PDA

View Full Version : need software firewall for windows 98se



CdLSRN
05-27-08, 03:24 AM
Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?

Kayman
05-27-08, 08:28 AM
On Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:05 -0400, CdLSRN wrote:

> Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?

http://www.oldapps.com/

CdLSRN
05-27-08, 10:05 AM
Thank you for answering. I don't need an old version of anything. I need a new
firewall the works with windows 98se.

"Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:g1h2ag$lrv$1@aioe.org...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:05 -0400, CdLSRN wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?
>
> http://www.oldapps.com/

Chris Davies
05-27-08, 11:16 AM
On Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:05 -0400, CdLSRN wrote:
> Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?

"Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> suggested:
> http://www.oldapps.com/

CdLSRN <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote:
> I don't need an old version of anything. I need a new firewall the
> works with windows 98se.

It's highly unlikely, as Win98se has been unsupported for at least a
couple of years. Upgrade your OS, either to a newer version of Windows,
or one of the alternatives like Ubuntu.

Chris

Don/Gen
05-27-08, 04:00 PM
I use ZoneAlarm ver. 6.1.744.001 on my Win98se.

Don


"CdLSRN" <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:483bc5cf$0$11640$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?
>
>

CdLSRN
05-27-08, 10:39 PM
How about one that isn't free. Is there nothing that is compatible with 98?

"Don/Gen" <Donovanhenderson@msn.com> wrote in message news:g1hso3$4mt$1@aioe.org...
> I use ZoneAlarm ver. 6.1.744.001 on my Win98se.
>
> Don
>
>
> "CdLSRN" <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:483bc5cf$0$11640$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> > Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?
> >
> >
>
>

Sebastian G.
05-28-08, 03:22 AM
CdLSRN wrote:

> How about one that isn't free. Is there nothing that is compatible with 98?


See, this is comp.security.misc. We're discussion security. Not good faith,
but actual security. With Windows 98 and its lack of privilege separation,
with Outlook Express being abused as a newsreader, and questions for a
firewall instead of a host-based packet filter, the really competent people
here surely consider you as a stupid and naive fool asking a horribly stupid
question.

Just in case that you wonder: No, ZoneAlarm is not a firewall. It's a
host-based packet filter. A very lousy one. With a lot of known security
vulnerabilities, a horribly broken concept, made be a malicious company.

Wilf
05-28-08, 05:09 AM
Sebastian G. wrote, on 28/05/2008 9:22 am:
> CdLSRN wrote:
>
>> How about one that isn't free. Is there nothing that is compatible with 98?
>
>
> See, this is comp.security.misc. We're discussion security. Not good faith,
> but actual security. With Windows 98 and its lack of privilege separation,
> with Outlook Express being abused as a newsreader, and questions for a
> firewall instead of a host-based packet filter, the really competent people
> here surely consider you as a stupid and naive fool asking a horribly stupid
> question.
>
.... although, yours is a (typically) horribly stupid and oafish response.
--
Wilf

Sebastian G.
05-28-08, 05:12 AM
Wilf wrote:


> ... although, yours is a (typically) horribly stupid and oafish response.


Said someone who is too stupid to put a valid mail address in his From header...

Wilf
05-28-08, 05:30 AM
Sebastian G. wrote, on 28/05/2008 11:12 am:
> Wilf wrote:
>
>
>> ... although, yours is a (typically) horribly stupid and oafish response.
>
>
> Said someone who is too stupid to put a valid mail address in his From header...

It's for my security. I don't think that's stupid at all. Because I'm
afraid that bullying oafs such as yourself may latch on to my email
address and abuse it.

--
Wilf

Sebastian G.
05-28-08, 05:41 AM
Wilf wrote:


>> Said someone who is too stupid to put a valid mail address in his From header...
>
> It's for my security.


Obviously ********.

> I don't think that's stupid at all.


Why exactly do you think that ignoring a MUST in a RFC is not stupid?

> Because I'm

> afraid that bullying oafs such as yourself may latch on to my email
> address and abuse it.

Stupid. You're not supposed to read or even store any mail received in the
mailbox. The purpose of it being an actual mailbox is to not generate any
errors for the sender.

Wilf
05-28-08, 06:10 AM
Sebastian G. wrote, on 28/05/2008 11:41 am:
> Wilf wrote:
>
>
>>> Said someone who is too stupid to put a valid mail address in his From header...
>> It's for my security.
>
>
> Obviously ********.
>
>> I don't think that's stupid at all.
>
>
> Why exactly do you think that ignoring a MUST in a RFC is not stupid?
>
> > Because I'm
>
>> afraid that bullying oafs such as yourself may latch on to my email
>> address and abuse it.
>
> Stupid. You're not supposed to read or even store any mail received in the
> mailbox. The purpose of it being an actual mailbox is to not generate any
> errors for the sender.

Whatever. Bye.
--
Wilf

CdLSRN
05-28-08, 11:50 AM
Well it was very kind of you to respond. Perhaps I am "a stupid and naive fool asking
a horribly stupid
> question" , that is why I ask such really competent people, who are "discussion"
security, such as yourself,Sebastian. Are you used to only having really competent
people ask questions?
I am getting a new computer within a month and I have a belkin router with a
hardware firewall. I just wanted to see if I could protect my machine in the meantime
as I have a lot of important data on it and Computer Associates just stopped
supporting windows 98. Thank you for responding and taking your time.

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:6a4j4rF35t4jgU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> CdLSRN wrote:
>
> > How about one that isn't free. Is there nothing that is compatible with 98?
>
>
> See, this is comp.security.misc. We're discussion security. Not good faith,
> but actual security. With Windows 98 and its lack of privilege separation,
> with Outlook Express being abused as a newsreader, and questions for a
> firewall instead of a host-based packet filter, the really competent people
> here surely consider you as a stupid and naive fool asking a horribly stupid
> question.
>
> Just in case that you wonder: No, ZoneAlarm is not a firewall. It's a
> host-based packet filter. A very lousy one. With a lot of known security
> vulnerabilities, a horribly broken concept, made be a malicious company.

CdLSRN
05-28-08, 11:51 AM
Thank you, Wilf.
"Wilf" <wilf@replyto.newsgroup> wrote in message
news:o--dnWCFDIbFsqDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Sebastian G. wrote, on 28/05/2008 9:22 am:
> > CdLSRN wrote:
> >
> >> How about one that isn't free. Is there nothing that is compatible with 98?
> >
> >
> > See, this is comp.security.misc. We're discussion security. Not good faith,
> > but actual security. With Windows 98 and its lack of privilege separation,
> > with Outlook Express being abused as a newsreader, and questions for a
> > firewall instead of a host-based packet filter, the really competent people
> > here surely consider you as a stupid and naive fool asking a horribly stupid
> > question.
> >
> ... although, yours is a (typically) horribly stupid and oafish response.
> --
> Wilf

CdLSRN
05-28-08, 11:55 AM
I suspect Sebastian is a child having fun. He obviously doesn't know much about
"security" or he would just answer questions instead of attacking everyone. God save
this Country.

"Wilf" <wilf@replyto.newsgroup> wrote in message
news:046dnZfAQos1oKDVnZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@plusnet...
> Sebastian G. wrote, on 28/05/2008 11:41 am:
> > Wilf wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Said someone who is too stupid to put a valid mail address in his From
header...
> >> It's for my security.
> >
> >
> > Obviously ********.
> >
> >> I don't think that's stupid at all.
> >
> >
> > Why exactly do you think that ignoring a MUST in a RFC is not stupid?
> >
> > > Because I'm
> >
> >> afraid that bullying oafs such as yourself may latch on to my email
> >> address and abuse it.
> >
> > Stupid. You're not supposed to read or even store any mail received in the
> > mailbox. The purpose of it being an actual mailbox is to not generate any
> > errors for the sender.
>
> Whatever. Bye.
> --
> Wilf

Sebastian G.
05-28-08, 11:58 AM
CdLSRN wrote:


> I am getting a new computer within a month and I have a belkin router with a
> hardware firewall. I just wanted to see if I could protect my machine in the meantime


As I already told you: As long as you're insisting on using a trivialliy
insecure operation system and as long as you intentionally run trivially
insecure client software, you won't be able to secure your machine.
Especially not with a host-based packet filter, which, in addition to a
secure OS and secure client software, requires intimate knowledge of
networking protocols.

Sebastian G.
05-28-08, 11:59 AM
CdLSRN wrote:

> I suspect Sebastian is a child having fun. He obviously doesn't know much about
> "security"


So that I'm regularly reporting security vulnerabilities in largely deployed
software products must be a pure coincidence.

> or he would just answer questions


You got an answer: Your security approach is horribly futile.

CdLSRN
05-28-08, 12:00 PM
Sebastian wrote: 'this is comp.security.misc." According to my last look ...I am
posting to comp.security.FIREWALLS.
"CdLSRN" <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:483d8de2$0$11596$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Well it was very kind of you to respond. Perhaps I am "a stupid and naive fool
asking
> a horribly stupid
> > question" , that is why I ask such really competent people, who are "discussion"
> security, such as yourself,Sebastian. Are you used to only having really competent
> people ask questions?
> I am getting a new computer within a month and I have a belkin router with a
> hardware firewall. I just wanted to see if I could protect my machine in the
meantime
> as I have a lot of important data on it and Computer Associates just stopped
> supporting windows 98. Thank you for responding and taking your time.
>
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:6a4j4rF35t4jgU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> > CdLSRN wrote:
> >
> > > How about one that isn't free. Is there nothing that is compatible with 98?
> >
> >
> > See, this is comp.security.misc. We're discussion security. Not good faith,
> > but actual security. With Windows 98 and its lack of privilege separation,
> > with Outlook Express being abused as a newsreader, and questions for a
> > firewall instead of a host-based packet filter, the really competent people
> > here surely consider you as a stupid and naive fool asking a horribly stupid
> > question.
> >
> > Just in case that you wonder: No, ZoneAlarm is not a firewall. It's a
> > host-based packet filter. A very lousy one. With a lot of known security
> > vulnerabilities, a horribly broken concept, made be a malicious company.
>
>

Volker Birk
05-29-08, 07:36 AM
CdLSRN <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?

For Windows 98, usually you don't need packet filtering. Just unbind
any network service from your network interface you don't want to have.

Just right-click and delete in the property window for your interface
for doing so.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

Volker Birk
05-29-08, 07:37 AM
Don/Gen <Donovanhenderson@msn.com> wrote:
> I use ZoneAlarm ver. 6.1.744.001 on my Win98se.

Sincere condolences.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

goarilla
05-31-08, 01:25 PM
CdLSRN wrote:
> I suspect Sebastian is a child having fun. He obviously doesn't know much about
> "security" or he would just answer questions instead of attacking everyone. God save
> this Country.
>
omg you're probably calling one of the most security consciousness
people in this group an ignorant child ?

CdLSRN
05-31-08, 05:55 PM
So I was wrong.....he is just a brilliant, rude, childish being. Ginny

"goarilla <"kevin<punt>paulus|"@|skynet" <"punt> wrote in message
news:484195ce$0$2985$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> CdLSRN wrote:
> > I suspect Sebastian is a child having fun. He obviously doesn't know much about
> > "security" or he would just answer questions instead of attacking everyone. God
save
> > this Country.
> >
> omg you're probably calling one of the most security consciousness
> people in this group an ignorant child ?

Wilf
06-01-08, 03:08 AM
goarilla <"kevin<punt>paulus|"@|skynet punt> wrote, on 31/05/2008 7:25 pm:
> CdLSRN wrote:
>> I suspect Sebastian is a child having fun. He obviously doesn't know much about
>> "security" or he would just answer questions instead of attacking everyone. God save
>> this Country.
>>
> omg you're probably calling one of the most security consciousness
> people in this group an ignorant child ?

Maybe but to use a not-very-good non-IT analogy, if I asked "how can I
make my house more secure, what sort of lock should I buy for my back
door", it's not very helpful to have someone, albeit someone who deeply
understands property security, tell you something like "you shouldn't
have a back door in the first place".
--
Wilf

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
06-01-08, 08:14 AM
CdLSRN <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote:
> So I was wrong.....he is just a brilliant, rude, childish being. Ginny

So adjust your killfile and move on. Sheesh.

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

Hp
06-04-08, 09:41 PM
the suggestion to try oldapps is VALID, a lot of current version firewalls
no longer support running well in 98, I beleive thats why you were pointed
that direction.
ANY protection is better then none


Chris Davies wrote:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:05 -0400, CdLSRN wrote:
> > Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?
>
> "Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> suggested:
> > http://www.oldapps.com/
>
> CdLSRN <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote:
> > I don't need an old version of anything. I need a new firewall the
> > works with windows 98se.
>
> It's highly unlikely, as Win98se has been unsupported for at least a
> couple of years. Upgrade your OS, either to a newer version of Windows,
> or one of the alternatives like Ubuntu.
>
> Chris

Casey
06-17-08, 06:33 PM
In article <4847524F.B377031B@nope.net>, Hp@nope.net says...
> the suggestion to try oldapps is VALID, a lot of current version firewalls
> no longer support running well in 98, I beleive thats why you were pointed
> that direction.
> ANY protection is better then none
>
>
> Chris Davies wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:05 -0400, CdLSRN wrote:
> > > Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?
> >
> > "Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> suggested:
> > > http://www.oldapps.com/
> >
> > CdLSRN <ginnyrn5@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > I don't need an old version of anything. I need a new firewall the
> > > works with windows 98se.
> >
> > It's highly unlikely, as Win98se has been unsupported for at least a
> > couple of years. Upgrade your OS, either to a newer version of Windows,
> > or one of the alternatives like Ubuntu.
> >
> > Chris
>
>
Take a look at:
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=sygate
I have been running Sygate on my Win98 for years with
excellent results.
Casey

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
06-18-08, 07:29 AM
Casey <Casey@notspecified.net> wrote:
> I have been running Sygate on my Win98 for years with excellent
> results.

An outdated personal firewall running on an outdated operating system,
both of which will not receive any kind of support or updates anymore.
Not a reasonable thing to do when it comes to computer security.

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

ASCII
06-18-08, 02:17 PM
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
>Casey <Casey@notspecified.net> wrote:
>> I have been running Sygate on my Win98 for years with excellent
>> results.
>
>An outdated personal firewall running on an outdated operating system,
>both of which will not receive any kind of support or updates anymore.
>Not a reasonable thing to do when it comes to computer security.
>
>cu
>59cobalt

If it works for what you want it to, it's not outdated.
Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?

Bit Twister
06-18-08, 02:31 PM
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:17:45 -0700, ASCII wrote:

> If it works for what you want it to, it's not outdated.
> Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?

Hey, what could go wrong.
Malware not man blamed in child abuse download case
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/forensics_clear_child_abuse_suspect/

ASCII
06-18-08, 02:46 PM
Bit Twister wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:17:45 -0700, ASCII wrote:
>
>> If it works for what you want it to, it's not outdated.
>> Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?
>
>Hey, what could go wrong.
>Malware not man blamed in child abuse download case
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/forensics_clear_child_abuse_suspect/

That referenced case has nothing to do with continuing company support
for their software products, nor the abilities of any firewall.

Allowing malware residence and subsequent installation
on any machine is all within the domain of the operator.
IOW: Don't download dodgy files and even if you do
don't install (click on) them.

Bit Twister
06-18-08, 04:42 PM
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:46:34 -0700, ASCII wrote:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:17:45 -0700, ASCII wrote:
>>
>>> If it works for what you want it to, it's not outdated.
>>> Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?
>>
>>Hey, what could go wrong.
>>Malware not man blamed in child abuse download case
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/forensics_clear_child_abuse_suspect/
>
> That referenced case has nothing to do with continuing company support
> for their software products, nor the abilities of any firewall.

Nobody said it did. You said "Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?"
Article shows what could happen. Running an obsolete OS and/or
security software is an accident just waiting to happen.


> Allowing malware residence and subsequent installation
> on any machine is all within the domain of the operator.

That is a crap statement. IIRC Outlook Express would install malware
when you opened it to see if you had mail. You did not have to open
the email.

> IOW: Don't download dodgy files

No effort required on the user's part when ad servers get cracked and provide
malware automagically.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/102207-details-of-hijacked-247-ad.html

> and even if you do
> don't install (click on) them.

No clicking necessary when cracked webpage
http://finjan.com/Pressrelease.aspx?id=1820&PressLan=1819&lan=3
uses onmouseover instead of onclick commands in the webpage.

Micro$not has had to issue several patches to turn off automagically
running code based on extension instead of forcing user interaction.

Hell, antivirus software is becoming obsolete.
http://itnews.com.au/News/76128,shapeshifting-malware-hits-the-web.aspx

Cunnilingus
06-19-08, 05:07 AM
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:31:36 +0000 (UTC), Bit Twister
<BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:17:45 -0700, ASCII wrote:
>
>> If it works for what you want it to, it's not outdated.
>> Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?
>
>Hey, what could go wrong.
>Malware not man blamed in child abuse download case
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/forensics_clear_child_abuse_suspect/


Thank goodness the UK has sense about them. In the US, you would be
convicted, malware or NOT.

ASCII
06-19-08, 10:24 PM
Bit Twister wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:46:34 -0700, ASCII wrote:
>> Bit Twister wrote:
>>>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:17:45 -0700, ASCII wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it works for what you want it to, it's not outdated.
>>>> Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?
>>>
>>>Hey, what could go wrong.
>>>Malware not man blamed in child abuse download case
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/forensics_clear_child_abuse_suspect/
>>
>> That referenced case has nothing to do with continuing company support
>> for their software products, nor the abilities of any firewall.
>
>Nobody said it did. You said "Who needs 'support' for a system that's working?"
>Article shows what could happen. Running an obsolete OS and/or
>security software is an accident just waiting to happen.
>
>
>> Allowing malware residence and subsequent installation
>> on any machine is all within the domain of the operator.
>
>That is a crap statement. IIRC Outlook Express would install malware
>when you opened it to see if you had mail. You did not have to open
>the email.

Anyone using OE without closing the gaping holes
deserves whatever crawls in

>> IOW: Don't download dodgy files
>
>No effort required on the user's part when ad servers get cracked and provide
>malware automagically.

Yes it is the user
that puts a dodgy insecure browser on their system
and provides a gateway to whatever is out there.
You need to snap out of it, wake up, and get a clue

>> and even if you do
>> don't install (click on) them.
>
>No clicking necessary when cracked webpage

if you setup your system to automatically infect you,
saving you the trouble of looking at whatever hits your inbox or allow
your browser to open wide and take whatever a web page offers,
then you're beyond help

>uses onmouseover instead of onclick commands in the webpage.

piss poor configuration allows this

>Micro$not has had to issue several patches to turn off automagically
>running code based on extension instead of forcing user interaction.

Because you couldn't figure out how to disable the vulnerabilities
yourself? had to get someone up in Redmond to do it for you eh?

>Hell, antivirus software is becoming obsolete.

It's been that way since the first 0-day malware was released

If you think the big bad internet is so dangerous, how about posting a
link for me to click? I'm not worried because you're probably just
parroting some paranoid AV sales pitch, and even if you know of a killer
site, it won't do anything to my system's current config.
It didn't come that way or get that way by itself, I educated myself to
hostile situations and set about to protect myself.

spam@gnostheos.org
06-23-08, 04:38 PM
On May 27, 4:24 am, "CdLSRN" <ginny...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a free firewall that still works with windows 98?


If you have a genuine need to run Windows 98, maybe you should
use another device that separates the 98 box from the rest of the
network. You could still use the 98 box, but put it behind say an
OpenBSD box running PF, squid, and spamd perhaps.

You could also use a hardware firewall device to separate it from
the rest of the network.

The likelyhood of you actually finding what you are asking for is
extremely low so this is probably your best option.

Absolute OpenBSD: UNIX for the Practical Paranoid by Michael Lucas

----
http://www.1150riverviewdr.com/