeah right. Didn't you forget to include Dr.Jesper M. Johannson, Steve
Riley, Bruce Schneier etc. in your loony conspiracy theory?
(Embarrassing, really!)
> My advice is to totally ignore the fool.
What credentials do you have to come up with such an irresponsible
suggestion?
(Please don't insult us and claim that you're an experienced user, now
won't you?).
Ari
> gnore "Root Kit" AKA "b_nice". He's an obsessive troll who lives to
> discredit software firewalls and whenever there's a discussion about
> them in this group, he pipes up and starts badmouthing them. I've had
> him killfiled for a long time, he knows it and yet he keeps replying to me.
So do I. Somebody has to kick the ever loving shit out of dolts like you
who hand out bad, uniformed and amateurish advice like whores with
herpes.
> I've been runnning Kerio 2.1.5 for years now, and the only time I got
> infected was via a Trojan contained in an email a friend sent me. I was
> tired and missed it, but Kerio immediately alerted me to the Trojan
> attempting to call out and bring in more infections. I immediately
> turned off the cable modem and it took about 15 minutes to completely
> remove the Trojan. Never been infected otherwise. When the MBlaster
> virus was hitting everybody, Kerio kept me nice and safe.
Just because you didn't get infected doesn't mean Kerio did a dman
thing. MOF, you admitted as much above. So Kerio ran on your comp for no
damn good reason.
Btw, instead of playing with worthless software, get better friends. lol
> b_nice might be a malware author, working for some Russian mob probably.
> His job here and elsewhere is to spread FUD about software firewalls so
> that more people will be exposed so they can be exploited as bots.
> That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with that covers
> his obsessiveness.
>
> My advice is to totally ignore the fool.
Anyone taking your delusional advice *is* the fool.
But then, you think there is a cult too.
Corliss, btw, how come you sit idly by when the alt.privacy and
sci.crypt guys are hanging your good buddy Bare Butt out to dry? Because
you a blowhard who, unlike BB, takes his pot shots off thread just as
you did here. At least BB takes his licking instead of ducking out like
you always do.
Chickenshit.
§
> On Wed 01 Oct08 22:34, John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote
> in <news:NdWdnXfSesNScX7V...@posted.ccountrynet>:
>> removed Kerio 2.1.5 and rebooted. After setting a restore point,
>
>
> John, I get the feeling you're almost inescapably drawn to Comodo! It
> seems you try to get Comodo to work the way you want it to be. Yet
> it doesn't seem to be right for you.
>
> Why not just leave it, avoid lots of frustration and try something
> else?
I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starters.
But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and making
acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>> So here's what happened. I shut off the cable modem, then
>> removed Kerio 2.1.5 and rebooted. After setting a restore point,
>
> John, I get the feeling you're almost inescapably drawn to Comodo! It
> seems you try to get Comodo to work the way you want it to be. Yet
> it doesn't seem to be right for you.
>
> Why not just leave it, avoid lots of frustration and try something
> else?
Well, I want it to work because it's so highly rated. There aren't a lot
of viable alternatives either. OTOH, if they can't or won't fix the
problem I was talking about (always installing Defense+ regardless of
what you want) then I'll have to move on.
Just checked my Yahoo account and they've acknowledged that I sent in a
request for support. It will be interesting to see how they deal with my
message.
John Corliss
> Franklin wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>> removed Kerio 2.1.5 and rebooted. After setting a restore point,
>>> I then installed Comodo Firewall Pro 3 .... ETC
>>
>> John, I get the feeling you're almost inescapably drawn to Comodo! It
>> seems you try to get Comodo to work the way you want it to be. Yet it
>> doesn't seem to be right for you.
>> Why not just leave it, avoid lots of frustration and try something else?
>
> I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starters.
>
> But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and making
> acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
That was a pretty insulting post. How would you like it if I popped out
of nowhere and said something like that about YOU?
A. I'm not on a LAN.
B. *I* have not "hosed" my computer. I just don't like HIPS.
C. Other than Comodo, I don't think I've been talking about too many
other problems with other software lately, if any.
How far do you want to take this? I'm not in a particularly good mood
right now and I'll got as far as you do with this. Trust me. >80(>
Root Kit
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>That was a pretty insulting post. How would you like it if I popped out
>of nowhere and said something like that about YOU?
...said the guy who just accused me of being a malware writer for the
mob. Big LOLs.
John Clueless - you really make my day :-)
Ari
>> I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starters.
>>
>> But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and making
>> acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
>
> That was a pretty insulting post. How would you like it if I popped out
> of nowhere and said something like that about YOU?
Jesus, Mary and John...Corliss. My, how time flies between sainthood and
assholism.
rodney...@gmail.com
> (Elvis lives...but you knew that too, didn't you).
Thanks to our new 'improved' passports we found out he is indeed
alive:
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/257151/f63ae526/elvis_presley_is_niet_dood._hij_is_in_nederland.html
made shorter: http://tinyurl.com/5yy5fu
§
> � wrote:
>> Franklin wrote:
>>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>> So here's what happened. I shut off the cable modem, then
>>>> removed Kerio 2.1.5 and rebooted. After setting a restore point,
>>>> I then installed Comodo Firewall Pro 3 .... ETC
>>>
>>> John, I get the feeling you're almost inescapably drawn to Comodo! It
>>> seems you try to get Comodo to work the way you want it to be. Yet
>>> it doesn't seem to be right for you. Why not just leave it, avoid
>>> lots of frustration and try something else?
>>
>> I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starters.
>>
>> But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and
>> making acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
>
> That was a pretty insulting post. How would you like it if I popped out
> of nowhere and said something like that about YOU?
Wasn't insulting, I literally meant that you should learn about
protecting a network as it will give you a greater understanding on how
a on how all this internets stuff works. Once you know that then you'll
understand what firewall really is and it's purpose.
>
> A. I'm not on a LAN.
If your on broadband, you are on a lan. Router has a mac and so does
the nic in your pc, the bare essentials to a lan.
> B. *I* have not "hosed" my computer. I just don't like HIPS.
How come you installed it?
> C. Other than Comodo, I don't think I've been talking about too many
> other problems with other software lately, if any.
Good deal!
>
> How far do you want to take this? I'm not in a particularly good mood
> right now and I'll got as far as you do with this. Trust me. >80(>
>
How far to take what? You responded to my post that was a response to
someone else, not you.
Tommy
"John Corliss" <
> Franklin wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>> John, I get the feeling you're almost inescapably drawn to Comodo! It
>> seems you try to get Comodo to work the way you want it to be. Yet
>> it doesn't seem to be right for you.
>> Why not just leave it, avoid lots of frustration and try something
>> else?
> Well, I want it to work because it's so highly rated. There aren't a
> lot of viable alternatives either. OTOH, if they can't or won't fix
> the problem I was talking about (always installing Defense+ regardless
> of what you want) then I'll have to move on.
> John Corliss BS206.
John, I thoroughly understand you wanting it to work - and from a
personal usage of Comodo, when you get it set up to your own liking (and
that is laborious) it works like a dream. I use it on several office
machines and one othe machine upstairs at home. I have it set up on 3
out of 5 separate laptops. However, there are several machines that
just won't work with it. All except 4 are Wins XP, ( I don't use it on
Vista.) Most of the machines are Dells and have identical soft and
hardware. Why will it run on one machine and not the other - I havent
a clue... For those that won't operate with Comodo, I use an older
version of ZA Free.
Heh heh and why did I start using Comodo in the first place - because
some of the machines didn't like ZA.
I had a 10 licence corporate Edition of Nortons, but it got less and
less competitive and more and more of a hog - anyway you paranoids made
me so paranoid that I just knew everyone was trying to break into our
machines.
However I might revisit Nortons. Nowadays with bigger HDs, and
efficient background memory, I am tempted to put everything under one
roof (so to speak). 2 of the main machines are not allowed out on the
inernet anyway, but the laptops are used to transfer and transmit data,
which makes me nervous :-)
Cheers
Tommy
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>> § wrote:
>>> Franklin wrote:
>>>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>>> So here's what happened. I shut off the cable modem, then
>>>>> removed Kerio 2.1.5 and rebooted. After setting a restore point,
>>>>> I then installed Comodo Firewall Pro 3 .... ETC
>>>>
>>>> John, I get the feeling you're almost inescapably drawn to Comodo!
>>>> It seems you try to get Comodo to work the way you want it to be.
>>>> Yet it doesn't seem to be right for you. Why not just leave it,
>>>> avoid lots of frustration and try something else?
>>>
>>> I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starters.
>>>
>>> But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and
>>> making acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
>>
>> That was a pretty insulting post. How would you like it if I popped
>> out of nowhere and said something like that about YOU?
>
> Wasn't insulting, I literally meant that you should learn about
> protecting a network
I don't have the slightest desire to learn such a thing. I'm not on a
network, I don't like networks and I don't want to know how to protect
or run one.
> as it will give you a greater understanding on how
> a on how all this internets stuff works. Once you know that then you'll
> understand what firewall really is and it's purpose.
I already know what a firewall really is and its purpose. I also know
what HIPS is and its purpose. I'm just one of those people who believe
that HIPS is not worth the effort involved. The same kind of people who
loath Vista because it also keeps asking you for permission to allow
things to happen that used to happen in the background.
The risk is mine to take. There is a line beyond which some people are
not willing to go as far as the amount of effort involved in making a
computer secure. HIPS is over *my* personal line and that' not going to
change. Period. End of topic.
>> A. I'm not on a LAN.
>
> If your on broadband, you are on a lan. Router has a mac and so does
> the nic in your pc, the bare essentials to a lan.
But, it is NOT a LAN.
>> B. *I* have not "hosed" my computer. I just don't like HIPS.
>
> How come you installed it?
If you read this thread, you'll discover that this is a bug Comodo
Firewall Pro 3 has. It will install HIPS regardless of your choices
during installation of the firewall.
>> C. Other than Comodo, I don't think I've been talking about too many
>> other problems with other software lately, if any.
>
> Good deal!
>
>> How far do you want to take this? I'm not in a particularly good mood
>> right now and I'll got as far as you do with this. Trust me. >80(>
>
> How far to take what? You responded to my post that was a response to
> someone else, not you.
Yes, but you were talking about me in a ridiculing tone and I didn't
like it any more than you would have if I'd been doing that to you.
§
Tell me this John, how did you become such a expert at firewalls? Did
you go to school? Did you have to cram for certification exams? Have
you actually installed a firewall? Do you make your living securing
hosts online? Do you have 20 years experience installing/configuring
and securing network hosts?
This isn't rocket engineering(a hobby of mine)and it's not that
difficult to do.... IF YOU KNOW HOW THIS WORKS!
>
>>> A. I'm not on a LAN.
>>
>> If your on broadband, you are on a lan. Router has a mac and so does
>> the nic in your pc, the bare essentials to a lan.
>
> But, it is NOT a LAN.
LAN = local area network. If there are more than two mac addresses and
these addys are connected via a wire than you are on a LAN.
Here is a way for that you should be able to relate to; check your nic's
ip address. If it is a internal
address(192.168.x.x/10.x.x.x/172.16.x.x) then you are on a LAN. If the
address is NOT a internal addy then your PC should not even connected to
the internet, period!
>
>>> B. *I* have not "hosed" my computer. I just don't like HIPS.
>>
>> How come you installed it?
>
> If you read this thread, you'll discover that this is a bug Comodo
> Firewall Pro 3 has. It will install HIPS regardless of your choices
> during installation of the firewall.
There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a Firewall...
HELLO?????????
Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
>
>>> C. Other than Comodo, I don't think I've been talking about too many
>>> other problems with other software lately, if any.
>>
>> Good deal!
>>
>>> How far do you want to take this? I'm not in a particularly good mood
>>> right now and I'll got as far as you do with this. Trust me. >80(>
>>
>> How far to take what? You responded to my post that was a response to
>> someone else, not you.
>
> Yes, but you were talking about me in a ridiculing tone and I didn't
> like it any more than you would have if I'd been doing that to you.
>
Well that's just tough titty there, John. Life is rough.
btw, why do you let ascii text get the best of you?
Ari
> I don't have the slightest desire to learn such a thing. I'm not on a
> network, I don't like networks and I don't want to know how to protect
> or run one.
heh
At least he admits to being an imbecile.
elaich
news:qoudnZKJtJavW3vV...@posted.visi:
>
> Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
John, please don't get into arguments with punctuation. After this
statement, it should be obvious who the punc is.
Ron May
> There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a Firewall...
>
> HELLO?????????
>
> Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
When someone is right, they argue the facts. When they can't argue
the facts, they resort to personal attacks like you just did. Make
your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less secure to
be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never been
able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
§
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:26:10 -0500, § <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>
>> There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a Firewall...
>>
>> HELLO?????????
>>
>> Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
>
> When someone is right, they argue the facts. When they can't argue
> the facts, they resort to personal attacks like you just did. Make
> your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
> remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less secure to
> be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never been
> able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
>
I'm not anti-firewall at all. I make part of my living installing
firewalls. I've installed literally hundreds of them. Cisco,
Watchguard, Sonicwall, you name them, I've installed them. I even had
to pay to go to school to learn this crap.
If you are on broadband then your on a LAN. When you connect a LAN to
the internets you use a firewall for it's obvious designation, to
provide a security wall to govern what packets of digital wiz bang stuff
are allowed in, and yes, outbound stuff. This is all done to protect
all the little host computers that reside on the LAN.
Take a wild guess what the host computer is on a home broadband
connection? If you guessed the PC you use to post here at acf, you'd be
right.
For all these years that such firewall/networking technology has been
around and used in the corp world successfully, then this same practice
should be applied to your home network. Have a 1000 PC/hosts or just a
single home laptop... no difference.
If you don't rely on host computers to offer protection in the real corp
world then what makes you think that a third party freeware *firewall*
sw is going to offer you protection?
A PFS is no different from a browser toolbar.
Ron May
I fullquoted your response to demonstrate that you took 20 lines of
text to reply (not counting the spaces between paragraphs) BUT YOU
DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!
No problem with that, because I haven't found an "expert" yet who
could tackle it. The facts just aren't there.
Root Kit
wrote:
>No problem with that, because I haven't found an "expert" yet who
>could tackle it. The facts just aren't there.
It's very simple. It's just that you have decided to discard the
basics of security.
A basic requirement of any security measure is that it has to be
highly reliable.
A security measure running in the same environment sharing the
credentials of the malware it's intended to "protect" against simply
cannot fulfil that basic requirement.
That's why the whole idea of host based outbound control on a windows
platform should have been dismissed already in the design phase. But
we all know that if there is a market there also will be supply.
Your problem is that you return to layman's logic like "something must
be better than nothing" and similar stupidities that have no value in
computer security.
Kayman
<snip for brevity>
> I fullquoted your response to demonstrate that you took 20 lines of
> text to reply (not counting the spaces between paragraphs) BUT YOU
> DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Why should he? He's been to school and obviously intelligent enough to
research, read & analyze articles authored by esteemed Internet Security
experts with top-drawer CV and implement their findings/recommendations
accordingly. A quality you're falling short by a mile.
Apropos credentials, what are yours?
> No problem with that, because I haven't found an "expert" yet who
> could tackle it.
You don't *want* to find one (expert) because you are lacking the
initiative to find pertinent authorities. Or, you are too afraid and/or
embarrassed communicating intelligently with skilled individuals.
All you do is reacting to postings with factual content and trying turning
it into your beliefs inspired by commercially sponsored websites/articles;
This may be due to a possible association with certain software
manufacturers, oh well.
> The facts just aren't there.
They are!
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/
Amazing how a few minutes of online research makes me sound like an
expert...
hummingbird
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 'ง'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
ง, that's plain wrong.
LAN = Local Area Network.
I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
T00 FUNNY
>When someone is right, they argue the facts. When they can't argue
>the facts, they resort to personal attacks..........
t00 funny.thanks for explaining what you do Ron May .
--
T00 FUNNY
John Corliss
You're deliberately trying to be vague here. You know as well as I do
that there are hardware firewalls and software firewalls. I'm not
talking about hardware firewalls in this thread, I'm talking about
Comodo Personal Firewall 3, a specific software firewall.
> Did you go to school? Did you have to cram for certification exams?
> Have you actually installed a firewall?
> Do you make your living securing hosts online?
> Do you have 20 years experience installing/configuring
> and securing network hosts?
Those question have absolutely nothing to do with my asserting that I
have a right to make a personal choice about whether or not I want to
use HIPS.
Besides, at what point did I say that I was an "expert" at firewalls and
in any event, who says you have to be an expert in order to know what
their purpose is and what they are?
Or are you just trying to boast about yourself? Yep, I'm thinking that's
more likely the case. And frankly, all you've done so far is to be
offensive without providing any real information.
That's a very common trolling tactic. Is that what you're doing?
Trolling? Just curious. If you're NOT trolling, then what are you trying
to prove? Cut to the chase.
> This isn't rocket engineering(a hobby of mine)and it's not that
> difficult to do.... IF YOU KNOW HOW THIS WORKS!
NOTE! If you fail to answer this next question, I will be convinced that
you're only trying to cause trouble and will cease further communication
with you:
----> What, precisely, is it that you believe that I'm having a problem
with understanding the workings of? That is, other than installing
Comodo Firewall Pro 3 without HIPS? <----
>>>> A. I'm not on a LAN.
>>>
>>> If your
"you're", not "your". The contraction rather than the possessive is
called for here.
>>> on broadband, you are on a lan. Router has a mac and so does
>>> the nic in your pc, the bare essentials to a lan.
>>
>> But, it is NOT a LAN.
>
> LAN = local area network. If there are more than two mac addresses and
> these addys are connected via a wire than you are on a LAN.
I couldn't care any less if I'm on what you think is a LAN or not. It
has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is
Comodo Firewall Pro 3's installer problem.
> Here is a way for that you should be able to relate to; check your nic's
> ip address. If it is a internal
> address(192.168.x.x/10.x.x.x/172.16.x.x) then you are on a LAN. If the
> address is NOT a internal addy then your PC should not even connected to
> the internet, period!
I'm not interested in this argument of yours or in wasting my time doing
what you suggest (see my remark above.)
>>>> B. *I* have not "hosed" my computer. I just don't like HIPS.
>>>
>>> How come you installed it?
>>
>> If you read this thread, you'll discover that this is a bug Comodo
>> Firewall Pro 3 has. It will install HIPS regardless of your choices
>> during installation of the firewall.
>
> There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a Firewall...
That reply is a red herring and I think you know it.
You totally failed to acknowledge that I answered your question and
completely changed the subject. The classic definition of a red herring:
"Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue."
> HELLO?????????
No, there is a bug in the INSTALLER, not the software. My bad for saying
that the bug in in CFP3. That is, unless one considers the installer to
be part of the program, which is debatable. Once the program is
installed, the installer rarely has anything more to do with the
workings of the program.
Comodo Firewall Pro 3 works reasonably well, its installer is buggy.
> Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
Your conclusion is based upon inadequate information. Regardless, if you
feel that way about PFs, why are you even participating in this thread?
The topic of this thread is NOT about whether or not PFs are worth
running, it's about a problem I had with Comodo Firewall Pro 3's installer.
If you're going to try to change this thread over to whether or not PFs
are worthwhile, be advised that you will only earn yourself a place
alongside b_nice in my killfile filter rules.
>>>> C. Other than Comodo, I don't think I've been talking about too many
>>>> other problems with other software lately, if any.
>>>
>>> Good deal!
>>>
>>>> How far do you want to take this? I'm not in a particularly good
>>>> mood right now and I'll got as far as you do with this. Trust me.
>>>> >80(>
>>>
>>> How far to take what? You responded to my post that was a response
>>> to someone else, not you.
>>
>> Yes, but you were talking about me in a ridiculing tone and I didn't
>> like it any more than you would have if I'd been doing that to you.
>
> Well that's just tough titty there, John. Life is rough.
Well... how civilized. Real nice there. You've made it perfectly clear
at this point the kind of person you are. Perhaps you'd like it if I
begin stalking YOU and making insulting remarks directed at YOUR
competency level? I can easily do this, you know.
> btw, why do you let ascii text get the best of you?
ASCII has nothing to do with your arrogant, disparaging tone and remarks.
And I'm still waiting to hear anything constructive from you about the
*TOPIC OF THIS THEAD*.
§
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 'ง'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>
> ง, that's plain wrong.
>
> LAN = Local Area Network.
>
> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
>
So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
§
Sorry about that Ron, what was your question?
>
> No problem with that, because I haven't found an "expert" yet who
> could tackle it. The facts just aren't there.
>
I'm a IT Manager that manages a small crew that supports a small network
of less than 1000 networked PCs. I have 20 years experience in the IT
field specializing in network engineering infrastructure. If I were to
consider myself a expert in anything it would probably be networking.
So Ron, in the realm of IT, what are you a expert in?
hummingbird
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:56 -0500 'ง'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 'ง'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>
>> ง, that's plain wrong.
>>
>> LAN = Local Area Network.
>>
>> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
>> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
>>
>
>So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
I don't see what that's got to do with it.
Ari
>> text to reply (not counting the spaces between paragraphs) BUT YOU
>> DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>
> Sorry about that Ron, what was your question?
>
>>
>> No problem with that, because I haven't found an "expert" yet who
>> could tackle it. The facts just aren't there.
>>
>
> I'm a IT Manager that manages a small crew that supports a small network
> of less than 1000 networked PCs. I have 20 years experience in the IT
> field specializing in network engineering infrastructure. If I were to
> consider myself a expert in anything it would probably be networking.
>
> So Ron, in the realm of IT, what are you a expert in?
Blowing his mouth off.
Ari
>>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>>
>>> §, that's plain wrong.
>>>
>>> LAN = Local Area Network.
>>>
>>> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
>>> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
>>>
>>
>>So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
>
> I don't see what that's got to do with it.
Ya know, Swallow, no wonder you and Idiot Bear are buddy-wuddies. You
share the same brain density. Thick but useless/
As I have told you before, when someone who obviously knows WTF they are
talking about, un-dense, non-animal/fowl people STFU and take notes.
But(t) please, do argue on with an IT manager from your hallowed and
educational gayboi closet you sit in with your 6 yo PC running W98.
Ari
> You're deliberately
SSSSSSSSHAAADDDDDDDDDDUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP !!!
§
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:56 -0500 'ง'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>> hummingbird wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 'ง'
>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>
>>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>> ง, that's plain wrong.
>>>
>>> LAN = Local Area Network.
>>>
>>> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
>>> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
>>>
>> So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
>
> I don't see what that's got to do with it.
>
It means that you host PC has a direct connection to the net! You just
opened up a 8 lane super mega freeway DIRECTLY to your PC!
OMG?!?! Your breaking the most basic law of networking!
hummingbird
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:50:59 -0500 'ง'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:56 -0500 'ง'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 'ง'
>>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>>
>>>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>>> ง, that's plain wrong.
>>>>
>>>> LAN = Local Area Network.
>>>>
>>>> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
>>>> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
>>>>
>>> So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
>>
>> I don't see what that's got to do with it.
>It means that you host PC has a direct connection to the net! You just
>opened up a 8 lane super mega freeway DIRECTLY to your PC!
So? You said: "If you are on broadband then your on a LAN."
That's plain wrong. I can't believe you are making such a
fundamental error of definition.
Here's a couple of definitions of LAN which I agree with:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/l/local_area_network_LAN.html
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/lan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
A LAN by definition requires two or more systems (or terminals)
to be interconnected and in reasonably close proximity.
>OMG?!?! Your breaking the most basic law of networking!
Nope. I'm running a single system connected to the Internet via an
ADSL broadband connection, but it's not a LAN.
(in fact, I have another single system which is also conected to
the Internet in the same way but via a different ISP. Neither
are LANs)
§
They were right about you, your a idiot..... a idiot that connects to
the net and does it with a public ip addy :(
Want to become a non-idiot? Get yourself a Cisco 678 and get your host
PC off a PUBLIC network.
Franklin
<news:sg2ee4l8kdfk7cop2...@4ax.com>:
Ron, the phrasing on your question is loaded:
"Make your case why (all other things being equal)
it's more secure to remain ignorant Of unautorized
outbound connections and less secure to be alerted
to them."
It may have been better to ask how a SPF doesn't make a difference
rather than to tell someone they are saying it makes the system
LESS secure.
Aren't you asking them to explain an inference which you yourself
have made based on an incorrect understanding of their earlier
statements.
Ari
>>>>>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>>>>> §, that's plain wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LAN = Local Area Network.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem
>>>>>> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
>>>> I don't see what that's got to do with it.
>>
>>
>>> It means that you host PC has a direct connection to the net! You just
>>> opened up a 8 lane super mega freeway DIRECTLY to your PC!
>>
>> So? You said: "If you are on broadband then your on a LAN."
>> That's plain wrong. I can't believe you are making such a
>> fundamental error of definition.
>>
>> Here's a couple of definitions of LAN which I agree with:
>>
>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/l/local_area_network_LAN.html
>> http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/lan.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
>>
>> A LAN by definition requires two or more systems (or terminals)
>> to be interconnected and in reasonably close proximity.
>>
>>> OMG?!?! Your breaking the most basic law of networking!
>>
>> Nope. I'm running a single system connected to the Internet via an
>> ADSL broadband connection, but it's not a LAN.
>>
>> (in fact, I have another single system which is also conected to
>> the Internet in the same way but via a different ISP. Neither
>> are LANs)
>>> Ya know, Swallow, no wonder you and Idiot Bear are buddy-wuddies. You
>>> share the same brain density. Thick but useless/
>>> As I have told you before, when someone who obviously knows WTF they are
>>> talking about, un-dense, non-animal/fowl people STFU and take notes.
>>> But(t) please, do argue on with an IT manager from your hallowed and
>>> educational gayboi closet you sit in with your 6 yo PC running W98.
>
> They were right about you, your a idiot..... a idiot that connects to
> the net and does it with a public ip addy :(
>
> Want to become a non-idiot? Get yourself a Cisco 678 and get your host
> PC off a PUBLIC network.
lol
hummingbird
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:53:33 -0500 '§'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:50:59 -0500 '§'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:56 -0500 '§'
>>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>>
>>>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 '§'
>>>>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>>>>> §, that's plain wrong.
You're out of your depth. Given that you a) frequently claim to be
an IT manager but b) don't appear to have a clue what a LAN is,
as evidenced by the definitions of a LAN I posted above, I feel
confident at calling you the idiot buddy.
TIP: If you want to become a non-idiot, try shedding your ego.
...have a nice day.
§
My god, you are a idiot. And you just keep proving it again and again.
Franklin, Ari and the others were soooo right about you.
>
> TIP: If you want to become a non-idiot, try shedding your ego.
>
I do have a ego, this is true but it has nothing to do with computer
stuff. Computer stuff is just a profession, not a life.
Here's a tip for you: You really shouldn't have a PC. Hell I wouldn't
trust you with a calculator. Get a abacus, you should be safe with a
abacus.
hummingbird
Franklin and Ari?
Ooh I see...that's where you get all your nonsense tripe from.
That figures. Two more uninformed experts. Anyway, change the
subject as much as you like, but you still don't have a clue what
a LAN is. Not a clue. That's too funny.
Try reading a good book: "Networks For Dummies".
>> TIP: If you want to become a non-idiot, try shedding your ego.
>>
>
>I do have a ego, this is true but it has nothing to do with computer
>stuff. Computer stuff is just a profession, not a life.
You should change profession pdq. Find summat where you meet other
people who don't know what they're talking about ...politics maybe
>Here's a tip for you: You really shouldn't have a PC. Hell I wouldn't
> trust you with a calculator. Get a abacus, you should be safe with a
>abacus.
rotfl. You really are out of your depth. Jeeeeeeeez.
you wrote:
"If you are on broadband then your on a LAN"
I'll leave you with these three random definitions of a LAN
(snigger):
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/l/local_area_network_LAN.html
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/lan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
hummingbird
I already have an abacus thanks. Here's a quick scan of it.
It was presented by IBM to those of us involved in the PS/2
product announcement: http://www.toucano.plus.com/Abacus.jpg
John Fitzsimons
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:28:55 -0500, Ron May <may...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>No problem with that, because I haven't found an "expert" yet who
>>could tackle it. The facts just aren't there.
>It's very simple. It's just that you have decided to discard the
>basics of security.
>A basic requirement of any security measure is that it has to be
>highly reliable.
Nope. Different security systems have different degrees of
reliability.
>A security measure running in the same environment sharing the
>credentials of the malware it's intended to "protect" against simply
>cannot fulfil that basic requirement.
>That's why the whole idea of host based outbound control on a windows
>platform should have been dismissed already in the design phase. But
>we all know that if there is a market there also will be supply.
>Your problem is that you return to layman's logic like "something must
>be better than nothing" and similar stupidities that have no value in
>computer security.
There is nothing stupid about suggesting that some protection is
generally better than no protection. I see that you still didn't
explain why some protection isn't better than none.
Franklin
in <news:gc8qe...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>
> On Sat 04 Oct08 21:21, § <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote in
> <news:Ma2dne9Rh-OsTXrV...@posted.visi>:
>>My god, you are a idiot. And you just keep proving it again and
>>again. Franklin, Ari and the others were soooo right about you.
>>
Ah, thank you.
>>>
>>> TIP: If you want to become a non-idiot, try shedding your ego.
>>>
>>
>>I do have a ego, this is true but it has nothing to do with
>>computer stuff. Computer stuff is just a profession, not a
>>life.
>>
>>Here's a tip for you: You really shouldn't have a PC. Hell I
>>wouldn't trust you with a calculator. Get a abacus, you should
>>be safe with an abacus.
>
> I already have an abacus thanks. Here's a quick scan of it.
> It was presented by IBM to those of us involved in the PS/2
> product announcement: http://www.toucano.plus.com/Abacus.jpg
That shiny abacus must have been the booby prize because the PS/2
wasn't exactly a runaway success. The PS/2 was more like a flop.
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/21/03FE-25-tech-failures_
2.html> or http://tinyurl.com/5xynq2
Franklin
<DROPTheJo...@gmail.comCAPITALLETTERS> wrote in
<news:6kphdgF...@mid.individual.net>:
With green on black color scheme for the display, natch'.
Kayman
A lot of people would be far safer with a sheet of paper and a pencil,
providing the pencil wasn't too sharp.
Ari
> I'll leave you with these three random definitions of a LAN
> (snigger):
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/l/local_area_network_LAN.html
> http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/lan.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
Absolutely, /the/ best places for iT technical references. lol
Little computer boy, you haven't a clue.
Ari
>>My god, you are a idiot. And you just keep proving it again and again.
>> Franklin, Ari and the others were soooo right about you.
>
> Franklin and Ari?
> Ooh I see...that's where you get all your nonsense tripe from.
> That figures. Two more uninformed experts.
Oh, yes, when in doubt,
go the k00k route.
"There was no Holocaust."
"Land on moon? A hoax"
"Dick Cheney personally RC that plane into the Pentagon"
"BB should be everyone's personal hero"
Root Kit
Root Kit
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:09:03 GMT, Root Kit <b__...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>A basic requirement of any security measure is that it has to be
>>highly reliable.
>
>Nope. Different security systems have different degrees of
>reliability.
Take a close look at your statement, and you will (maybe) realize that
it does not contradict what I said.
>There is nothing stupid about suggesting that some protection is
>generally better than no protection.
Do you have a comprehension problem? I was not talking in general (in
which case I would agree). I was talking specifically about computer
security in which case this dogma does not apply.
> I see that you still didn't explain why some protection isn't better than none.
I see that you have a problem understanding basic computer security.
hummingbird
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 07:49:31 +0700 'Kayman'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:21:07 -0500, ง wrote:
>
>> hummingbird wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:53:33 -0500 'ง'
>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>
>>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:50:59 -0500 'ง'
>>>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:56 -0500 'ง'
>>>>>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hummingbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 'ง'
>>>>>>>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
>>>>>>>>> ง, that's plain wrong.
?
hummingbird
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:49:39 +0100 'Franklin'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Sat 04 Oct08 22:24, hummingbird <hummi...@127.0.0.1> wrote
>in <news:gc8qe...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>> I already have an abacus thanks. Here's a quick scan of it.
>> It was presented by IBM to those of us involved in the PS/2
>> product announcement: http://www.toucano.plus.com/Abacus.jpg
>
>
>That shiny abacus must have been the booby prize because the PS/2
>wasn't exactly a runaway success. The PS/2 was more like a flop.
Franklin, the abacus desktop toy was simply in recognition of the
hard work in bringing the PS/2 to the EMEA marketplace, not in
recognition of its marketing success.
If you can remember, I've explained to you before, the PS/2 was
not really introduced to improve personal computing, but to help
IBM regain control over the PC marketplace with its proprietary
MCA. And since the product manager for it was in Boca (that's in
America in case you forgot), your acidic smears are better aimed
at your own fellow countrymen, not those of us in Europe who had
no choice but to announce it. Further, there were some in Europe
who were dubious about PS/2 and the direction it took the product.
Those concerns were obviously justified.
An understanding of the way in which product ownership works in
multi-national American corporations might help you...
T0M
>>Just checked my Yahoo account and they've acknowledged that I sent in a
>>request for support. It will be interesting to see how they deal with my
>>message.
Thanks in advance if you can share this when you'll get your answer.
T0M
T0M
>>Ron May wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:26:10 -0500, § <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a Firewall...
>>I'm not anti-firewall at all. I make part of my living installing
>>firewalls. I've installed literally hundreds of them. Cisco,
>>Watchguard, Sonicwall, you name them, I've installed them. I even had
>>to pay to go to school to learn this crap.
From your own experience, what is for you at this time the best free
software firewall available for Windows ?
"Best" mean the one which offer the best protections against today 'bad
stuff' for a single computer connected to the net, when you know how to
configure and use it.
Thanks in advance,
T0M
John Corliss
Tom, from his remarks it appears that he's anti-software firewalls and
pro-hardware firewalls. At least that's the way it looks to me.
--
John Corliss BS206. I use nFilter to block all Google Groups posts
because of Googlespam. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, dotnet,
nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
John Corliss
So far, no non-automated response from them yet.
Ari
>>A lot of people would be far safer with a sheet of paper and a pencil,
>>providing the pencil wasn't too sharp.
>
> ?
He said you're an idiot. Additional proof, since it flew right over your
birdbrain, that you are.
§
> T0M wrote:
>> § a écrit:
>>
>>>> Ron May wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:26:10 -0500, § <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a
>>>>>> Firewall...
>>
>>>> I'm not anti-firewall at all. I make part of my living installing
>>>> firewalls. I've installed literally hundreds of them. Cisco,
>>>> Watchguard, Sonicwall, you name them, I've installed them. I even
>>>> had to pay to go to school to learn this crap.
>>
>> From your own experience, what is for you at this time the best free
>> software firewall available for Windows ?
>> "Best" mean the one which offer the best protections against today 'bad
>> stuff' for a single computer connected to the net, when you know how to
>> configure and use it.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> T0M
>
> Tom, from his remarks it appears that he's anti-software firewalls and
> pro-hardware firewalls. At least that's the way it looks to me.
>
Not exactly. A firewall is sw but it just has no business running on a
host.
Here are some freeware firewalls;
http://www.sentryfirewall.com/
http://www.smoothwall.org/
And a favorite of mine;
If your fortunate enough to have a Linksys wrt or similar;
§
Well he did lose eye with that pencil...
Ron May
> Sorry about that Ron, what was your question?
My entire response to your personal attack on John was only six lines.
Since you apparently had trouble finding the question, I don't mind
pointing it out to you by requoting it:
> >>> Make
> >>> your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
> >>> remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less secure to
> >>> be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never been
> >>> able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
--
Ron M. (I filter Googlespam)
Known sock puppets and forged messages are deleted unread.
alt.comp.freeware information pages:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/Index.php
§
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:36:44 -0500, § <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry about that Ron, what was your question?
>
> My entire response to your personal attack on John was only six lines.
> Since you apparently had trouble finding the question, I don't mind
> pointing it out to you by requoting it:
>
>>>>> Make
>>>>> your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
>>>>> remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less secure to
>>>>> be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never been
>>>>> able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
>
That's a question?
If your so concerned about outbound traffic then don't install sw that
phones home. If you didn't install sw that is phoning home then you
more than likely have have a critter on your system.
1 - Don't be logged on as admin equivalent
2 - Use GOOD AV sw
3 - Disable unnecessary services
And I didn't attack John. If you read my original post you'd know I was
responding to someone else, not John.
Franklin
in <news:gca9r...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:49:39 +0100 'Franklin' wrote this on
> alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>On Sat 04 Oct08 22:24, hummingbird <hummi...@127.0.0.1> wrote
>>in <news:gc8qe...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>
>>> I already have an abacus thanks. Here's a quick scan of it.
>>> It was presented by IBM to those of us involved in the PS/2
>>> product announcement: http://www.toucano.plus.com/Abacus.jpg
>>
>>
>>That shiny abacus must have been the booby prize because the
>>PS/2 wasn't exactly a runaway success. The PS/2 was more like a
>>flop.
>
> Franklin, the abacus desktop toy was simply in recognition of
> the hard work in bringing the PS/2 to the EMEA marketplace, not
> in recognition of its marketing success.
So lots of work but it yielded no result. The results of all that
work was probably of shoddy quality.
> If you can remember, I've explained to you before,
I can remember you have not posted the information you are
claiming to have done.
> the PS/2 was
> not really introduced to improve personal computing, but to help
> IBM regain control over the PC marketplace with its proprietary
> MCA. And since the product manager for it was in Boca (that's in
> America in case you forgot), your acidic smears are better aimed
> at your own fellow countrymen, not those of us in Europe who had
> no choice but to announce it.
In case you forgot, IBM has always been based in the the US and
did all it's main development work there. It was a fiction to
keep mugs like you content that IBM pretended to do anything
useful outside the US. And I've told you before I'm not American.
> Further, there were some in Europe
> who were dubious about PS/2 and the direction it took the
> product. Those concerns were obviously justified.
Clearly that group of doubters did not include yourself if you
invested your career in the PS/2.
> An understanding of the way in which product ownership works in
> multi-national American corporations might help you...
Like American Express perhaps?
Ron May
> Ron May wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:36:44 -0500, § <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry about that Ron, what was your question?
> >
> > My entire response to your personal attack on John was only six lines.
> > Since you apparently had trouble finding the question, I don't mind
> > pointing it out to you by requoting it:
> >
> >>>>> Make
> >>>>> your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
> >>>>> remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less secure to
> >>>>> be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never been
> >>>>> able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
> >
>
> That's a question?
>
Being deliberately obtuse may work for someone like Sarah Palin, but
anyone with an IQ above room temperature who reads this can see it's
an obvious ploy on your part to avoid dealing with an issue.
Look right above your "That's a question?" remark. See the
interrogative "Care to give it a try?" ending in a question mark?
If you want to continue your avoidance tactic, you can say "I don't
want to try answering that question." At least that would be honest.
I can't say I blame you, though, because there *IS* no good answer to
the question of how (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
remain ignorant of unauthorized outbound connection attempts, and
somehow less secure to be alerted to them, even if there is no 100%
guarantee of catching every single one.
> If your so concerned about outbound traffic then don't install sw that
> phones home. If you didn't install sw that is phoning home then you
> more than likely have have a critter on your system.
>
> 1 - Don't be logged on as admin equivalent
> 2 - Use GOOD AV sw
> 3 - Disable unnecessary services
>
The second part of your reply indicates you knew *EXACTLY* what the
question was, but want to sidestep it. (Clue: "If your so concerned
about outbound traffic"). You also, with the comment "then don't
install sw that phones home" (and what follows) are repeating the same
failed tactic Root Kit and others have tried, which is trying to tilt
the playing field in your favor by implying that your "safe hex"
habits WRT surfing, downloading and installing software are somehow
vastly superior to the "safe hex" practices of everyone else. That
won't fly, because the question isn't about who practices the *SAFEST*
hex. It's about proving your iniitial claim:
> Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
If you had added an "IMHO" or "YMMV" I might have let it slip by, but
if you're going to speak in absolutes, you should expect others to
call you on it.
> And I didn't attack John. If you read my original post you'd know I was
> responding to someone else, not John.
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse.
In Message-ID: <NaqdnbCHfpqIvnjV...@posted.visi> you
said, in response to another poster who addressed John (and not you):
> I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starters.
>
> But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and making
> acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
Any reasonable disinterested party would identify that as a personal
attack.
hummingbird
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:36:51 +0100 'Franklin'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Sun 05 Oct08 11:53, hummingbird <hummi...@127.0.0.1> wrote
>in <news:gca9r...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>
>>
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:49:39 +0100 'Franklin' wrote this on
>> alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>>On Sat 04 Oct08 22:24, hummingbird <hummi...@127.0.0.1> wrote
>>>in <news:gc8qe...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
>>
>>>> I already have an abacus thanks. Here's a quick scan of it.
>>>> It was presented by IBM to those of us involved in the PS/2
>>>> product announcement: http://www.toucano.plus.com/Abacus.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>That shiny abacus must have been the booby prize because the
>>>PS/2 wasn't exactly a runaway success. The PS/2 was more like a
>>>flop.
>>
>> Franklin, the abacus desktop toy was simply in recognition of
>> the hard work in bringing the PS/2 to the EMEA marketplace, not
>> in recognition of its marketing success.
>So lots of work but it yielded no result. The results of all that
>work was probably of shoddy quality.
Wrong on both counts.
>> If you can remember, I've explained to you before,
>
>I can remember you have not posted the information you are
>claiming to have done.
Obviously you have forgotten. No surprise there.
>> the PS/2 was
>> not really introduced to improve personal computing, but to help
>> IBM regain control over the PC marketplace with its proprietary
>> MCA. And since the product manager for it was in Boca (that's in
>> America in case you forgot), your acidic smears are better aimed
>> at your own fellow countrymen, not those of us in Europe who had
>> no choice but to announce it.
>
>In case you forgot, IBM has always been based in the the US and
>did all it's main development work there. It was a fiction to
>keep mugs like you content that IBM pretended to do anything
>useful outside the US.
Wrong again. Lol. Is there anything you know about?
>And I've told you before I'm not American.
I recall that, but I don't believe you.
What you mean is that your first *loyalty* is not to the US.
>> Further, there were some in Europe
>> who were dubious about PS/2 and the direction it took the
>> product. Those concerns were obviously justified.
>
>Clearly that group of doubters did not include yourself if you
>invested your career in the PS/2.
Wrong yet again on both counts: I was one of the dubious people
and I did *not* invest my career in the PS/2.
I repeat: Is there anything you know about?
Your carefully phrased writing style to mislead others into
believing that you have a clue what you're talking about is
astonishing.
>> An understanding of the way in which product ownership works in
>> multi-national American corporations might help you...
>
>Like American Express perhaps?
Can't speak for AmEx. I never used my corporate card much
...not too popular in Europe.
hummingbird
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:47:16 -0500 'ง'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>Ari wrote:
Listen up ง:
1. You're an idiot and it's no wonder you hang out with Ari.
2. I did not write the above words attributed to me. It may
have been Ari who can't quote correctly. dunno.
3. I wasn't sure who Kayman was aiming his comment at, but
since a LAN is *not* what you claim, I assume it was at you.
That would make your comments extremely presumptuous.
Sparky
Hash: RIPEMD160
Ron May wrote:
>> >>>>> Make
>> >>>>> your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
>> >>>>> remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less secure to
>> >>>>> be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never been
>> >>>>> able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
>> >
>>
>> That's a question?
>>
>
> Being deliberately obtuse may work for someone like Sarah Palin, but
> anyone with an IQ above room temperature who reads this can see it's
> an obvious ploy on your part to avoid dealing with an issue.
>
> Look right above your "That's a question?" remark. See the
> interrogative "Care to give it a try?" ending in a question mark?
If someone were truly in possession of the cognitive abilities you
elude to they'd quickly recognize John's "question" for what it is. A
contrived attempt to revise facts into some facade of victory. There's
no debating the notion that real knowledge is better than ignorance,
but John and yourself apparently don't care to acknowledge the simple
truth that practical, per-application outbound connection control is a
complete sham. It not only doesn't make you any smarter, it makes you
more stupid. Almost as if it were by design.
I can help you gain the *actual* level of understanding you're harping
about above, but you'll have to help out a bit. It's the only way
people truly learn. So here's a quick question/scenario for you to
ponder if you have it in you...
1. There's a host based firewall with application control abilities.
Call it "MegaWall".
2. You have some software you just downloaded from XYZSoft, lets call
that MyApplication.
3. You install MyApplication, fire it up, and MegaWall asks you to
authorize it for Internet access.
4. Now describe in as much detail as you can:
a) The two possibilities.
b) How they impact future connectivity.
c) Whether or not you believe XYZSoft can use your their prior
knowledge, your choice, and the future *practical* functionality of
MegaWall to their advantage.
Try being honest, and know that I award extra points for researching
real life examples. If you can't find any, I have some to lend you. :)
> If you want to continue your avoidance tactic, you can say "I don't
> want to try answering that question." At least that would be honest.
I won't avoid it. In fact I've answered this "question" in detail
before, right here in this group I believe. At which point the few
people who blindly adhere to the "something is better than nothing even
if it's bullshit" school of thought did their own little dance of
avoidance. The on line version of covering their ears and yelling "I
DON'T HEAR YOU!" as a matter of fact.
> I can't say I blame you, though, because there *IS* no good answer to
> the question of how (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
> remain ignorant of unauthorized outbound connection attempts, and
> somehow less secure to be alerted to them, even if there is no 100%
> guarantee of catching every single one.
Bad information is most often more detrimental than none at all, and
even good information used badly is less preferable than marginal
information in informed hands. That's your folly in a nut shell. We'll
deal with the how and why of it *if* you can set aside your own
obtuseness this go-round.
Up to you... *shrug*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAkjpOtUACgkQUZCI41IC43jP6ACfS7yGAgARkNPX+OunZGxab3dy
ZogAnRfva3ayl9Kn5/UrotFI7wtQ6iEx
=PEbm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ari
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>> T0M wrote:
>>> § a écrit:
>>>>> Ron May wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a *bug* in a piece of free software that calls itself a
>>>>>>> Firewall...
>>>
>>>>> I'm not anti-firewall at all. I make part of my living installing
>>>>> firewalls. I've installed literally hundreds of them. Cisco,
>>>>> Watchguard, Sonicwall, you name them, I've installed them. I even
>>>>> had to pay to go to school to learn this crap.
>>>
>>> From your own experience, what is for you at this time the best free
>>> software firewall available for Windows ?
>>> "Best" mean the one which offer the best protections against today 'bad
>>> stuff' for a single computer connected to the net, when you know how to
>>> configure and use it.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> pro-hardware firewalls. At least that's the way it looks to me.
>
> Not exactly. A firewall is sw but it just has no business running on a
> host.
>
> Here are some freeware firewalls;
>
> http://www.sentryfirewall.com/
> http://www.smoothwall.org/
>
> And a favorite of mine;
>
> http://www.ipcop.org/
>
> If your fortunate enough to have a Linksys wrt or similar;
>
> http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv3/index.php
Okay. Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint.
Ron May
wrote:
> In fact I've answered this "question" in detail
> before, right here in this group I believe.
I must have missed it. Would you mind providing a MID to the post
where you specifically answered the following question:
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, how is it somehow *more* secure to
remain ignorant of unauthorized outbound connection attempts, and less
secure to be alerted to some (even if not all) of them.
Understand that I've been down this road with many others, and I'm
used to attempts at misdirection that fail to answer that very
specific and narrow core question.
I don't claim that a software firewall with outbound monitoring is a
foolproof "be all and end all" security solution. In the overall
scheme of things, I consider it to be a small optional component in a
much larger security strategy.
It's also important to recognize there is no "one size fits all"
security solution that can possibly fit a large corporate enterprise
and also work for someone using Win9x on a P100 with 32 megs RAM, a 2G
hard drive and connecting via 56K modem on dialup. Any solution HAS
to be tailored to fit a particular set of conditions. In fact, I
would suggest to you that it is highly unlikely that any two
participants in this newsgroup have EXACTLY then same security setup.
If something works for you, GREAT! If you claim that your way is the
only way, I can't agree with that.
I have absolutely no problem with someone suggesting possible security
techniques for others to consider. I have no problem with those who
suggest that there are alternatives to software firewalls. Where I
disagree is with those who insist (as § did) "that this whole PFS shit
is just that, shit!" without being able to back it up.
If you want to try and tackle the question, or show me where you
already did, I'll give it the consideration it deserves. If your
reply doesn't speciffically address the question, don't look for a
response from me.
Sparky
Hash: RIPEMD160
Ron May wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:08:31 +0000 (UTC), Sparky <nom...@name.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In fact I've answered this "question" in detail
>> before, right here in this group I believe.
>
> I must have missed it. Would you mind providing a MID to the post
> where you specifically answered the following question:
I would mind actually. It's not worth the bother of digging up months
old messages if all you're going to do is continually play games like
you did then, and are now.
> ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, how is it somehow *more* secure to
> remain ignorant of unauthorized outbound connection attempts, and less
> secure to be alerted to some (even if not all) of them.
It isn't. Your parroted "question" is meaningless and irrelevant. Akin
to to the assertion that if water wasn't wet nobody would drown in it.
Water is wet Ron, and all other things are *not* equal. Period.
I'm trying to get you to comprehend exactly why but apparently
something in what I posted threatens you so much you can't bring
yourself to even address it. Which tells me you have at least some
inkling about how your position is based on FUD and lies.
> Understand that I've been down this road with many others, and I'm
> used to attempts at misdirection that fail to answer that very
> specific and narrow core question.
There's no misdirection coming from me sir, that's your domain. Along
with snipping and running when your "facts" are challenged apparently.
I invested more time than I should have trying to get to the heart of
the matter. So here's the salient points again. Try to man up a bit:
1. There's a host based firewall with application control abilities.
Call it "MegaWall".
2. You have some software you just downloaded from XYZSoft, lets call
that MyApplication.
3. You install MyApplication, fire it up, and MegaWall asks you to
authorize it for Internet access.
4. Now describe in as much detail as you can:
a) The two possibilities.
b) How they impact future connectivity.
c) Whether or not you believe XYZSoft can use your their prior
knowledge, your choice, and the future *practical* functionality of
MegaWall to their advantage.
I'll kick it up a notch just for fun. Assume I'm a nefarious programmer
at XYZSoft. I know people who install MyApplication, let's assume it's
some sort of Internet aware media player, are running host based
outbound access control a'la MegaWall.
So I hide code in MyApplication that collects data on your music
acquisition habits. Set it to start feeding me information only after
it's made an innocuous connection. You, being a typical sheep who
thinks MegaWall prevents "unauthorized outbound connections" authorize
it to make connections and presto... you've just given me carte blanche
over anything and everything my software discovers about you. The
pirate sites you steal music from, the credit card numbers you use to
legitimately buy music, etc. Yes Ron, your "equalizer" has drastically
tipped the balance of power in my favor, and all because you mistakenly
believe you're somehow "smarter" for relying on snake oil.
Thank you for your help, Ron. :)
Now a real life example, and one that was ironically enough referenced
in a recent subject line right here in ACF. JAP, and the infamous
German LE back door.
Remember that? The Germans forced the authors of JAP to insert code
that broke the anonymity of JAP by sending data out of channel, oddly
enough in the name of fighting exactly the sort of "illegal" activity I
was talking about above. And because people like you tend to
unwittingly trust smoke and mirrors it *could* have gone completely
undetected for a good while. With not only the alleged "crooks" being
outed but legitimate anonymity seekers. A real potential for serious
harm.
Fortunately that incident was derailed by knowledgeable users who first
noticed something fishy in the source code, and then *confirmed* it
using things like proper firewalls and access control software to
confirm the surreptitious connections *you* could have never been aware
of using host based outbound access control. In fact most would have
trusted JAP implicitly because you were hoodwinked into thinking
"MegaWall" kept you safe from that sort of crap.
*sigh*
So yes Ron, the sort of "knowledge" you mistakenly think you're gaining
by relying on that sort of nonsense actually makes you far less secure
than doing nothing at all in most real life situations. It's the false
sense myself and others have tried to explain to you. One of the facts
you're running scared from.
> If you want to try and tackle the question, or show me where you
> already did, I'll give it the consideration it deserves. If your
> reply doesn't speciffically address the question, don't look for a
> response from me.
Of course... make sure you have an out if you get backed into a corner.
Exactly the adolescent hands-over-the-ears tact you took last time.
I am "tackling the question" here Ron. You're not only refusing to
consider anything but your thread bare mantra, you're actually making a
fool of yourself by so blatantly ducking from reality.
I won't waste my time again if you continue to act like a child. My
point is made, and unless you can muster up the courage to try and
diminish it, it stands all on its own. Hopefully other, less self
absorbed and more courageous readers, will benefit. :)
G'day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAkjpbaMACgkQUZCI41IC43gtoQCgkQYDLXq3pjHMvWjVl1jPIN1I
nN8AoKPQCHc/w8/Vlfz7Eb4uOSl+93Ve
=fXf6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Franklin
in <news:gcbese...@localhost.127.0.0.1>:
Believe what you like. I can only repeat I am not a citizen of the
US. Nor do I live there.
>
>>> Further, there were some in Europe who were dubious about PS/2
>>> and the direction it took the product. Those concerns were
>>> obviously justified.
>>
>>Clearly that group of doubters did not include yourself if you
>>invested your career in the PS/2.
>
> Wrong yet again on both counts: I was one of the dubious people
> and I did *not* invest my career in the PS/2.
>
OMG! So you were a doubter but actually worked for a purpose which
you didn't believe in.
Where on earth were your principles? I can see how you now have no
self-respect and will stoop to anything without it further damaging
your rock-bottom reputation.
It wouldn't surprise me if you weren't actually seeking to undermine
the whole PS/2 launch because you were against it.
Well I suppose we got the 3.5 inch floppy and the mouse connector.
And graphics moved on to the next step. Woopee! That made it all
worthwhile, I guess. OS/2 nose dived as IBM found it had met its
match in dodgy horsetrading when it contracted key development to
Microsoft.
Over engineered, over complicated, over clever, over proprietary and
over priced. No wonder the Amstrad PC ate the PS/2's breakfast.
> I repeat: Is there anything you know about?
> Your carefully phrased writing style to mislead others into
> believing that you have a clue what you're talking about is
> astonishing.
Sure I know something: I know you are thick.
>>> An understanding of the way in which product ownership works
>>> in multi-national American corporations might help you...
>>
>>Like American Express perhaps?
>
> Can't speak for AmEx. I never used my corporate card much ...not
> too popular in Europe.
Wakey wakey! Hummingbird. Keep up there. Don't fall asleep. I'll
say it once again but more slowly this time ...
You wrote: "An understanding of the way in which product ownership
works in multi-national American corporations might help you..."
I replied:
" L i k e A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s p e r h a p s ? "
Get it this time?
Ron May
wrote:
> Your parroted "question" is meaningless and irrelevant.
.... and still unanswered
> G'day.
Back atcha!
§
What the hell..... are you paranoid that somebody is out to get you?
sheeees.
You asked a question I did my best to answer it. There you go.
How about taking a laxative, or at the very least, switch to decaf.
§
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:47:16 -0500 'ง'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>> Ari wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:06:55 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A lot of people would be far safer with a sheet of paper and a pencil,
>>>>> providing the pencil wasn't too sharp.
>>>> ?
>>> He said you're an idiot. Additional proof, since it flew right over your
>>> birdbrain, that you are.
>> Well he did lose eye with that pencil...
>
> Listen up ง:
> 1. You're an idiot and it's no wonder you hang out with Ari.
> 2. I did not write the above words attributed to me. It may
> have been Ari who can't quote correctly. dunno.
> 3. I wasn't sure who Kayman was aiming his comment at, but
> since a LAN is *not* what you claim, I assume it was at you.
> That would make your comments extremely presumptuous.
>
I'm betting it was your right eye.
§
I've seen a few suitable Linksys WRT's on ebay going for about 20 bones
or so. Total geek blast hacking these things. You can do ssh VPN,
vlan's, DMZ, dns forwarding even run Samba on it for Win networking.
Takes a few minutes to flash and easy to configure.
Oh, it's freeware too.
Ron May
> What the hell..... are you paranoid that somebody is out to get you?
> sheeees.
>
> You asked a question I did my best to answer it. There you go.
>
> How about taking a laxative, or at the very least, switch to decaf.
I see you've managed to come full circle.
In Message-ID: <NaqdnbCHfpqIvnjV...@posted.visi> you
started with a personal attack, and apparenyly that's all you've got
left at this point.
Don't feel bad. All of the other "experts" have ducked the question
thus far without beibg able to give a direct answer. I didn't expect
you to do any better.
Kayman
Great post/(explicit) response, Sparky!
IMO, Dr. Jesper M. Johannson couldn't have explained and elaborated on this
issue any better (he authored some very educational articles in relation to
outbound control in WinXp/Vista (NT) operating systems)!
Levelheaded lurkers will definitely benefit; It'll give them a starting
point to research this subject more carefully and not relying on
commercially driven publications, biased journalism and claims made by
(most) makers of 3rd party PFW's.
Peter Seiler
> ?
over ~ 100! unnecessary quoting lines (snipped) only for one "?".
What a wasting of bandwidth for example. Are you a newbie in usenet?
Only a recommendation:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
--
by(e) PS
spam will be killfiled
hummingbird
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:12:33 -0400 'Ari'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:06:55 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
Kayman wrote:
>>>A lot of people would be far safer with a sheet of paper and a pencil,
>>>providing the pencil wasn't too sharp.
>> ?
>He said you're an idiot. Additional proof, since it flew right over your
>birdbrain, that you are.
Rubbish, Silverslime. Kayman said nothing of the sort, and his
comment was addressed to your new friend "§". I'd be astonished
if Kayman considered a single PC attached to the Internet via a
broadband modem constituted a LAN (Local Area Network), as
"§" asserted and "you" agree with. It really is too funny...
Just in case you start wriggling, here's what you and "§" claim:
"If you are on broadband then your on a LAN"
too funny...
As another poster wrote to you a while ago:
--
"You have more delusions than any human being should be able
to fit in a normal sized cranium."
hummingbird
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:21:20 +0100 'Franklin'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
[boring tripe binned, mostly unread]
Franklin, I have already broken my own rule by downloading a
couple of your trashy fantasy posts and responding to them.
I'm stopping that right now.
Meanwhile, when you gonna answer this?:
Franklin,
Some while ago a poster on this newsgroup called you a reptile.
Would you say that was a fair description of you?
...or was he being unfair to all reptiles?
hummingbird
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:25:38 -0500 'ง'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
You're running scared...
LAN = Local Area Network.
Which part of that don't you understand?
you wrote:
"If you are on broadband then your on a LAN"
I'll leave you with these three random definitions of a LAN
(snigger):
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/l/local_area_network_LAN.html
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/intro-pages/lan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
hummingbird
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:24:40 -0500 'ง'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>Ron May wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:12:14 -0500, ง <td...@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron May wrote:
You're still running scared. I agree with Ron May.
Ari
> I see you've managed to come full circle.
>
> In Message-ID: <NaqdnbCHfpqIvnjV...@posted.visi> you
> started with a personal attack, and apparenyly that's all you've got
> left at this point.
>
> Don't feel bad. All of the other "experts" have ducked the question
> thus far without beibg able to give a direct answer. I didn't expect
> you to do any better.
I didn't, asshole.
Ari
>> Wrong yet again on both counts: I was one of the dubious people
>> and I did *not* invest my career in the PS/2.
>>
>
> OMG! So you were a doubter but actually worked for a purpose which
> you didn't believe in.
>
> Where on earth were your principles? I can see how you now have no
> self-respect and will stoop to anything without it further damaging
> your rock-bottom reputation.
Stoop
Rock bottom
heh
So appropriate
Ari
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:21:20 +0100 'Franklin'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>> Wakey wakey! Hummingbird. Keep up there. Don't fall asleep. I'll
>> say it once again but more slowly this time ...
>> You wrote: "An understanding of the way in which product ownership
>> works in multi-national American corporations might help you..."
>> I replied:
>> " L i k e A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s p e r h a p s ? "
>> Get it this time?
>
> Franklin, I have already broken my own rule by downloading a
> couple of your trashy fantasy posts and jacking to them.
>
> I'm stopping that right now indeed I may hurt myself.
Good job!
Ari
>>He said you're an idiot. Additional proof, since it flew right over your
>>birdbrain, that you are.
>
> Rubbish, Silver........
WHOAAAAAAAAAA right there QueerBoi, you don't get *ANY* fucking
priviledges to take me in and out of your killfile when you want.
Fuck off, go stick your dick-beak in Bottoms.
Any bottoms.
Ari
> I've seen a few suitable Linksys WRT's on ebay going for about 20 bones
> or so. Total geek blast hacking these things. You can do ssh VPN,
> vlan's, DMZ, dns forwarding even run Samba on it for Win networking.
> Takes a few minutes to flash and easy to configure.
>
> Oh, it's freeware too.
Any particular models?
Dave U. Random
>=20
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:24:40 -0500 '=C2=A7'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>=20
> >Ron May wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:12:14 -0500, =C2=A7 <td...@foadspammer.com> wro=
te:
> >>=20
> >>> Ron May wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:36:44 -0500, =C2=A7 <td...@foadspammer.com> w=
rote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sorry about that Ron, what was your question?
> >>>> My entire response to your personal attack on John was only six line=
s.
> >>>> Since you apparently had trouble finding the question, I don't mind
> >>>> pointing it out to you by requoting it:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Make
> >>>>>>>> your case why (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
> >>>>>>>> remain ignorant of unautorized outbound connections and less sec=
ure to
> >>>>>>>> be alerted to them. The other anti-firewall trolls have never b=
een
> >>>>>>>> able to answer that question. Care to give it a try?
> >>> That's a question?
> >>>
> >>=20
> >> Being deliberately obtuse may work for someone like Sarah Palin, but
> >> anyone with an IQ above room temperature who reads this can see it's
> >> an obvious ploy on your part to avoid dealing with an issue.
> >>=20
> >> Look right above your "That's a question?" remark. See the
> >> interrogative "Care to give it a try?" ending in a question mark?
> >>=20
> >> If you want to continue your avoidance tactic, you can say "I don't
> >> want to try answering that question." At least that would be honest.
> >> I can't say I blame you, though, because there *IS* no good answer to
> >> the question of how (all other things being equal) it's more secure to
> >> remain ignorant of unauthorized outbound connection attempts, and
> >> somehow less secure to be alerted to them, even if there is no 100%
> >> guarantee of catching every single one.
> >>=20
> >>> If your so concerned about outbound traffic then don't install sw tha=
t=20
> >>> phones home. If you didn't install sw that is phoning home then you=
=20
> >>> more than likely have have a critter on your system.
> >>>
> >>> 1 - Don't be logged on as admin equivalent
> >>> 2 - Use GOOD AV sw
> >>> 3 - Disable unnecessary services
> >>>
> >>=20
> >> The second part of your reply indicates you knew *EXACTLY* what the
> >> question was, but want to sidestep it. (Clue: "If your so concerned
> >> about outbound traffic"). You also, with the comment "then don't
> >> install sw that phones home" (and what follows) are repeating the same
> >> failed tactic Root Kit and others have tried, which is trying to tilt
> >> the playing field in your favor by implying that your "safe hex"
> >> habits WRT surfing, downloading and installing software are somehow
> >> vastly superior to the "safe hex" practices of everyone else. That
> >> won't fly, because the question isn't about who practices the *SAFEST*
> >> hex. It's about proving your iniitial claim:
> >>=20
> >>> Proof positive that this whole PFS shit is just that, shit!
> >>=20
> >> If you had added an "IMHO" or "YMMV" I might have let it slip by, but
> >> if you're going to speak in absolutes, you should expect others to
> >> call you on it.
> >>=20
> >>> And I didn't attack John. If you read my original post you'd know I =
was=20
> >>> responding to someone else, not John.
> >>=20
> >> Again, you're being deliberately obtuse.
> >>=20
> >> In Message-ID: <NaqdnbCHfpqIvnjV...@posted.visi> you
> >> said, in response to another poster who addressed John (and not you):
> >>=20
> >>> I'd suggest a lesson on the basics of protecting a network for starte=
rs.
> >>>
> >>> But for some odd reason I think John prefers hosing up his PC and mak=
ing=20
> >>> acf announcements blaming the sw for his troubles.
> >>=20
> >> Any reasonable disinterested party would identify that as a personal
> >> attack.
> >>=20
> >> =20
> >
> >
> >What the hell..... are you paranoid that somebody is out to get you?=20
> >sheeees.
> >
> >You asked a question I did my best to answer it. There you go.
> >
> >How about taking a laxative, or at the very least, switch to decaf.
>=20
> You're still running scared. I agree with Ron May.
Make sure you brush your teeth before you pivot back to Buttoms.
>=20
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
hummingbird wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:56 -0500 '=C2=A7'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>=20
> >hummingbird wrote:
> >> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:08:22 -0500 '=C2=A7'
> >> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
> >>=20
> >>> If you are on broadband then your on a LAN.
> >>=20
> >> =C2=A7, that's plain wrong.
> >>=20
> >> LAN =3D Local Area Network.
> >>=20
> >> I have a single PC attached to an 8Mbit ADSL broadband modem=20
> >> which is connected to my ADSL telephone line. That is not a LAN.
> >>=20
> >
> >So your PC has a PUBLIC ip addy?!?!?!
>=20
> I don't see what that's got to do with it.
Obviously. Which proves nothing at all beyond the fact that you
have precisely ZERO CLUES when it comes to things like networking
and security.
Let's consider something that's a bit easier for the layperson to
follow. Email access. Are you aware that most providers limit
POP/SMTP connections to machines that appear to reside at IP
addresses they own?
Now why would they do such a thing, and how do you believe it's
accomplished?
Free clue: It all has to do with you being on their LAN, or not.