Blackice Firewall
Clive
Laptop (via a VPN).
Company also allows use of other PC's from home, but one of the criteria is
that we must have Black ICE firewall.
I always thought Black Ice was NO one of the 'better' firewalls.
Is BlackIce any good. Before this I've always used Sygate Pro
Thanks
Clive
Redmond du Barrymond
The company you work for are clueless. Sygate is way better.
Clive
"Redmond du Barrymond" <red...@STUFFIT.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkbr41pcumt603fbb...@4ax.com...
Wouldn't say they are clueless - a very successful Multi billion dollar
Global company. Yet I think their choice of Firewalls and AV (Trend) for
Home workers is a little strange.
Maybe they go a good deal?
Clive
Redmond du Barrymond
>
>Wouldn't say they are clueless - a very successful Multi billion dollar
>Global company. Yet I think their choice of Firewalls and AV (Trend) for
>Home workers is a little strange.
>
>Maybe they go a good deal?
>
>Clive
>
Lots of idiots are rich.
Duane Arnold
news:khi3e.1875$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Although I don't use BI except for on my laptop now, I never had a problem
with the product.
Duane :)
optikl
Protector. I think it's an excellent product. I personally don't use the
application control module, but it is one of the better thought out ways
of deal with application control I've seen. I just use its firewall and
IDS module from wireless connections when I'm traveling on the road. If
you do decide to use the app control, might I suggest you ditch the
globalchecksum file and just use local checksumming for your machine?
optikl
You probably just forgot to mention all the reasons why. I know, that
happens to me a lot.
optikl
> Wouldn't say they are clueless - a very successful Multi billion dollar
> Global company. Yet I think their choice of Firewalls and AV (Trend) for
> Home workers is a little strange.
>
> Maybe they go a good deal?
>
> Clive
>
>
I don't think either choice is strange. What you might want to do is
check these products out for yourself and then form an opinion. An
informed opinion, based on personal experience, is usually better than
an opinion based on something you read in a Usenet NG, regardless from
whom it comes.
optikl
>
> Lots of idiots are rich.
Now this shows you do a lot of thinking.
cant...@dieznet.com
a technician installed Black Ice on my home computer. would you mind
telling me what it is for? there are long lists of IPs supposedly
trying to "attack" my computer every day, every second, and I can't
believe it. so I was going to ditch it.
I also have AVG virus control, which looks less spooky to me, but I
realize that's no way to talk about these high tech thingies.
Rosario Cevena
Internet Security Systems applications are the best we may have around.
Nobody can compete but the only issue with those products is dickheads
guys like you promoting something else without letting test...
Rosa
optikl
>
>
> a technician installed Black Ice on my home computer. would you mind
> telling me what it is for?
Depends on the version you have installed. Newer versions provide
firewalling, intrusion detection and application protection (control).
The intrusion detection works off of a signature file data base. If you
have the security cranked real high (Paranoid) you're probably going to
see a lot of internet noise. But, the fact remains that unsolicited
traffic is being blocked. Turn off the alerts in Black Ice. That way,
you're not being aggravated by a lot of internet *noise*.
there are long lists of IPs supposedly
> trying to "attack" my computer every day, every second, and I can't
> believe it. so I was going to ditch it.
See the above.
Jean-Paul Kuypers
For your issue, why don't you call the ISS Support?
http://www.iss.net/support/
Note, the ISS Support got the SCP Certification
http://bvlive01.iss.net/issEn/delivery/prdetail.jsp?oid=26884
Kind regards,
Jean-Paul
Duane Arnold
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
That's outrageous and you have no ideal about what you're talking about.
All BI is doing is reporting inbound traffic that's hitting the FW most
likely all the low-level Internet traffic that's flying around out there,
which you can tell BI what type of threats you want reported to you and
which ones you don't and basically mean nothing to you.
My WatchGuard FireBox SOHO 6 Firewall appliance that cost considerably
more than BI logs everything that's hitting the FW and I have no choice
but to view it, but I know what I am looking at. BI has many settings
that can be used to tailor it for protection and reporting. You can
configure it to not report certain things like low-level meaningless
traffic and if you enable BI's logging you can still see all inbound
traffic that's being stopped by BI's FW with VisualIce (free).
BI is not AV software it's a FW and Intrusion Detection application which
does have some add features in it that can control malware but it is NOT
a malware application. Yes, you either need to get the BI User manual
which can be downloaded open it up and or read it or you uninstall BI
because you do have to a little savvy to use BI.
Duane :)
cant...@dieznet.com
Duane Arnold wrote:
> cant...@dieznet.com wrote in news:1112450810.359109.157830
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > a technician installed Black Ice on my home computer. would you
mind
> > telling me what it is for? there are long lists of IPs supposedly
> > trying to "attack" my computer every day, every second, and I can't
> > believe it. so I was going to ditch it.
> >
> > I also have AVG virus control, which looks less spooky to me, but I
> > realize that's no way to talk about these high tech thingies.
> >
>
> That's outrageous and you have no ideal about what you're talking
about.
> All BI is doing is reporting inbound traffic that's hitting the FW
most
> likely all the low-level Internet traffic that's flying around out
there,
> which you can tell BI what type of threats you want reported to you
and
> which ones you don't and basically mean nothing to you.
thank you for your explanation. I will try to look into the BI manual.
I simply do not understand what a "threat" is.
in other words, if I eliminate the program, what will happen to me or
to my computer?
>
> My WatchGuard FireBox SOHO 6 Firewall appliance that cost
considerably
> more than BI logs everything that's hitting the FW and I have no
choice
> but to view it, but I know what I am looking at. BI has many settings
> that can be used to tailor it for protection and reporting. You can
> configure it to not report certain things like low-level meaningless
> traffic
I cannot tell "meaningless traffic" from "a threat", and you are
probably right in thinking that I should just get rid of that program
or at least forget about it and let it do its thing while I look the
other way.
> and if you enable BI's logging you can still see all inbound
> traffic that's being stopped by BI's FW with VisualIce (free).
>
> BI is not AV software it's a FW and Intrusion Detection application
which
> does have some add features in it that can control malware but it is
NOT
> a malware application. Yes, you either need to get the BI User manual
> which can be downloaded open it up and or read it or you uninstall BI
> because you do have to a little savvy to use BI.
>
> Duane :)
it is strange to see that there are so many "attackers" whose IP is
known so that suppliers and large computer based businesses like banks
could identify and report them. or do they all use an anonymous IP so
that it would be necessary first to stop the business of anonymous IP
providers?
Duane Arnold
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>> cant...@dieznet.com wrote in news:1112450810.359109.157830
>> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>
>> > a technician installed Black Ice on my home computer. would you
> mind
>> > telling me what it is for? there are long lists of IPs supposedly
>> > trying to "attack" my computer every day, every second, and I can't
>> > believe it. so I was going to ditch it.
>> >
>> > I also have AVG virus control, which looks less spooky to me, but I
>> > realize that's no way to talk about these high tech thingies.
>> >
>>
>> That's outrageous and you have no ideal about what you're talking
> about.
>> All BI is doing is reporting inbound traffic that's hitting the FW
> most
>> likely all the low-level Internet traffic that's flying around out
> there,
>> which you can tell BI what type of threats you want reported to you
> and
>> which ones you don't and basically mean nothing to you.
>
> thank you for your explanation. I will try to look into the BI manual.
> I simply do not understand what a "threat" is.
Well a threat basically is unsolicited inbound traffic from the Internet
that's trying to reach your computer. BI's FW is stopping that
unsolicited traffic. What is unsolicited traffic? An Internet accessing
program such as IE or other programs running on the computer that makes
contact with a remote IP a site like www.microsoft.com's IP from behind
BI is solicited inbound traffic that's coming back from the site so BI is
going to let it through. Any traffic that is reaching the FW and has not
been solicited by a program running on your computer is a potential
attack. All FW(s) work the same way and their job is to stop unsolicited
traffic from reaching your computer.
There are all kinds of junk or low-level traffic that is flying around on
the Internet. Some of that traffic is more serious as a threat like
probing threats to find out what is the O/S fingerprint or some kind of
discovery attempt for some service that's running on the machine.
Yes read the BI User manual to find out what attempts BI will report on.
But basically you don't want the BI shield to flash Yellow because it's
reporting all the low-level traffic that is hitting the FW. You want to
set the reporting level to Orange or RED. However, BI can sound off on
Orange a little too often so I always left it on RED. If it flashing
*RED* it was a serious enough for me to look at the BI log (using
VisualICE).
So the bottom line is set the BI Reporting Level to RED, set the FW
protection level to Paranoid, enable BI Logging and use VisualIce to
review the logs. All unsolicited inbound traffic that's hitting the BI FW
will be logged but only the serious threats will be reported to visually
with BI attack indicator Icon.
> in other words, if I eliminate the program, what will happen to me or
> to my computer?
You have no FW on the machine and unsolicted probs and attacks will reach
the machine.
>
>>
>> My WatchGuard FireBox SOHO 6 Firewall appliance that cost
> considerably
>> more than BI logs everything that's hitting the FW and I have no
> choice
>> but to view it, but I know what I am looking at. BI has many settings
>
>> that can be used to tailor it for protection and reporting. You can
>> configure it to not report certain things like low-level meaningless
>> traffic
>
> I cannot tell "meaningless traffic" from "a threat", and you are
> probably right in thinking that I should just get rid of that program
> or at least forget about it and let it do its thing while I look the
> other way.
I don't even look the other way with the WG. And all personal FW
solutions are sounding off or crying about nothing most of the time and
are notorious for that type of reporting. And BI even more so since it
has the IDS that is coupled with the FW and is recording and sounding off
on what it considers attacks. That's what IDS does is sound alarms and
report. But BI does look at the traffic that's coming through or reaching
the computer and if it determines by looking at attack characteristics,
protocols and signatures that's is an attack or has the potential to be
an attack, it will block and report or just report on the attempt in the
traffic. Otherwise, if it's being blocked at the FW and not making it,
then it being blocked and IDS considers everything to be an attack and
reporting it no matter what even if the FW is blocking meaningless low-
level traffic or any other kind of unsolicted inbound traffic.
The choice is yours to make in determining what you're comfortable with
in using something.
>
>
>> and if you enable BI's logging you can still see all inbound
>> traffic that's being stopped by BI's FW with VisualIce (free).
>>
>> BI is not AV software it's a FW and Intrusion Detection application
> which
>> does have some add features in it that can control malware but it is
> NOT
>> a malware application. Yes, you either need to get the BI User manual
>
>> which can be downloaded open it up and or read it or you uninstall BI
>
>> because you do have to a little savvy to use BI.
>>
>> Duane :)
>
> it is strange to see that there are so many "attackers" whose IP is
> known so that suppliers and large computer based businesses like banks
> could identify and report them. or do they all use an anonymous IP so
> that it would be necessary first to stop the business of anonymous IP
> providers?
If I was a hacker/bank robber, I would use someone else's not protected
properly or not protected period computer and use that computer for the
attack using their computer's IP to pull the caper/robbery and they can
trace it back to that person's computer and no further while I am in Rio
de Janeiro or some place like that *Doing Big Pimping and spending the
Cheese-($$$)*. ;-)
Duane :)
Redmond du Barrymond
<optikl@com_invalid_cast.net> wrote:
>You probably just forgot to mention all the reasons why. I know, that
>happens to me a lot.
Well, you could get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself. Or you
could count all the posts in this group recommending Black Ice and put
2+2 together, dumbass.
Redmond du Barrymond
<optikl@com_invalid_cast.net> wrote:
>Now this shows you do a lot of thinking.
No, just observant.
Redmond du Barrymond
<ros...@italia-online.it> wrote:
>Internet Security Systems applications are the best we may have around.
>Nobody can compete but the only issue with those products is dickheads
>guys like you promoting something else without letting test...
>
>Rosa
Screw you. Anyone who knows about firewalls knows Black Ice is one of
the worst there is. Black Ice was popular, oh, about five years ago
then people found out it was crap and moved onto better firewalls.
Redmond du Barrymond
http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm
NetworkICE's BlackICE Defender Update
Apparently Designed to Mislead its Users
Eleven Months after the release of our first, simple, but effective
and popular (4,340,641 downloads) LeakTest firewall testing utility,
BlackICE Defender (BID) continues to "leak" — as defined by LeakTest.
But a recent update to BID (version 2.9cai) was hiding this fact from
its users by effectively cheating the LeakTest.
Rather than enhancing BlackICE Defender by adding the sort of
application-level controls that are available even from many
completely free personal firewalls, BID's publisher, NetworkICE,
apparently chose to prevent LeakTest's intended operation by adding
specific awareness to BID of LeakTest's remote testing IP.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/software/security/0,39023452,20264708,00.htm
BlackIce PC Protection: Dark and slippery
PC protection is a must, but many users will find BlackIce PC
Protection's interface and rules baffling.
Waves apps through the blockade
Confusing, cluttered interface
Diligent but bothersome
Not everything is in stealth mode
http://www.informationweek.com/841/langa.htm
Good And Bad Online Security Check-Ups
You might think this a harmless prank, but I don't. That's because the
site is using this ruse to scare users into buying a copy of Black Ice
Defender, a personal firewall, supposedly to prevent this
"vulnerability." (If you examine the site's sales URL, you'll see that
the site owner is an "affiliate" of Network Ice, the publishers of
Black Ice Defender.
------------------------------------------------
You people seen enough or do I have to beat you around the head some
more?
Duane Arnold
BlackIce has had its problems along with the rest of them and is no worst
than the others IMHO. Anything that's running with the O/S and is facing
the Internet is very vulnerable to attack period. PFW(s) should not be
called FW(s) when used to protect a single machine with a direct connection
to the Internet as they are not separating two networks. I don't know what
you can call it but it's not a FW in the true sense of being a FW.;-)
Duane :)
Greg Hennessy
<red...@STUFFIT.invalid> wrote:
>
>http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm
>
Thanks for showing the audience how clueless you truly are by using Steve
Gibson as a supporting argument.
greg
--
Delenda est Carthago
Duane Arnold
news:ibb051lifjg2v9236...@4ax.com:
This is even more outrageous than that other poster who didn't know
anything.
And we have another one running around in the NG. It seems like once a
year someone shows up that's hit the Gibson site. ;-)
The notion of stealth is crap and as long as the port is closed it is
closed and stealth means nothing. I didn't get the expected response back
from the FW when I did the prob. So I know that you're there for sure.
This is old an outdated stuff you're posting here about BI and Gibson's
Leakiest. BI was configured to detect the LeakTest with the LeakTest
signature being detected along with Application Control that was placed
in the application to prevent LeakTest.exe or any other type of program
from phoning home if the user's so chooses to stop the Leaktest.exe from
communicating or executing.
LeakTest is crap an is by no means the marker of a FW solution's ability
to stop traffic. Even FW solutions that cost $,$$$$.$$ cannot stop
Leattest. If a program running on the machine makes a solicitation for
input from a remote site or IP like the Leaktest client program making
contact with the Leaktest server program, then the FW is going to allow
that traffic back to the machine -- period that's any FW solution. The
only way to truly stop traffic is to block that IP with a FW rule to
block inbound or outbound traffic for the IP.
You need to settle down and stop running around in the NG with this non-
sense.
Could it be that you're using ZA? ;-)
Duane :)
optikl
Or just ignore you, punk....
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>Thanks for showing the audience how clueless you truly are by using Steve
>Gibson as a supporting argument.
>
>
>greg
And thanks for showing how ignorant you are by ignoring the other two
urls. Blackice are like PestPatrol, scaremongers to drum up business.
I don't buy from scumware companies.
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>Could it be that you're using ZA? ;-)
>
>
>Duane :)
Sygate, asshole. You ignored the other two urls too, chump.
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>BlackIce has had its problems along with the rest of them and is no worst
>than the others IMHO. Anything that's running with the O/S and is facing
>the Internet is very vulnerable to attack period. PFW(s) should not be
>called FW(s) when used to protect a single machine with a direct connection
>to the Internet as they are not separating two networks. I don't know what
>you can call it but it's not a FW in the true sense of being a FW.;-)
>
>Duane :)
Where's all the other threads recommending Black Ice then? Ding! Ding!
Ding! Anyone home?
Duane Arnold
Look at them for what? We have all seen it before and someone like you
showing-up every now and then acting the *clown*. It's nothing new. ;-)
LOL
Duane :)
Duane Arnold
"Redmond du Barrymond" <red...@STUFFIT.invalid> wrote in message
news:qam051h74bc9fj96i...@4ax.com...
Once again, only someone with some technical expertise really knows how to
use BI effectively and apparently you have none to speak of. You're a
clueless home user running around loose in the NG. You ran to the Gibson
site of all things to run too for some supporting evidence and did a little
reading and think you know something.
http://www.more.net/technical/netserv/tcpip/firewalls/
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1663
BI just happens to combine the two technologies.
You need to do a little reading and learn and basically stop posting
non-sense and insulting people like you're some kind of *clown* from *Hell*.
The same BI engine for the pc is the same one that's being used in some
ISS's enterprise IDS solutions.
Duane :)
Duane Arnold
news:z9uve29a...@uni-berlin.de:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Hi Duane,
>
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:43:06 GMT, you wrote:
>
>> You need to do a little reading and learn and basically stop posting
>> non-sense and insulting people like you're some kind of *clown*
>> from *Hell*.
>
> In all fairness Duane, considering some of your posts in another news
> group we both frequent, you too might benefit from a drop or two of
> your own medicine here and there. ;-)
>
> I can't comment on Black Ice, having never used it myself.
>
>
I don't attack people off the top of the bat like this. There is a
difference in my approach as to when I'll use gun fire. And besides, that
other NG is the other NG and I have been in other NG(s) where people I have
some respect for went through the same thing in that NG with the
argumentative characters in it when I have made mention of the NG for
possible solutions. I am not there to debate anything with any of them and
don't want to do it either to be frank and honest about it. It wasn't the
first and it won't be the last time I'll run into some nut case that
frequents that NG.
I don't go out of my way to post to any of them. So, they got what they
deserved which was a *ragging* and I loved evey bit of it. ;-)
Duane :)
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>Once again, only someone with some technical expertise really knows how to
>use BI effectively and apparently you have none to speak of. You're a
>clueless home user running around loose in the NG. You ran to the Gibson
>site of all things to run too for some supporting evidence and did a little
>reading and think you know something.
Did you not read the ZDnet review I posted? You are so 1337 cos you
use Black Ice - NOT!
Duane Arnold
What are you talking about? I don't care about someone's review of
something. I have used BI and continue to use the product on my laptop
machine. A review is like an opinion and they are a dime a dozen and
everyone has one. I also use a WatchGuard FW appliance. I have also used
IPsec.
http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_traffic_with_ipsec.htm
http://www.analogx.com/contents/articles/ipsec.htm
You need to come up with some technical expertise on your own and not
Gibson or some dime a dozen review.
I have been in the IT field since 1971 and started in the client server
world in 1996 when I finally made the move all the way into that
environment. I have been doing programming since 1980 and have passed
more that a few IBM and MS certification tests.
Show me something other than what you're showing here. Where is your
technical expertise?
I can see where this is going to head with you jumping off into the deep
end. You have already made the leap. I am just waiting for the *splat*
into the cement pool, because there is no water in the pool for you. ;-)
You come flying in here like some kind of a nut and you have rocketed out
passed the Moon. Hell you have already left the pad. Slow down there
young fella -- slow down. You are destroying yourself out the gate.
I am just looking out for your best interest. I got your back. ;-)
I know you're going to come back and post something rediculous so go
ahead and be my guest.
Ol'lay
Duane :)
Duane Arnold
What are you talking about? I don't care about someone's review of
cantueso
> cant...@dieznet.com wrote in news:1112512502.585984.4710
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Duane Arnold wrote:
> >> cant...@dieznet.com wrote in news:1112450810.359109.157830
> >> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >
>
> > I simply do not understand what a "threat" is.
>
> Well a threat basically is unsolicited inbound traffic from the Internet
> that's trying to reach your computer. BI's FW is stopping that
> unsolicited traffic. What is unsolicited traffic? An Internet accessing
> program such as IE or other programs running on the computer that makes
> contact with a remote IP a site like www.microsoft.com's IP from behind
> BI is solicited inbound traffic that's coming back from the site so BI is
> going to let it through. Any traffic that is reaching the FW and has not
> been solicited by a program running on your computer is a potential
> attack. All FW(s) work the same way and their job is to stop unsolicited
> traffic from reaching your computer.
I think I have finally understood the idea.
as you can see, I did not understand the purpose of the "attacks".
now I see that the "attackers" would be programs that routinely look
for unprotected computers whose identity might be used for instance
to cover up illegal activities.
since I am nobody in particular, I simply could not imagine what
anyone would try to find on my computer.
>
> There are all kinds of junk or low-level traffic that is flying around on
> the Internet. Some of that traffic is more serious as a threat like
> probing threats to find out what is the O/S fingerprint or some kind of
> discovery attempt for some service that's running on the machine.
>
> Yes read the BI User manual to find out what attempts BI will report on.
> But basically you don't want the BI shield to flash Yellow because it's
> reporting all the low-level traffic that is hitting the FW. You want to
> set the reporting level to Orange or RED. However, BI can sound off on
> Orange a little too often so I always left it on RED. If it flashing
> *RED* it was a serious enough for me to look at the BI log (using
> VisualICE).
I rarely looked at the "events", and there was only once an orange
icon representing a TCP port scan.
I think now I understand the idea. I had only some notion about
"viruses". the notion stuck because of that ugly plural. if only I
knew enough Latin to decide whether that plural ought to be "viri"! as
it is I cannot even protest.
>
>
> So the bottom line is set the BI Reporting Level to RED, set the FW
> protection level to Paranoid, enable BI Logging and use VisualIce to
> review the logs. All unsolicited inbound traffic that's hitting the BI FW
> will be logged but only the serious threats will be reported to visually
> with BI attack indicator Icon.
I have just discovered the editing "menu". (you would not notice,
being used to it, but the computer people are re-inventing the
language so that, to define one unknown term, they use half a dozen
unknown ones). and I changed the settings.
people who are not savvy hate to change any "settings" because this
has sometimes been the first in a series of tragic events.
thank you very much!
Greg Hennessy
<red...@STUFFIT.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:34:30 +0100, Greg Hennessy <m...@privacy.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for showing the audience how clueless you truly are by using Steve
>>Gibson as a supporting argument.
>>
>>
>>greg
>
>And thanks for showing how ignorant you are by ignoring the other two
>urls.
Oh puhleeze, stop embarrassing yourself moron.
Quoting 3 & 4 year old URLs which reference gibsons nonsense is laughable.
> Blackice are like PestPatrol, scaremongers to drum up business.
>I don't buy from scumware companies.
Who cares what you buy, now run along and play in the traffic like a good
little boy.
Duane Arnold
> thank you very much!
>
You are welcome. :)
Duane :)
Arthur Hagen
>
> I think now I understand the idea. I had only some notion about
> "viruses". the notion stuck because of that ugly plural. if only I
> knew enough Latin to decide whether that plural ought to be "viri"! as
> it is I cannot even protest.
"Virus" is a "group singular", like "money" and "slime".
To be correct, you should really use "virus" in most cases, and "viruses" in
the few cases where "virus" used to describe multiple virus won't work, and
"virus strains" or "virus specimens" doesn't cover what you mean.
Viri (and virii) is always incorrect.
Regards,
--
*Art
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>Oh puhleeze, stop embarrassing yourself moron.
>
>Quoting 3 & 4 year old URLs which reference gibsons nonsense is laughable.
>
>
>> Blackice are like PestPatrol, scaremongers to drum up business.
>>I don't buy from scumware companies.
>
>
>Who cares what you buy, now run along and play in the traffic like a good
>little boy.
>
>
>
>greg
Ice-Ice-Baby. Fell for the scaremongering, eh?. You corporate dweebs
are compromised on a daily basis, not to mention the fact you are
mostly reponsible for the spread of viri on the net because you are
too stupid to know how to protect your email.
http://www.techimo.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-56067.html
shotokan
April 18th, 2003, 05:05 AM
1) Your getting cracked.
2)From what I understand there are about 10 or 15 diffrent ways to get
through Black Ice as well as a few programs running around that can do
it for you, giving script kiddes a way to access you as well which is
10 times worse than a cracker IMO.
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>I am just looking out for your best interest. I got your back. ;-)
Yea, Black Ice was really protecting you well back in 2002. eh?. All
that schooling didn't do much for you.
http://www.pcbuyersguide.com/solutions/security/All_Security-2002.htm
Security Hole in BlackICE
Updated 4:20 AM, Feb. 14, 2002 by Graeme Bennett.
A security problem has been discovered in the popular BlackICE
firewall. The flaw affects all current versions of BlackICE Defender
and BlackICE Agent, on PC systems running Windows XP and Windows 2000.
Researchers say the hole could let hackers remotely control the
victim's computer, steal or modify files, or spy on their Internet
habits. A patch is available here.
Duane Arnold
It's now 4/04/2005. ;-)
Duane :)
Duane Arnold
http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-NAT.asp
And BI was supplementing the NAT router.
You're a funny little Troll.
Like I said, I knew you would come back with something rediculous. ;-)
Ol'lay
Duane :)
Greg Hennessy
<red...@STUFFIT.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:01:47 +0100, Greg Hennessy <m...@privacy.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Oh puhleeze, stop embarrassing yourself moron.
>>
>>Quoting 3 & 4 year old URLs which reference gibsons nonsense is laughable.
>>
>>
>>> Blackice are like PestPatrol, scaremongers to drum up business.
>>>I don't buy from scumware companies.
>>
>>
>>Who cares what you buy, now run along and play in the traffic like a good
>>little boy.
>>
>>
>>
>>greg
>
>Ice-Ice-Baby. Fell for the scaremongering, eh?.
Incoherent gibberish does not make your case either little man.
--
Delenda est Carthago
Redmond du Barrymond
wrote:
>On other thing I was running my network with one of these back in the day.
Yea, so? You think I don't use a NAT router? Oh, right, I'm just a
dumbass *home* user and wouldn't know what a NAT router is. I've
illustrated to you and the rest of the dweebs here that Black Ice has
a history of failing to do as it advertises, plus I have shown that
they have resorted to scaremongering tactics to sell their product.
You want to keep your head up your ass that's fine by me. Adios.
Duane Arnold
And by the way, the vulnerability with BI didn't affect anyone who knew how
to configure BI manually and not leave it in its automatic settings, like I
did. You're just too young to be posting old and outdated stuff like this.
;-).
Well, little one it's time for your Pamper and bottle now. Like I said, you
would go off the deep-end, eventually.
Ol'lay and *splat* to you and may the *force* in the sand box be with you.
The only thing you have shown is that you're a pure some kind of little
something from you know where.
Duane ;(
cantueso
> cantueso <cant...@dieznet.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think now I understand the idea. I had only some notion about
> > "viruses". the notion stuck because of that ugly plural. if only I
> > knew enough Latin to decide whether that plural ought to be "viri"! as
> > it is I cannot even protest.
>
> "Virus" is a "group singular", like "money" and "slime".
I would have hoped so, but my otherwise friendly or colourful "AVG
Free" virus protection sends in a blue card every day when I start my
computer saying
"No viruses were found"
making me think of walruses and their big teeth and mustache.
> To be correct, you should really use "virus" in most cases, and "viruses" in
> the few cases where "virus" used to describe multiple virus won't work, and
> "virus strains" or "virus specimens" doesn't cover what you mean.
>
> Viri (and virii) is always incorrect.
"oh my prophetic soul!" [Hamlet] something kept me from making a real
fool of myself. I never tried out "viri".
it is a strange and highly interesting fact that English rules the
world with laws that are not enforceable except by majority
consensus: millions and millions or billions accepting the same wee
little almost imperceptible, undefinable and innumerable rules.
thank you very much.
>
> Regards,
Arthur Hagen
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:<d2re0b$8nl$1...@cauldron.broomstick.com>...
>> cantueso <cant...@dieznet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think now I understand the idea. I had only some notion about
>>> "viruses". the notion stuck because of that ugly plural. if only I
>>> knew enough Latin to decide whether that plural ought to be "viri"!
>>> as it is I cannot even protest.
>>
>> "Virus" is a "group singular", like "money" and "slime".
>
> I would have hoped so, but my otherwise friendly or colourful "AVG
> Free" virus protection sends in a blue card every day when I start my
> computer saying
>
> "No viruses were found"
That's being verbose without reason. "No virus found" would tell you just
as much. :-)
> it is a strange and highly interesting fact that English rules the
> world with laws that are not enforceable except by majority
> consensus: millions and millions or billions accepting the same wee
> little almost imperceptible, undefinable and innumerable rules.
Yep, and they don't even have to be right, nor consistent.
People who use data as a singular will refuse to use aquaria as a plural.
And you'll hear people speak of octopi and platypi. I can accept octopuses
and platypuses (although I would prefer octopodes and platypodes), but
octopi and platypi is even worse than viri.
Regards,
--
*Art
cantueso
> cantueso <cant...@dieznet.com> wrote:
> > "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> > news:<d2re0b$8nl$1...@cauldron.broomstick.com>...
> >> cantueso <cant...@dieznet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think now I understand the idea. I had only some notion about
> >>> "viruses". the notion stuck because of that ugly plural. if only I
> >>> knew enough Latin to decide whether that plural ought to be "viri"!
> >>> as it is I cannot even protest.
> >>
> >> "Virus" is a "group singular", like "money" and "slime".
> >
> > I would have hoped so, but my otherwise friendly or colourful "AVG
> > Free" virus protection sends in a blue card every day when I start my
> > computer saying
> >
> > "No viruses were found"
>
> That's being verbose without reason.
I am not sure. I think they live in Czechoslovakia or some other
country in Eastern Europe, so that their English would be like mine,
guesswork mostly and a lot of fun for some, torture for most.
> "No virus found" would tell you just
> as much. :-)
>
> > it is a strange and highly interesting fact that English rules the
> > world with laws that are not enforceable except by majority
> > consensus: millions and millions or billions accepting the same wee
> > little almost imperceptible, undefinable and innumerable rules.
>
> Yep, and they don't even have to be right, nor consistent.
> People who use data as a singular will refuse to use aquaria as a plural.
!!! I see. the problem is not just here (in Europe).
> And you'll hear people speak of octopi and platypi.
:-D
no. I do not think I will ever *hear* them speak about these "octopi"
and "platypi". I would have to go to very special restaurants,
wouldn't I?
> I can accept octopuses
> and platypuses (although I would prefer octopodes and platypodes), but
> octopi and platypi is even worse than viri.
but "platypi" looks much worse.
>
> Regards,
Justins local account
>> "No viruses were found"
>
> That's being verbose without reason. "No virus found" would tell you just
> as much. :-)
Ambiguous - it could be interpreted as I found a copy of the virus
knows as "No"
--
Justin Murdock
zeroday1
NetworkICE's BlackICE Defender Update
Apparently Designed to Mislead its Users
"Eleven Months after the release of our first, simple, but effective and popular (7,891,272 downloads) LeakTest firewall testing utility, BlackICE Defender (BID) continues to "leak" — as defined by LeakTest. But a recent update to BID (version 2.9cai) was hiding this fact from its users by effectively cheating the LeakTest.
Rather than enhancing BlackICE Defender by adding the sort of application-level controls that are available even from many completely free personal firewalls, BID's publisher, NetworkICE, apparently chose to prevent LeakTest's intended operation by adding specific awareness to BID of LeakTest's remote testing IP."
"This IP address-specific blocking could have falsely lead BID's users into believing that their updated BID firewall was now providing the sort of outbound blocking, protection, and awareness that LeakTest was designed to detect, test, and report. (And which all effective personal firewalls provide.)
Although we would celebrate the addition of true outbound application-aware control and blocking to BID, achieving that sort of protection is significantly more difficult — and certainly far more valuable to its users — than blocking a single IP address at Gibson Research Corp. in order to falsely appear to be doing more than they are."
LeakTest Version 1.1:
"Shortly after we learned of and confirmed this unfortunate decision on the part of NetworkICE's developers, we updated the original LeakTest v1.0 to version 1.1 by simply changing LeakTest's remote connection IP and port number. With that small (two byte) change, LeakTest was again able to communicate out through BlackICE Defender's complete lack of defenses, as it always has — and as any other malicious hackerware or spyware presumably also could."
A recent BlackICE purchaser wrote to us:
"As someone who has recently purchased blackice defender, I was understandably worried by Steve's derogatory remarks about the program and it's functioning. So I mailed them [ISS/NetworkICE] and asked for comment. I paste it here un-altered, for whoever may wish to read it."
For those who are interested, here is the reply this BID user reportedly received from the anonymous "Trish M." at BlackICE Technical Support in reply to his concerns, followed by the reply I sent back to him (non-anonymously):
https://www.grc.com/lt/bidresponse.htm - (Follow this link to read the reply)
VanguardLH
> The following information is directly quoted from the GRC.com website:
You really care about what security programs were doing back in 2001?
Steve has a long history of leaving out-of-date articles and comments on
his web site.