any firewall yet?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by 64bit, Jul 3, 2005.

  1. 64bit

    64bit Guest

    anyone hear of a working firewall yet?
    64bit, Jul 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 64bit wrote:
    > anyone hear of a working firewall yet?



    Tiny Software have released a public beta of a 64-bit version their
    free Personal Firewall:

    http://www.tinysoftware.com/home/tiny2?s=5375286922906778942A1&&pg=content05&an=tf64_download

    I don't care for it quite as much as I liked Sygate's 32-bit Personal
    Firewall, but it'll do until something else comes along.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 3, 2005
    #3
  4. OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond Windows
    Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a third party
    firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few people will actually
    need more than Windows Firewall provides. Especially in x64 Edition, since
    the most serious attacks would require a driver getting installed on the
    machine and the bad guys still use 32-bit drivers. ;)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    64bit wrote:
    > anyone hear of a working firewall yet?
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Thats what I'm saying, x64 is a very safe platform, well partly because it
    is not as wide spread as 32 bit Windows, but having a lot security measures
    is not a detriment on x64.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:eWJy%...
    > OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond Windows
    > Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a third party
    > firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few people will actually
    > need more than Windows Firewall provides. Especially in x64 Edition, since
    > the most serious attacks would require a driver getting installed on the
    > machine and the bad guys still use 32-bit drivers. ;)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    >
    >
    > 64bit wrote:
    >> anyone hear of a working firewall yet?

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    > OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond Windows
    > Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a third party
    > firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few people will actually
    > need more than Windows Firewall provides.



    WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.



    > Especially in x64 Edition, since
    > the most serious attacks would require a driver getting installed on the
    > machine and the bad guys still use 32-bit drivers. ;)
    >


    I've never heard of any malware needing to install or use hardware
    device drivers. Please provide more information on this new technology.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Well, I agree here too, so what it all boils down to is being prepared and
    taking the appropriate measures just it case a heap of trojans, spyware and
    viruses start taking advantage of Windows x64.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond Windows
    >> Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a third party
    >> firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few people will
    >> actually need more than Windows Firewall provides.

    >
    >
    > WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    > and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    > do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    > else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    > It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    > IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    > questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    > have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    > therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    > because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    > assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    > Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Especially in x64 Edition, since the most serious attacks would require a
    >> driver getting installed on the machine and the bad guys still use 32-bit
    >> drivers. ;)
    >>

    >
    > I've never heard of any malware needing to install or use hardware device
    > drivers. Please provide more information on this new technology.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 3, 2005
    #7
  8. If rogue software is already phoning home it is too late for a 3rd party
    firewall to do anything but alert you that your system is already owned.

    --
    Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
    Associate Expert
    Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
    http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond Windows
    >> Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a third party
    >> firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few people will
    >> actually need more than Windows Firewall provides.

    >
    >
    > WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    > and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    > do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    > else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    > It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    > IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    > questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    > have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    > therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    > because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    > assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    > Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Especially in x64 Edition, since the most serious attacks would require a
    >> driver getting installed on the machine and the bad guys still use 32-bit
    >> drivers. ;)
    >>

    >
    > I've never heard of any malware needing to install or use hardware device
    > drivers. Please provide more information on this new technology.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    Larry Samuels, Jul 3, 2005
    #8
  9. 64bit got up from the bar and shouted: :
    > anyone hear of a working firewall yet?


    The windows one???
    Mark Gillespie, Jul 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Bruce Chambers got up from the bar and shouted: :
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond
    >> Windows Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a
    >> third party firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few
    >> people will actually need more than Windows Firewall provides.

    >
    >
    > WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    > and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    > do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    > else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.


    Does it also stop programs reflashing your BIOS, or formatting your
    harddrive???


    Seriosuly, the only real protection is to not get that stuff on their in
    the first place....
    Mark Gillespie, Jul 3, 2005
    #10
  11. "Does it also stop programs reflashing your BIOS, or formatting your
    harddrive???"

    That sounds more like somebody in your house is doing that.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Mark Gillespie" <> wrote in message
    news:%23AI%...
    > Bruce Chambers got up from the bar and shouted: :
    >> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >>> OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond
    >>> Windows Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a
    >>> third party firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few people
    >>> will actually need more than Windows Firewall provides.

    >>
    >>
    >> WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    >> and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    >> do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    >> else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.

    >
    > Does it also stop programs reflashing your BIOS, or formatting your
    > harddrive???
    >
    >
    > Seriosuly, the only real protection is to not get that stuff on their in
    > the first place....
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Bruce -- First, in all my years of running various versions of operating
    systems, with and without firewalls, and often without AV (try finding an AV
    that will work in Beta 1 of an OS!), I have been hit exactly once by a
    trojan/spyware - a very early version of CWS that came along as a rider on
    another program. No firewall on earth would have stopped that, since I
    initiated the download. OTOH, MSAS would have nailed in before it ever got
    installed. And yes, an outgoing firewall would have told me it was there, but
    here's a clue -- I had no difficulty knowing it was there! Quite the
    contrary.

    My point? If you patch promptly, and you don't have any huge holes in your
    firewall that you added, and you exercise normal due caution and safe
    computing, you really aren't at risk from something like that. And many will
    end up getting caught by the no-execute bit, by the way. (Sasser, for
    example, would have been nailed by no-execute)

    Finally, if you're worried about others using your computer, give them a
    limited user account and don't let them run as admin.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond
    >> Windows Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for a
    >> third party firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few
    >> people will actually need more than Windows Firewall provides.

    >
    >
    > WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    > and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    > do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    > else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    > It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    > IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    > questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    > have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    > therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    > because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    > assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    > Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Especially in x64 Edition, since
    >> the most serious attacks would require a driver getting installed
    >> on the machine and the bad guys still use 32-bit drivers. ;)
    >>

    >
    > I've never heard of any malware needing to install or use hardware
    > device drivers. Please provide more information on this new
    > technology.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 4, 2005
    #12
  13. too true

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Larry Samuels wrote:
    > If rogue software is already phoning home it is too late for a 3rd
    > party firewall to do anything but alert you that your system is
    > already owned.
    >> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >>> OK, I'm going to say this again. What do you _really_ need beyond
    >>> Windows Firewall? I'm not saying there couldn't be a good case for
    >>> a third party firewall, but let's be a bit realistic here. Very few
    >>> people will actually need more than Windows Firewall provides.

    >>
    >>
    >> WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming
    >> attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's
    >> firewall does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware
    >> that you (or someone else using your computer) might download and install
    >> inadvertently.
    >> It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    >> IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or
    >> the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application
    >> you have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    >> therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    >> because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    >> assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    >> Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Especially in x64 Edition, since the most serious attacks would
    >>> require a driver getting installed on the machine and the bad guys
    >>> still use 32-bit drivers. ;)
    >>>

    >>
    >> I've never heard of any malware needing to install or use hardware
    >> device drivers. Please provide more information on this new
    >> technology. --
    >>
    >> Bruce Chambers
    >>
    >> Help us help you:
    >> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>
    >> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
    >> having both at once. - RAH
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 4, 2005
    #13
  14. Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    > Well, I agree here too, so what it all boils down to is being prepared and
    > taking the appropriate measures just it case a heap of trojans, spyware and
    > viruses start taking advantage of Windows x64.



    True. I'm not really too worried about an immediate rush of 64-bit
    viruses (although they'll be along sooner than we like), but most
    ad-ware and spyware are 32-bit, and therefore supported on WinXPx64.
    Until the antivirus and anti-malware vendors catch up and provide a
    decent selection of 64-bit protective offerings, a good software
    firewall is key to early detection.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 4, 2005
    #14
  15. Larry Samuels wrote:
    > If rogue software is already phoning home it is too late for a 3rd party
    > firewall to do anything but alert you that your system is already owned.
    >



    Which is all the warning needed to root out the malware.

    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 4, 2005
    #15
  16. Mark Gillespie wrote:

    >
    > Does it also stop programs reflashing your BIOS, or formatting your
    > harddrive???
    >
    >


    No, of course not. That's not what a firewall is for. I suggest that
    you start boning up on the basics of computer security:

    There are several essential components to computer security: a
    knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly configured firewall,
    reliable and up-to-date antivirus software, and the prompt repair (via
    patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known vulnerabilities.

    The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the computer
    user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected
    to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people
    have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing
    claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be
    no harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the
    inclination or desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All
    too few people keep their antivirus software current, install patches
    in a timely manner, or stop to really think about that cutesy link
    they're about to click.

    Firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used
    and should always be running, are important components of "safe hex,"
    but they cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer
    user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and
    every computer user to learn how to secure his/her own computer.


    To learn more about practicing "safe hex," start with these links:

    Protect Your PC
    http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/default.asp

    Home Computer Security
    http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/

    List of Antivirus Software Vendors
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;49500

    Home PC Firewall Guide
    http://www.firewallguide.com/

    Scumware.com
    http://www.scumware.com/


    > Seriosuly, the only real protection is to not get that stuff on their in
    > the first place....



    So, you propose completely disconnecting the computer from all outside
    contact? That would work, of course, but also render the computer a lot
    less useful.

    If one is going to connect a computer to the Internet, then precautions
    need to be taken, and a good firewall is just one of those precautions.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 4, 2005
    #16
  17. Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    > Bruce -- First, in all my years of running various versions of operating
    > systems, with and without firewalls, and often without AV (try finding an AV
    > that will work in Beta 1 of an OS!), I have been hit exactly once by a
    > trojan/spyware - a very early version of CWS that came along as a rider on
    > another program. No firewall on earth would have stopped that, since I
    > initiated the download. OTOH, MSAS would have nailed in before it ever got
    > installed. And yes, an outgoing firewall would have told me it was there,



    Thank you for proving my point. You installed it yourself, and the
    Windows firewall could not even have warned you of its presence or
    activity. While no 3rd party firewall could have prevented your
    deliberately (if unknowingly) downloading the malware, it certainly
    would have alerted you to its presence.


    > but
    > here's a clue -- I had no difficulty knowing it was there! Quite the
    > contrary.
    >


    And you can guarantee will absolute certainty that you'll always be
    able to know that malware is present? How? Intuition?


    > My point? If you patch promptly, and you don't have any huge holes in your
    > firewall that you added, and you exercise normal due caution and safe
    > computing, you really aren't at risk from something like that.



    I agree that it's important to keep an OS patched, but that's hardly a
    panacea. Patches are very often reactive in nature: they're available
    only after (sometimes a long time after) a new vulnerability is
    discovered and exploited.



    >
    > Finally, if you're worried about others using your computer, give them a
    > limited user account and don't let them run as admin.
    >
    >


    Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this comment. Please explain.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 4, 2005
    #17
  18. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > Mark Gillespie wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Does it also stop programs reflashing your BIOS, or formatting your
    >> harddrive???
    >>
    >>

    >
    > No, of course not. That's not what a firewall is for. I suggest
    > that you start boning up on the basics of computer security:
    >
    > There are several essential components to computer security: a
    > knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly configured firewall,
    > reliable and up-to-date antivirus software, and the prompt repair (via
    > patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known vulnerabilities.
    >
    > The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the computer
    > user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected
    > to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people
    > have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing
    > claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be
    > no harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the
    > inclination or desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All
    > too few people keep their antivirus software current, install patches
    > in a timely manner, or stop to really think about that cutesy link
    > they're about to click.
    >
    > Firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used
    > and should always be running, are important components of "safe hex,"
    > but they cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer
    > user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and
    > every computer user to learn how to secure his/her own computer.
    >
    >
    > To learn more about practicing "safe hex," start with these links:
    >
    > Protect Your PC
    > http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/default.asp
    >
    > Home Computer Security
    > http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/
    >
    > List of Antivirus Software Vendors
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;49500
    >
    > Home PC Firewall Guide
    > http://www.firewallguide.com/
    >
    > Scumware.com
    > http://www.scumware.com/
    >
    >
    >> Seriosuly, the only real protection is to not get that stuff on their
    >> in the first place....

    >
    >
    >
    > So, you propose completely disconnecting the computer from all
    > outside contact? That would work, of course, but also render the
    > computer a lot less useful.
    >
    > If one is going to connect a computer to the Internet, then
    > precautions need to be taken, and a good firewall is just one of those
    > precautions.
    >
    >


    And let's not forget http://www.grc.com and grc.security at news.grc.com


    - --
    Steve Thompson
    Key ID: 0x495F423B http://pgpkeys.telering.at
    CBEC CFA9 94DB B835 5B86 4F7B 5EFF 6369 495F 423B

    Pre-Installation Guide to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
    http://home.comcast.net/~stthomp/
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFCyIr5Xv9jaUlfQjsRAo6XAJ9q88URj01kdqt4mKrRuruKzCQ5gwCeNkv1
    2cAMKqWenwWMAgSHsVHFJaw=
    =vDU1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Steve Thompson, Jul 4, 2005
    #18
  19. Most of us that know SG would rather forget GRC and his fearmongering.

    I have the utmost respect for Steve as a coder, but he is a joke as a
    security expert. Some good people do hang out in his forums though.

    --
    Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
    Associate Expert
    Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
    http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm

    "Steve Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:%23pW3$...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > And let's not forget http://www.grc.com and grc.security at news.grc.com
    >
    >
    > - --
    > Steve Thompson
    > Key ID: 0x495F423B http://pgpkeys.telering.at
    > CBEC CFA9 94DB B835 5B86 4F7B 5EFF 6369 495F 423B
    >
    > Pre-Installation Guide to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
    > http://home.comcast.net/~stthomp/
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
    > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
    >
    > iD8DBQFCyIr5Xv9jaUlfQjsRAo6XAJ9q88URj01kdqt4mKrRuruKzCQ5gwCeNkv1
    > 2cAMKqWenwWMAgSHsVHFJaw=
    > =vDU1
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Larry Samuels, Jul 4, 2005
    #19
  20. I guess we won't see that "flaw" change in the Windows Firewall until the
    next version of Windows or Windows XP SP3.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:%23ga$...
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> Bruce -- First, in all my years of running various versions of operating
    >> systems, with and without firewalls, and often without AV (try finding an
    >> AV that will work in Beta 1 of an OS!), I have been hit exactly once by a
    >> trojan/spyware - a very early version of CWS that came along as a rider
    >> on another program. No firewall on earth would have stopped that, since I
    >> initiated the download. OTOH, MSAS would have nailed in before it ever
    >> got installed. And yes, an outgoing firewall would have told me it was
    >> there,

    >
    >
    > Thank you for proving my point. You installed it yourself, and the
    > Windows firewall could not even have warned you of its presence or
    > activity. While no 3rd party firewall could have prevented your
    > deliberately (if unknowingly) downloading the malware, it certainly would
    > have alerted you to its presence.
    >
    >
    >> but here's a clue -- I had no difficulty knowing it was there! Quite the
    >> contrary.
    >>

    >
    > And you can guarantee will absolute certainty that you'll always be able
    > to know that malware is present? How? Intuition?
    >
    >
    >> My point? If you patch promptly, and you don't have any huge holes in
    >> your firewall that you added, and you exercise normal due caution and
    >> safe computing, you really aren't at risk from something like that.

    >
    >
    > I agree that it's important to keep an OS patched, but that's hardly a
    > panacea. Patches are very often reactive in nature: they're available
    > only after (sometimes a long time after) a new vulnerability is discovered
    > and exploited.
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Finally, if you're worried about others using your computer, give them a
    >> limited user account and don't let them run as admin.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this comment. Please explain.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Warren Jones

    Any Canon 9900F scanner feedback yet?

    Warren Jones, Oct 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    371
    Roy G. Biv
    Oct 29, 2003
  2. jv
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    290
  3. Shiperton Henethe

    Canon IXUS 500 - seem any good reviews of it yet?

    Shiperton Henethe, May 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    381
    Shiperton Henethe
    May 18, 2004
  4. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,234
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  5. DebB

    Any free 64 bit firewall's yet?

    DebB, Sep 5, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    840
    =?Utf-8?B?SmltIFNpbmNsYWly?=
    Sep 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page