PDA

View Full Version : Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?



Ckyp
02-11-08, 12:24 PM
"W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>there some reviews on this topic?

I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:

http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/

I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new program.
You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you if you
want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this firewall.

I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is supposed
to provide more security, at an added cost.

--

M.L.
02-11-08, 06:33 PM
>> What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or
>> commercial? Are there some reviews on this topic?
>
> I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
>
> http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
>
> I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a
> new program. You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will
> keep nagging you if you want to switch back. Apart from that nagging
> problem, it seems to work as advertised. And it's a big improvement
> over previous versions of this firewall.
>
> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
> is supposed to provide more security, at an added cost.

I use it in the "Train with Safe Mode" and turn off the Proactive
Defense. I only get nagged the 1st time an app tries to access the
Internet, and that's only for apps that Comodo doesn't recognize. I
think it can be one of the less annoying firewalls. And it's highly
rated too.

David H. Lipman
02-11-08, 06:38 PM
From: "Ckyp" <ckypper@crew>

|
| "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>> What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>> there some reviews on this topic?
|
| I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
|
| http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
|
| I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new program.
| You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you if you
| want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
| advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this firewall.
|
| I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is supposed
| to provide more security, at an added cost.
|

Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software FireWalls and don't hog
resources.

Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.

Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
http://www.wallwatcher.com/

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A7?=
02-11-08, 07:32 PM
David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Ckyp" <ckypper@crew>
>
> |
> | "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>>> there some reviews on this topic?
> |
> | I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
> |
> | http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
> |
> | I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new program.
> | You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you if you
> | want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
> | advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this firewall.
> |
> | I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is supposed
> | to provide more security, at an added cost.
> |
>
> Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software FireWalls and don't hog
> resources.
>
> Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.

Bingo!

Another solution; acquire a obsolete pc via freecycle, add a spare nic
and cruise on over to ipcop.com and grab the iso.

>
> Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
> http://www.wallwatcher.com/
>

My minimal experience with wallwatcher has been most positive.

M.L.
02-11-08, 08:34 PM
>> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
>> is supposed to provide more security, at an added cost.

> Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software
> FireWalls and don't hog resources.
>
> Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.

Outbound protection only though.

> Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
> http://www.wallwatcher.com/

David H. Lipman
02-11-08, 08:46 PM
From: "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid>

>>> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
>>> is supposed to provide more security, at an added cost.
|
>> Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software
>> FireWalls and don't hog resources.
>>
>> Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.
|
| Outbound protection only though.
|

Not true at all !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Leythos
02-12-08, 05:43 AM
In article <wA7sj.6869$R84.5236@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
me@privacy.invalid says...
> >> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
> >> is supposed to provide more security, at an added cost.
>
> > Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software
> > FireWalls and don't hog resources.
> >
> > Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.
>
> Outbound protection only though.

Actually, even the simple NAT appliances provide INBOUND protection from
unsolicited traffic/scanning. As a matter of fact, in a 1:MANY NAT,
which is how those cheap appliances are setup, unless you poke a hole in
it, and the default is no holes mapped, you won't get any Unsolicited
traffic inside the LAN.

Additionally, most of the cheap NAT routers offer a way to make ports
LOCAL, that can't leave your LAN - and I always make ports 135-139, 445,
1433-1434 local ports.

When you combine the cheap NAT routers with monitoring software like
wallwatcher you have an effective means to monitor in/out traffic from
your NAT appliance.

--

Leythos - spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive/index.php/t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

huck
02-12-08, 08:25 AM
"Ckyp" <ckypper@crew> wrote in message
news:e841e83ed0afbe0dea6cf0c466b1aab3@nymkey.com...
>
> "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>>What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>>there some reviews on this topic?
>
> I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
>
> http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
>
> I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new
> program.
> You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you
> if you
> want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
> advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this
> firewall.
>
> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is
> supposed
> to provide more security, at an added cost.
>
> --CKYP= the problem with Comdo firewall I cant update it never= and i have
> tried everything to unstall Comdo firewall but it will NOT unstallit all I
> want is to be able to update it. can you give me any help on this= THANKS
>

Ckyp
02-12-08, 09:22 AM
"huck" <fish254@cox.net> wrote:
>"Ckyp" <ckypper@crew> wrote in message
>news:e841e83ed0afbe0dea6cf0c466b1aab3@nymkey.com...
>>
>> "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>>>there some reviews on this topic?
>>
>> I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
>>
>> http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
>>
>> I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new
>> program.
>> You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you
>> if you
>> want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
>> advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this
>> firewall.
>>
>> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is
>> supposed
>> to provide more security, at an added cost.
>>
>> --CKYP= the problem with Comdo firewall I cant update it never= and i have
>> tried everything to unstall Comdo firewall but it will NOT unstallit all I
>> want is to be able to update it. can you give me any help on this= THANKS
>>

This is a secret code, so don't give it out to anyone. It is posted here:
http://tinyurl.com/2aryzy

Insert the line of code appearing in the window, and it will allow you to uninstall
and update the installation directory.

--

Richard Steinfeld
02-12-08, 07:57 PM
wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:

>> | I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
>> is supposed
>> | to provide more security, at an added cost.
>> |
>>
>> Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software
>> FireWalls and don't hog
>> resources.
>>
>> Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.
>
> Bingo!
>
> Another solution; acquire a obsolete pc via freecycle, add a spare nic
> and cruise on over to ipcop.com and grab the iso.
>
>>
>> Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
>> http://www.wallwatcher.com/
>>
>
> My minimal experience with wallwatcher has been most positive.

This brings up a whole 'nother approach for me.
I've been using the final free Sygate Personal Firewall on my PCs for
some time now, and I greatly regret Symantec's purchase and trashing of
the product. I've actually used Sygate in both free and bundled forms
for 7 years (hint: the free version was better!). I like the way that it
works -- a perfect balance between sensible operation, good performance,
usability (no small consideration) and resource use (another important
aspect of a security program). But the free version does have a glass
cieling: a limit on the amount of custom rules it'll accept, and I've
banged against that limit.

Now, about a hardware firewall:

I've got two old PCs. One is a 486, 100kc speed, can't recall the memory
(it's maxed out for whatever its limit is) -- something like a 2g hard
drive. I've got Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11 for it. I've also got original
install disks for Windows 95 and Windows XP (home upgrade).

The second PC is a laptop with W95 on it. I don't have specs. It's
working fine. This laptop is so primitive that it doesn't even have any
CD drive on it -- just a floppy and a HD.

I'd appreciate knowing if either of these machines can make sense as a
hardware firewall.

I apologize for replying in the same cross-posting that the OP used.

TIA

Richard

David H. Lipman
02-12-08, 08:03 PM
From: "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonicANDTHISTOO.net>


|
| This brings up a whole 'nother approach for me.
| I've been using the final free Sygate Personal Firewall on my PCs for
| some time now, and I greatly regret Symantec's purchase and trashing of
| the product. I've actually used Sygate in both free and bundled forms
| for 7 years (hint: the free version was better!). I like the way that it
| works -- a perfect balance between sensible operation, good performance,
| usability (no small consideration) and resource use (another important
| aspect of a security program). But the free version does have a glass
| cieling: a limit on the amount of custom rules it'll accept, and I've
| banged against that limit.
|
| Now, about a hardware firewall:
|
| I've got two old PCs. One is a 486, 100kc speed, can't recall the memory
| (it's maxed out for whatever its limit is) -- something like a 2g hard
| drive. I've got Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11 for it. I've also got original
| install disks for Windows 95 and Windows XP (home upgrade).
|
| The second PC is a laptop with W95 on it. I don't have specs. It's
| working fine. This laptop is so primitive that it doesn't even have any
| CD drive on it -- just a floppy and a HD.
|
| I'd appreciate knowing if either of these machines can make sense as a
| hardware firewall.
|
| I apologize for replying in the same cross-posting that the OP used.
|
| TIA
|
| Richard

The latency on said platforms would be high. A COTS dedicated appliance would be faster.

Think of it as walking on pavement and then you come across a 20 ft section of mud and then
pavement again.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Leythos
02-12-08, 08:13 PM
In article <13r4jfktajrkh0e@corp.supernews.com>,
rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonicANDTHISTOO.net says...
> Now, about a hardware firewall:
>
> I've got two old PCs. One is a 486, 100kc speed, can't recall the memory
> (it's maxed out for whatever its limit is) -- something like a 2g hard
> drive. I've got Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11 for it. I've also got original
> install disks for Windows 95 and Windows XP (home upgrade).
>
> The second PC is a laptop with W95 on it. I don't have specs. It's
> working fine. This laptop is so primitive that it doesn't even have any
> CD drive on it -- just a floppy and a HD.
>
> I'd appreciate knowing if either of these machines can make sense as a
> hardware firewall.

Laptops are not designed to run 24/7, they can have cooling issues.

An old 486 might run a nix version, but you would be better off with a
P2 or P3 machine, or purchasing an appliance, in the long run it would
save you much time, which is money for most.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

David H. Lipman
02-12-08, 09:02 PM
From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>


|
| Laptops are not designed to run 24/7, they can have cooling issues.
|
| An old 486 might run a nix version, but you would be better off with a
| P2 or P3 machine, or purchasing an appliance, in the long run it would
| save you much time, which is money for most.
|

Just from comparing the power consumption issue of a COTS FireWall appliance vs. a PC setup
as a FireWall you would save money.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Craig
02-13-08, 01:37 AM
David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>
>
>
> |
> | Laptops are not designed to run 24/7, they can have cooling issues.
> |
> | An old 486 might run a nix version, but you would be better off with a
> | P2 or P3 machine, or purchasing an appliance, in the long run it would
> | save you much time, which is money for most.
> |
>
> Just from comparing the power consumption issue of a COTS FireWall appliance vs. a PC setup
> as a FireWall you would save money.
>

But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:

> FreeNAS
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.

Craig
02-13-08, 01:49 AM
Craig wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>
>>
>>
>> |
>> | Laptops are not designed to run 24/7, they can have cooling issues.
>> |
>> | An old 486 might run a nix version, but you would be better off with a
>> | P2 or P3 machine, or purchasing an appliance, in the long run it would
>> | save you much time, which is money for most.
>> |
>>
>> Just from comparing the power consumption issue of a COTS FireWall
>> appliance vs. a PC setup
>> as a FireWall you would save money.
>>
>
> But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
> Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
>
>> FreeNAS
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
>> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
>> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
>> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
>> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.
>

Sorry, brain-fart. The thread is about firewall and I jump up and down
about a NAS.

<eh>

-Craig

leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com
02-13-08, 03:23 AM
On Feb 13, 2:57 am, Richard Steinfeld
<rgsteinBUTREMOVET...@sonicANDTHISTOO.net> wrote:

> I've been using the final free Sygate Personal Firewall on my PCs for
> some time now, and I greatly regret Symantec's purchase and trashing of
> the product. I've actually used Sygate in both free and bundled forms
> for 7 years (hint: the free version was better!). I like the way that it
> works -- a perfect balance between sensible operation, good performance,
> usability (no small consideration) and resource use (another important
> aspect of a security program).

I used the free SPF, and I completely agree with you.
Now I use Kerio Personal Firewall (http://www.sunbelt-software.com/
Home-Home-Office/Sunbelt-Personal-Firewall) and I am quite happy with
it.
ZoneAlarm is a popular freeware firewall but IMHO its default policies
concerning outbound traffic are too loose. And it is not so easy to
use and configure. I would not recommend ZA.

Just my two cents (well, let's say one).

David H. Lipman
02-13-08, 04:33 PM
From: "Craig" <netburgher@REMOVEgmail.com>


| But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
| Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
|
>> FreeNAS
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
>> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
>> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
>> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
>> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.

The advantage of a PC setup as a FireWall is greater flexibility and configuration
possibilities.

However, I would look as optimizing the the networking to decrease latency. That is using
the best NICs. Such as using 64 bit PCI which runs at the PCI bus speed 66MHz vis PCI 32bit
which only runs at 33MHz. You would also want a PC that has the fast bus throughput.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

louise
02-13-08, 10:55 PM
Ckyp wrote:
> "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>> What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>> there some reviews on this topic?
>
> I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
>
> http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
>
> I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new program.
> You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you if you
> want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
> advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this firewall.
>
> I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is supposed
> to provide more security, at an added cost.
>
> --
>
I used to use Sygate, had all kinds of conflicts with Comodo
in addition to its endless nagging.

I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT
Router. I like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags"
are clear and informative.

Louise

Straight Talk
02-13-08, 11:37 PM
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:55:51 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT
>Router. I like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags"
>are clear and informative.

What about the nags you don't get?

Gary R. Schmidt
02-14-08, 03:19 AM
David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Craig" <netburgher@REMOVEgmail.com>
>
>
> | But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
> | Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
> |
>>> FreeNAS
>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
>>> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
>>> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
>>> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
>>> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.
>
> The advantage of a PC setup as a FireWall is greater flexibility and configuration
> possibilities.
>
> However, I would look as optimizing the the networking to decrease latency. That is using
> the best NICs. Such as using 64 bit PCI which runs at the PCI bus speed 66MHz vis PCI 32bit
> which only runs at 33MHz. You would also want a PC that has the fast bus throughput.
>
And NIC's that offload the processing from the CPU. Intel e1000-based
cards do that, among many others, no doubt.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

Sebastian G.
02-14-08, 04:24 AM
louise wrote:


> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT
> Router. I like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags"
> are clear and informative.


I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.

David H. Lipman
02-14-08, 05:42 AM
From: "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org>


| And NIC's that offload the processing from the CPU. Intel e1000-based
| cards do that, among many others, no doubt.
|
| Cheers,
| Gary B-)
|

Yesw. I had an Intel NIC that had a RISC i960 CPU that clock doubled the PCI 33MHz bus
speed to 66MHz and I used in on a Symantec Ghost server. This server NIC gave me great
performance when distributing Ghost images.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

louise
02-14-08, 11:43 PM
Sebastian G. wrote:
> louise wrote:
>
>
>> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT Router. I like
>> Online Armor very much and find it's "nags" are clear and informative.
>
>
> I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.

What does that mean? What is a shatter attack?

Louise

Sebastian G.
02-15-08, 04:56 AM
louise wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>> louise wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT Router. I like
>>> Online Armor very much and find it's "nags" are clear and informative.
>>
>> I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.
>
> What does that mean? What is a shatter attack?


Google and Wikipedia exist...

(Oh, and in fact, if you never bothered to check your security software for
the most obvious security vulnerabilities, then you never had any security.)

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
02-15-08, 07:40 AM
In comp.security.firewalls louise <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Sebastian G. wrote:
>> louise wrote:
>>> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT Router. I like
>>> Online Armor very much and find it's "nags" are clear and informative.
>>
>> I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.
>
> What does that mean? What is a shatter attack?

http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/

F'up2csf to put an end to this braindead crossposting over five groups.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

David H. Lipman
02-15-08, 04:43 PM
From: "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de>

|
|
| Google and Wikipedia exist...
|
| (Oh, and in fact, if you never bothered to check your security software for
| the most obvious security vulnerabilities, then you never had any security.)

One can check software that has vulnerabilities and if those applications have updates
through the Secunia Software Inspector. It will identify installed applications that should
be updated that have not been updated and leave you "at risk".

http://secunia.com/software_inspector

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Richard Steinfeld
02-15-08, 11:40 PM
Sebastian G. wrote:
> louise wrote:
>
>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>> louise wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT Router. I
>>>> like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags" are clear and
>>>> informative.
>>>
>>> I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.
>>
>> What does that mean? What is a shatter attack?
>
>
> Google and Wikipedia exist...
>
> (Oh, and in fact, if you never bothered to check your security software
> for the most obvious security vulnerabilities, then you never had any
> security.)

What the hell kind of arrogant answer was that?

louise
02-16-08, 12:37 AM
David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de>
>
> |
> |
> | Google and Wikipedia exist...
> |
> | (Oh, and in fact, if you never bothered to check your security software for
> | the most obvious security vulnerabilities, then you never had any security.)
>
> One can check software that has vulnerabilities and if those applications have updates
> through the Secunia Software Inspector. It will identify installed applications that should
> be updated that have not been updated and leave you "at risk".
>
> http://secunia.com/software_inspector
>

I do check my software with secunia on a regular basis.

And I don't understand what is meant by checking your
security software - I do a shields up check on a regular
basis, run Nod32 and SuperAntiSpyware along with Spybot on a
periodic basis.

I seem to have gotten attacked because I asked a question -
and the attack assumes I don't take responsibility for my
own security - there is no basis that I know of for this
assumption.

Louise

Krazee Brenda
02-16-08, 12:43 AM
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:40:34 -0800, Richard Steinfeld wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>> louise wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>>> louise wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT Router. I
>>>>> like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags" are clear and
>>>>> informative.
>>>>
>>>> I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.
>>>
>>> What does that mean? What is a shatter attack?
>>
>> Google and Wikipedia exist...
>>
>> (Oh, and in fact, if you never bothered to check your security software
>> for the most obvious security vulnerabilities, then you never had any
>> security.)
>
> What the hell kind of arrogant answer was that?

TruthWare
--
See Brenda's UniWorldWare
http://tinyurl.com/nm2yt

Gerald Vogt
02-16-08, 12:44 AM
On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, louise <lou...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> And I don't understand what is meant by checking your
> security software - I do a shields up check on a regular
> basis, run Nod32 and SuperAntiSpyware along with Spybot on a
> periodic basis.
>
> I seem to have gotten attacked because I asked a question -
> and the attack assumes I don't take responsibility for my
> own security - there is no basis that I know of for this
> assumption.

Then why do you install all this strange security software? It does
not take responsibility for your own security.

Gerald

Straight Talk
02-16-08, 01:10 AM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:37:27 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>And I don't understand what is meant by checking your
>security software

Most users don't - which is why security software vendors can get away
with pushing out highly questionable products of bad quality all the
time.

>- I do a shields up check on a regular basis

Many do. But regarding ShieldsUp - except for the limited ability to
quickly check if a packet filter of some kind is in place either on
your own machine or somewhere upstream, it's a useless, hyped up
promotion tool.

>run Nod32 and SuperAntiSpyware along with Spybot on a
>periodic basis.

Due to the nature of modern malware, scanning is unreliable. What do
you do to actually prevent bad stuff from getting in in the first
place?

>I seem to have gotten attacked because I asked a question -
>and the attack assumes I don't take responsibility for my
>own security - there is no basis that I know of for this
>assumption.

I don't think anyone questioned whether you take responsibility for
your own security. Some might have indicated though, that the
countermeasures you seem to have taken somehow shows that you may lack
the knowledge to do so properly.

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 04:07 AM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:10:23 -0600, Straight Talk <b__nice@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think anyone questioned whether you take responsibility for
> your own security. Some might have indicated though, that the
> countermeasures you seem to have taken somehow shows that you may lack
> the knowledge to do so properly.

I wouldn't know if she does or not. It doesn't really matter as she is
demonstrating willingness to communicate. I do see you lack communication
skills, which loses knowledge.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Sebastian G.
02-16-08, 04:54 AM
Richard Steinfeld wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>> louise wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>>> louise wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT Router. I
>>>>> like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags" are clear and
>>>>> informative.
>>>> I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.
>>> What does that mean? What is a shatter attack?
>>
>> Google and Wikipedia exist...
>>
>> (Oh, and in fact, if you never bothered to check your security software
>> for the most obvious security vulnerabilities, then you never had any
>> security.)
>
> What the hell kind of arrogant answer was that?


Well, if we started to explain shatter attacks whenever someone asks...

Oh, and the fact that his "security" software is full of obvious security
vulnerabilities is just amusing.

Sebastian G.
02-16-08, 04:55 AM
louise wrote:

> I do a shields up check on a regular basis,


Why? Except for comedian entertainment...

> I seem to have gotten attacked because I asked a question -
> and the attack assumes I don't take responsibility for my
> own security - there is no basis that I know of for this
> assumption.


Ouch!

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 05:48 AM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:

> shatter attacks

It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
into any other running application or service in the same session, that
makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
exploit.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Gerald Vogt
02-16-08, 06:06 AM
On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> > shatter attacks
>
> It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
> programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
> systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
> in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
> Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
> into any other running application or service in the same session, that
> makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
> exploit.

If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
Astonishing... ;-)

Gerald

rodney.usenet@gmail.com
02-16-08, 06:53 AM
On 16 feb, 13:06, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> > > shatter attacks
>
> > It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
> > programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
> > systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
> > in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
> > Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
> > into any other running application or service in the same session, that
> > makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
> > exploit.
>
> If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
> not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
> Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
> up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
> wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
> that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
> would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
> Astonishing... ;-)

This is not a library, this is usenet.
FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.

Gerald Vogt
02-16-08, 07:00 AM
On Feb 16, 9:53 pm, rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 16 feb, 13:06, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> > > > shatter attacks
>
> > > It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
> > > programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
> > > systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
> > > in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
> > > Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
> > > into any other running application or service in the same session, that
> > > makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
> > > exploit.
>
> > If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
> > not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
> > Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
> > up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
> > wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
> > that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
> > would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
> > Astonishing... ;-)
>
> This is not a library, this is usenet.

Correct. Google and Wikipedia are still just a click away.

> FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.

I know. It is not extremely difficult to find out if you know how to
use Google. The wikipedia article is the first hit on google. Just
like it is the first hit for "shatter attack"...

Gerald

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 07:01 AM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:06:37 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de>
>> wrote:
>> > shatter attacks
>>
>> It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
>> programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
>> systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between
>> processes
>> in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
>> Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be
>> injected
>> into any other running application or service in the same session, that
>> makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
>> exploit.
>
> If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
> not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
> Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
> up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
> wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
> that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
> would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
> Astonishing... ;-)
>
> Gerald

LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a group
even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
it...astonishing.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 07:09 AM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:00:58 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:


>> This is not a library, this is usenet.
>
> Correct. Google and Wikipedia are still just a click away.
>
>> FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.
>
> I know. It is not extremely difficult to find out if you know how to
> use Google. The wikipedia article is the first hit on google. Just
> like it is the first hit for "shatter attack"...
>
> Gerald

LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a group
even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
it...astonishing.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

rodney.usenet@gmail.com
02-16-08, 08:13 AM
On 16 feb, 14:00, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:53 pm, rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 16 feb, 13:06, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> > > > > shatter attacks
>
> > > > It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
> > > > programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
> > > > systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
> > > > in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
> > > > Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
> > > > into any other running application or service in the same session, that
> > > > makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
> > > > exploit.
>
> > > If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
> > > not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
> > > Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
> > > up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
> > > wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
> > > that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
> > > would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
> > > Astonishing... ;-)
>
> > This is not a library, this is usenet.
>
> Correct. Google and Wikipedia are still just a click away.

I don't get the point. The wikipedia+google hint had been given before
in this thread by Sebastian G. What's wrong with another person giving
the answer ?

> > FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.
>
> I know. It is not extremely difficult to find out if you know how to
> use Google.

Actually the info was still stored in my brain. High school. :)

> The wikipedia article is the first hit on google. Just
> like it is the first hit for "shatter attack"...

Yes, that's how I found out what it actually meant.
Speaking of attacks: Microsoft is trying to make something positive
out of worms.
I'm already looking forward to the MS-worm-SDK ;)

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13318-friendly-worms-could-spread-software-fixes.html

Straight Talk
02-16-08, 12:20 PM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:07:57 -0600, "Bear Bottoms"
<bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:10:23 -0600, Straight Talk <b__nice@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone questioned whether you take responsibility for
>> your own security. Some might have indicated though, that the
>> countermeasures you seem to have taken somehow shows that you may lack
>> the knowledge to do so properly.
>
>I wouldn't know if she does or not. It doesn't really matter as she is
>demonstrating willingness to communicate. I do see you lack communication
>skills, which loses knowledge.

Talking about communication skills... What are you trying to say?

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 01:37 PM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:20:47 -0600, Straight Talk <b__nice@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:07:57 -0600, "Bear Bottoms"
> <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:10:23 -0600, Straight Talk <b__nice@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think anyone questioned whether you take responsibility for
>>> your own security. Some might have indicated though, that the
>>> countermeasures you seem to have taken somehow shows that you may lack
>>> the knowledge to do so properly.
>>
>> I wouldn't know if she does or not. It doesn't really matter as she is
>> demonstrating willingness to communicate. I do see you lack
>> communication
>> skills, which loses knowledge.
>
> Talking about communication skills... What are you trying to say?

It's ok...some such as yourself are impossible to communicate with.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Gerald Vogt
02-16-08, 05:40 PM
On Feb 16, 10:09 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a group
> even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
> up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
> it...astonishing.

??? I never said that everyone nor anyone in the group should go and
look something up which is easily available. What you want is: If
someone asked a question in a library to a group you would expect
everyone in the group to go look it up for themselves rather than have
the person who asked easily look it up...

It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".

Gerald

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 06:46 PM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:40:09 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 10:09 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a
>> group
>> even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
>> up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
>> it...astonishing.
>
> ??? I never said that everyone nor anyone in the group should go and
> look something up which is easily available. What you want is: If
> someone asked a question in a library to a group you would expect
> everyone in the group to go look it up for themselves rather than have
> the person who asked easily look it up...
>
> It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
> they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
> the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
> group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
> Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".
>
> Gerald

While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if someone
does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
good thing. To just bitch at the op who should have provided it, still
leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a bitch.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Gerald Vogt
02-16-08, 06:55 PM
On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
> > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
> > the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
> > group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
> > Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".
>
> While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
> Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if someone
> does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
> good thing. To just bitch at the op who should have provided it, still
> leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a bitch.

Where exactly is the bitching if you tell someone that he can find the
information easily with google or wikipedia? I agree with bitching if
it was not easy to find with google. But if you find several extensive
explanations of something using the verbatim topic in question
("shatter attack") within the first 10 hits of google and if the first
hit is an extensive wikipedia article on the topic I don't see the
bitching. You just enter the "shatter attack" and it is right there.
You can even press the "I feel lucky" button of google and it takes
you directly there.

So I agree with you it would be some bitching if it would take
multiple attempts to find the best search words and then some
extensive reading because some of the hits are misleading. But in this
case like in many similar cases I don't see the bitching if the
information really pops up just by entering what you are looking for.
Enter it in google and you'll find it immediately. Enter it in
wikipedia and you'll find it immediately. That is too easy and I don't
see the problem pointing someone into the same direction.

Gerald

Bear Bottoms
02-16-08, 07:13 PM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:55:24 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
>> > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
>> > the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
>> > group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
>> > Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".
>>
>> While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
>> Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if
>> someone
>> does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
>> good thing. To just bitch at the op who should have provided it, still
>> leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a bitch.
>
> Where exactly is the bitching if you tell someone that he can find the
> information easily with google or wikipedia? I agree with bitching if
> it was not easy to find with google. But if you find several extensive
> explanations of something using the verbatim topic in question
> ("shatter attack") within the first 10 hits of google and if the first
> hit is an extensive wikipedia article on the topic I don't see the
> bitching. You just enter the "shatter attack" and it is right there.
> You can even press the "I feel lucky" button of google and it takes
> you directly there.
>
> So I agree with you it would be some bitching if it would take
> multiple attempts to find the best search words and then some
> extensive reading because some of the hits are misleading. But in this
> case like in many similar cases I don't see the bitching if the
> information really pops up just by entering what you are looking for.
> Enter it in google and you'll find it immediately. Enter it in
> wikipedia and you'll find it immediately. That is too easy and I don't
> see the problem pointing someone into the same direction.
>
> Gerald

OK, but I wanted to know too. Can't you bitch at him and also provide the
info since you are already posting. I had to look it up...so I posted what
I found so others wouldn't have to look it up. I wonder how many others
looked it up when it could have been simply read in the thread.

It took me just seconds, granted, but I'll just bet some were glad I
posted it.

Now don't yell at me....I'll cry!

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Gerald Vogt
02-17-08, 01:02 AM
On Feb 17, 10:13 am, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> OK, but I wanted to know too. Can't you bitch at him and also provide the
> info since you are already posting. I had to look it up...so I posted what
> I found so others wouldn't have to look it up. I wonder how many others
> looked it up when it could have been simply read in the thread.

Exactly that is the problem. Why do you post something which others
could easily look up themselves. If you use the internet, it is
important to learn how to use search engines and how to find relevant
information. It saves all a lot of time and usenet bandwidth if
everybody would be willing to learn that. If you are unwilling to
spend the few seconds it takes to find the information you should not
be helped. Just like those people who are absolutely unwilling to
check something in the manual although their problem is easily found
in the index and/or table of contents.

And kind of just like the people who immediately complain if someone
tells them something about netiquette or rules of usenet posting,
quoting, etc. Being new to something does not exempt you to learn. You
don't have to know everything but it is expected that you are willing
to learn. But you won't know if noone tells you. But telling someone
only gets complains back that someone could not know because he's new.
For some people it is only a lame excuse not to play by any rules
expecting others to serve them... That is my opinion.

Just like your full quotes. You simply leave the full quoted text in
your post and write your answer at the bottom. I find that annoying.
It is not usenet etiquette. If you refer to something you write it to
the text lines to which you refer. Everything else, you delete. It is
useless. Now full quotes are pretty much fully useless. You don't
refer to anything in particular but to the whole article, even to my
signature.It is annoying because for instance I don't see what you
write in the preview view of the article. I have to scroll down only
to see if it is anything important to be answered or not. For longer
full quotes it gets harder as you have to scroll carefully through the
full quote to see whether there are some comments in between (like it
should be) or not. After you scroll through it only to find nothing,
you wonder what that should be for. All the time, the full original
text is just a simple click away in any threaded view of the
newsgroup. Thus, if I want to read the full text again, I can just
read the original.

It is a little tiny bit faster for you not to remove unnecessary lines
from the full quote. The effort for the reader is higher because he
does not know what you were thinking or reading or whether there are
some comments or not. Thus, you save yourself a few seconds at
somebody else's expense. And not everybody has broadband to download
all the superfluous full quotes. That's annoying. That's my opinion.
But it is not uncommon. But it is usenet etiquette not to full quote.

Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
some complaints back?? ;-)))

Gerald

louise
02-17-08, 01:51 AM
Straight Talk wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:37:27 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>

> - I do a shields up check on a regular basis
>
> Many do. But regarding ShieldsUp - except for the limited ability to
> quickly check if a packet filter of some kind is in place either on
> your own machine or somewhere upstream, it's a useless, hyped up
> promotion tool.

Is there a better tool to check for open ports?
>
>> run Nod32 and SuperAntiSpyware along with Spybot on a
>> periodic basis.
>
> Due to the nature of modern malware, scanning is unreliable. What do
> you do to actually prevent bad stuff from getting in in the first
> place?
>
Use Firefox with NoScript

Practice Safe Hex

Use Thunderbird for all my email accounts except for one
where I use Outlook as a PIM and therefore, I do use Outlook
for that one account. I'm quite careful and run a good spam
filter as well as NOD32 which checks the email before it get
there. I'm willing to live with this much risk for the
value of the PIM.

Check with Secunia on a regular basis.

Turn off as many Microsoft "services" as possible and when I
want to update, I do it manually and selectively.

Louise

Bear Bottoms
02-17-08, 06:29 AM
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
> some complaints back?? ;-)))

Er, would you repeat that?

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Gerald Vogt
02-17-08, 08:16 AM
On Feb 17, 9:29 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0600, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
> > some complaints back?? ;-)))
>
> Er, would you repeat that?

I knew it. ;-)))

Gerald

Bear Bottoms
02-17-08, 08:27 AM
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:16:41 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 9:29 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0600, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
>> > some complaints back?? ;-)))
>>
>> Er, would you repeat that?
>
> I knew it. ;-)))
>
> Gerald

I don't know why everyone feels the need to /educate/ anyone who simply
posts to this ng. Especially over the means they use to post. If you must,
a simple: I'm not sure if you are aware that there are better more fun
tools to use to post to Usenet...are you interested?

Anything but a slam!

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

Straight Talk
02-18-08, 11:40 PM
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:51:48 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Is there a better tool to check for open ports?

A good place to start is to understand what is running on the device
itself.

Assuming that you are directly connected to the Internet (has a public
IP address), the netstat command comes to mind. You can also download
and use a program like CurrPorts or TCPview - it's a little easier to
use.

To look for open ports, a scanner like SU would have to scan all
65.000+ ports in various ways and would still not be able to deliver a
trustworthy result. The mentioned programs simply list them for you.
Of course you will have to take the time to learn how to understand
the information displayed.

This method won't tell you whether connection to the ports found are
blocked by a packet filter, though. You'll have to check your packet
filter also. But again, if you don't need a service the preferred
option from a security standpoint is to not run it at all - instead of
just filtering it.

If you insist on scanning from the Internet a service like this one
comes to mind: http://www.linux-sec.net/Audit/nmap.test.gwif.html

Edward S Ferrara
05-04-08, 07:59 PM
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:06:37 -0800, Gerald Vogt wrote:

> On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de>
>> wrote:
>> > shatter attacks
>>
>> It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
>> programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows
>> operating systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions
>> between processes in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a
>> design flaw in Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code
>> could be injected into any other running application or service in the
>> same session, that makes use of a message loop. This could result in a
>> privilege escalation exploit.
>
> If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are not
> a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of Timbuktu, you
> would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it up, copy it,
> and give it to the person in question? You would not just wonder whether
> that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether that person thought
> you were a librarian and paid for that job? You would not tell that
> person that it should check a encyclopedia?? Astonishing... ;-)
>
> Gerald

Actually I might. I also think the purpose of read news is the exchange
of information... It seems this topic touches a nerve. I do agree that
Wickipedia is a good place to have questions like "What is a shatter
attack answered..." I still think it always pays to be helpful.

Ed

Ed