Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doc
  • Start date Start date
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:evGvOsY0HHA.4568@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Firewall have rules, it appears no one at Microsoft knows this, which
>>> isn't really surprising to tell you the truth. Microsoft's logic is
>>> that "you don't need seat belts if you have airbags". And you don't
>>> need to know what it is that things like Media Player doing. Baloney
>>> indeed!
>>>

It's a pc, apply your own logic (utilise sensible apps.); So take
ownership, do some research, do not consult advertisement-driven
publications and be responsible - *you* are in charge! If you don't like pc
go for available alternatives.
>>>

>> There is no way a software firewall can guarantee it will stop outbound
>> traffic on the computer it is running on regardless of the OS. Software
>> firewalls can be useful for stopping programs communicating outbound
>> through normal channels. That's it, period. The fact that some firewalls
>> notify you about malware communicating out is a function of how poorly
>> the malware is programmed not the firewall. Intel motherboards can
>> communicate though the onboard NICs at the BIOS level with no OS present.
>> Rootkits can easily modify all traffic going through any NIC in the
>> computer. Malware running in Windows can easily corrupt traffic from
>> legitimate programs. Malware can even create it's own TCP/IP stack and
>> bypass Windows (or other OS') networking stack altogether. Virtual server
>> software is capable of spoofing a MAC and getting multiple IP addresses
>> for one NIC from a DHCP server. What makes you think malware can't do the
>> same type of thing?

>
> All that you say is true and I never said or argued otherwise. But
> software firewalls that monitor outbound connections can be useful and can
> help to keep some applications in check,
>

Outbound filtering is useless, the PFW pop-ups just give a warm feeling for
being in control but it's too late already - it's an illusion to belive
otherwise.
> just because the Microsoft firewall can't do it doesn't mean that all
> others are not good.
>

M/S firewall *can't* do (but they could) because it's recognised to be waste
of resources and time. And yes, PFW's are IMO of no value whatsoever; I
know because I operate without these apps.
John John, don't get blinded by all the marketing hype :)
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

Andy,

What does the -b parameter do?
I couldn't find it, and when I included it, I got the help legend.
After looking at the legend, I did this...
c:\netstat -na > netstat.txt
Did you mean to use another pararmeter
and if so, what is the command
What is this for? c:\more netstat.txt
Just trying to learn...

thanks in advance,
dc


"Andy Walker" <awalker@nspank.invalid> wrote in message
news:46ab6529.6936765@news.webtv.com...
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> >>>> Use a software firewall that shows you the current connections and
> >>>> level of traffic. Comodo has a good firewall for free.

>
> Or, you could simply run some simple DOS commands to determine what
> program(s) are using external connections.
>
> c:\netstat -nab > netstat.txt
> c:\more netstat.txt
>
> Look for established connections using foreign addresses other than
> 127.x.x.x. You should be able to determine what port and what process
> is communicating, as well as the external IP address.
>
> To check the external IP address go to http://www.dnsstuff.com and
> enter it into the "IP Information" box.
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?



--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:O4neV7R0HHA.5644@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi Doc
>
> I've been led to believe that, just like one should only ever have a single
> active antivirus programme, one should only have a single software firewall
> operative. In other words, disable MS Windows firewall if you are using Zone
> Alarm.
>
> HTH
>
> David
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________
> "Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1185609109.150631.111220@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm using WinXP Media Center, the last few days I've noticed that
>> there's some kind of d/l actitivity showing even when I'm doing
>> nothing online even with the Windows firewall up as well as
>> ZoneAlarm. I'm on 56k dialup. How do I determine what this is? I
>> don't have Windows update on automatic. I ran AdAware with the latest
>> definitions but it's still doing it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>

>
>
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:evGvOsY0HHA.4568@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:%23mmjLjX0HHA.4568@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Kayman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> and scroll down to:
>>>> Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe.
>>>
>>>
>>> That article itself is baloney. It is true that any malware can
>>> circumvent a firewall's outbound protection but it is also true that a
>>> lot of malware is detected by firewall outbound monitoring. The
>>> outbound monitoring also alerts you when otherwise legitimate software
>>> is trying to call home. Perhaps you like it better when things like
>>> Media player call home without your knowledge, a pesky annoyance that
>>> you should be aware of things like that.
>>>
>>> The article states:
>>>
>>> "Speaking of host firewalls, why is there so much noise about outbound
>>> filtering? Think for a moment about how ordinary users would interact
>>> with a piece of software that bugged them every time a program on their
>>> computer wanted to communicate with the Internet..." What a pile of
>>> baloney!"
>>>
>>> Firewall have rules, it appears no one at Microsoft knows this, which
>>> isn't really surprising to tell you the truth. Microsoft's logic is
>>> that "you don't need seat belts if you have airbags". And you don't
>>> need to know what it is that things like Media Player doing. Baloney
>>> indeed!
>>>

>>
>>
>> There is no way a software firewall can guarantee it will stop outbound
>> traffic on the computer it is running on regardless of the OS. Software
>> firewalls can be useful for stopping programs communicating outbound
>> through normal channels. That's it, period. The fact that some firewalls
>> notify you about malware communicating out is a function of how poorly
>> the malware is programmed not the firewall. Intel motherboards can
>> communicate though the onboard NICs at the BIOS level with no OS present.
>> Rootkits can easily modify all traffic going through any NIC in the
>> computer. Malware running in Windows can easily corrupt traffic from
>> legitimate programs. Malware can even create it's own TCP/IP stack and
>> bypass Windows (or other OS') networking stack altogether. Virtual server
>> software is capable of spoofing a MAC and getting multiple IP addresses
>> for one NIC from a DHCP server. What makes you think malware can't do the
>> same type of thing?

>
> All that you say is true and I never said or argued otherwise. But
> software firewalls that monitor outbound connections can be useful and can
> help to keep some applications in check, just because the Microsoft
> firewall can't do it doesn't mean that all others are not good.
>



You said that this: "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic
to be Safe." was baloney. It is not. You are talking about privacy not
safety. Software firewalls do nothing to improve your safety. They may
actually decrease your safety by giving you a false sense of security. They
can as you say be used to protect your privacy. You went on to say this:
"Firewall have rules, it appears no one at Microsoft knows this" which is
also false. All of the firewalls in Microsoft OS' use rules. Some of them
don't monitor outgoing traffic but they all use rules.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

On Jul 28, 12:51 pm, Doc <docsavag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm using WinXP Media Center, the last few days I've noticed that
> there's some kind of d/l actitivity showing even when I'm doing
> nothing online even with the Windows firewall up as well as
> ZoneAlarm. I'm on 56k dialup. How do I determine what this is? I
> don't have Windows update on automatic. I ran AdAware with the latest
> definitions but it's still doing it.
>
> Thanks.


A long shot: A couple of months back, I had downloaded and installed a
free "flash video player" that was seen on Firefox. The same day, I
found that my Internet account had been drained out, because some 2GB
was "downloaded" in the matter of a few hours, although I had shut
down the program after using it for just a few minutes. I could not
locate any downloaded files even in the "Temporary Internet Files"
folder to account for that size, and my hard disk space was not
decreased. Apparently, the program continued to run in the background
even after I shut it off. When I opened the "Local Area Connection
Status" by clicking on the double-computer icon in system tray area, I
saw that heavy downloading was gong on. I am not absolutely sure that
the Flash Video Player was the culprit, but I after I uninstalled the
program, the unknown internet activity also stopped.
I suggest that you check for something similar on your computer.
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

Had you intended to comment, Peter?

Nothing seen here.

BD

******************************
"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eSIyH9Z0HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...


--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:O4neV7R0HHA.5644@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi Doc
>
> I've been led to believe that, just like one should only ever have a
> single
> active antivirus programme, one should only have a single software
> firewall
> operative. In other words, disable MS Windows firewall if you are using
> Zone
> Alarm.
>
> HTH
>
> David
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________
> "Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1185609109.150631.111220@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm using WinXP Media Center, the last few days I've noticed that
>> there's some kind of d/l actitivity showing even when I'm doing
>> nothing online even with the Windows firewall up as well as
>> ZoneAlarm. I'm on 56k dialup. How do I determine what this is? I
>> don't have Windows update on automatic. I ran AdAware with the latest
>> definitions but it's still doing it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>

>
>
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Kayman wrote:

> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message


> It's a pc, apply your own logic (utilise sensible apps.); So take
> ownership, do some research, do not consult advertisement-driven
> publications and be responsible - *you* are in charge! If you don't like
> pc go for available alternatives.


Regardless of what you might think I am no slouch at computers and I
don't use Adware! Did you know that some of the new Sysinternal
(Microsoft) utilities call home without your knowledge? Did you know
that these Sysinternal utilities do not tell you that they call home and
that they provide no inbuilt mechanism to stop this behaviour? Do you
agree that those applications, amongst others, should be calling home
without the user's knowledge? Do you agree that users should have no
easy method to detect and stop these unwanted connections? By the
contents of your posts I would say obviously not! There are many other
legitimate applications that call home for no valid reasons, when you
install these application they don't always tell you that they will be
calling home and they don't always make it easy to find that out or to
disable "call home" features. I am sure you didn't know of the
Sysinternal utilities calling home and I am sure that you are not in
charge of your computer as much as you thing that you are! But then you
don't think that users should have a way of being made aware or of
stopping those outbound connections so who cares about "being in charge"
of their computers?


> M/S firewall *can't* do (but they could) because it's recognised to be
> waste of resources and time. And yes, PFW's are IMO of no value
> whatsoever; I know because I operate without these apps.
> John John, don't get blinded by all the marketing hype :)


Marketing hype? It appears that you are the one blinded by marketing
hype! Microsoft marketing hype! The misinformation published in one of
the Microsoft articles provided by another poster makes it clear that
Microsoft and its shills are on a mission to discredit all firewalls
that monitor outbound connections and to insist that the Microsoft
firewall is somehow or other superior to all others. Quite amusing when
it's coming from an outfit that until a few years ago didn't even know
what a firewall was! As for your comments of "waste of resources" it is
laughable to say the least. It this day and age of fast processors and
large amounts of RAM this is a non issue. Also, the firewall will be
using resources just to do its basic job of keeping intruder out, the
little extra needed to monitor outbound connections is negligible.

Lets get one thing perfectly clear here, I am not claiming, nor have I
ever claimed that outbound connection monitoring was an effective method
of dealing with all sorts of malware. I am simply saying that outbound
monitoring is a useful tool that can alert you to some not so clever
malware trying to call home and that it can alert you that something
like your printer software, or Microsoft components might be trying to
access the internet for no good reason at all. But then it appears that
you think that users shouldn't know that these things are calling home.
Neither you, nor Microsoft, nor anyone else will ever convince me that
outbound connection monitoring is not a useful feature. Period!

John
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Kerry Brown wrote:

> You said that this: "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound
> Traffic to be Safe." was baloney.


I never said that and don't attribute things that I have not said to me!
Reread my post!

I quoted this from the article:

"Speaking of host firewalls, why is there so much noise about outbound
filtering? Think for a moment about how ordinary users would interact
with a piece of software that bugged them every time a program on their
computer wanted to communicate with the Internet..."

And I said that (quoted material) was baloney! A firewall monitoring
outbound connections will ask you if you want to permanently allow or
disallow the connection, you will not be "...bugged them every time a
program on their computer wanted to communicate with the Internet...".
That is false information in the article, and for some reason or other
and for sometime now Microsoft has been trying to discredit *all*
firewalls except its own. What is it that Microsoft is hiding? Why are
they so adamant that users not be aware of outgoing connections on their
computers?

John
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

Which Sysinternals apps call home?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OovEbld0HHA.5380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Kayman wrote:
>
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

>
>> It's a pc, apply your own logic (utilise sensible apps.); So take
>> ownership, do some research, do not consult advertisement-driven
>> publications and be responsible - *you* are in charge! If you don't like
>> pc go for available alternatives.

>
> Regardless of what you might think I am no slouch at computers and I don't
> use Adware! Did you know that some of the new Sysinternal (Microsoft)
> utilities call home without your knowledge? Did you know that these
> Sysinternal utilities do not tell you that they call home and that they
> provide no inbuilt mechanism to stop this behaviour? Do you agree that
> those applications, amongst others, should be calling home without the
> user's knowledge? Do you agree that users should have no easy method to
> detect and stop these unwanted connections? By the contents of your posts
> I would say obviously not! There are many other legitimate applications
> that call home for no valid reasons, when you install these application
> they don't always tell you that they will be calling home and they don't
> always make it easy to find that out or to disable "call home" features.
> I am sure you didn't know of the Sysinternal utilities calling home and I
> am sure that you are not in charge of your computer as much as you thing
> that you are! But then you don't think that users should have a way of
> being made aware or of stopping those outbound connections so who cares
> about "being in charge" of their computers?
>
>
>> M/S firewall *can't* do (but they could) because it's recognised to be
>> waste of resources and time. And yes, PFW's are IMO of no value
>> whatsoever; I know because I operate without these apps.
>> John John, don't get blinded by all the marketing hype :)

>
> Marketing hype? It appears that you are the one blinded by marketing
> hype! Microsoft marketing hype! The misinformation published in one of
> the Microsoft articles provided by another poster makes it clear that
> Microsoft and its shills are on a mission to discredit all firewalls that
> monitor outbound connections and to insist that the Microsoft firewall is
> somehow or other superior to all others. Quite amusing when it's coming
> from an outfit that until a few years ago didn't even know what a firewall
> was! As for your comments of "waste of resources" it is laughable to say
> the least. It this day and age of fast processors and large amounts of
> RAM this is a non issue. Also, the firewall will be using resources just
> to do its basic job of keeping intruder out, the little extra needed to
> monitor outbound connections is negligible.
>
> Lets get one thing perfectly clear here, I am not claiming, nor have I
> ever claimed that outbound connection monitoring was an effective method
> of dealing with all sorts of malware. I am simply saying that outbound
> monitoring is a useful tool that can alert you to some not so clever
> malware trying to call home and that it can alert you that something like
> your printer software, or Microsoft components might be trying to access
> the internet for no good reason at all. But then it appears that you
> think that users shouldn't know that these things are calling home.
> Neither you, nor Microsoft, nor anyone else will ever convince me that
> outbound connection monitoring is not a useful feature. Period!
>
> John
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OZyzRwd0HHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> You said that this: "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound
>> Traffic to be Safe." was baloney.

>
> I never said that and don't attribute things that I have not said to me!
> Reread my post!
>
> I quoted this from the article:
>
> "Speaking of host firewalls, why is there so much noise about outbound
> filtering? Think for a moment about how ordinary users would interact with
> a piece of software that bugged them every time a program on their
> computer wanted to communicate with the Internet..."
>
> And I said that (quoted material) was baloney! A firewall monitoring
> outbound connections will ask you if you want to permanently allow or
> disallow the connection, you will not be "...bugged them every time a
> program on their computer wanted to communicate with the Internet...".
> That is false information in the article, and for some reason or other and
> for sometime now Microsoft has been trying to discredit *all* firewalls
> except its own. What is it that Microsoft is hiding? Why are they so
> adamant that users not be aware of outgoing connections on their
> computers?
>



That may have been what you intended to say but here is the the relevant
snippet from your post:

--------------------------------------
"> and scroll down to:
> Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe.


That article itself is baloney. It is true that any malware can
circumvent a firewall's outbound protection but it is also true that a
lot of malware is detected by firewall outbound monitoring. The
outbound monitoring also alerts you when otherwise legitimate software
is trying to call home. Perhaps you like it better when things like
Media player call home without your knowledge, a pesky annoyance that
you should be aware of things like that."
-----------------------------------------

It sure sounds to me like you are calling the whole article baloney.

I don't presume to speak for Microsoft but personally I'm not hiding
anything. Software firewalls are a useful part of a layered security setup.
They can't be relied upon to protect you from malicious outbound traffic.
Anybody who says they can and tries to sell this to you is deceiving you.
They are selling snake oil. Software firewalls became popular because the
current versions of Windows at the time didn't have any firewall. When XP
came out with a firewall the vendors realized that they had to give people a
reason to keep buying their product. This is when they started pushing the
outbound monitoring features. Software firewalls can, and most do, give you
a level of protection against inbound attacks from unsolicited traffic. That
is all they are good for as a defense against malware. Even that can't be
relied on if something does get inside the security perimeter. Once your
security has been breached you can no longer trust anything running on the
computer. Monitoring outbound traffic does have it's uses. One is as you say
to stop legitimate programs from making outbound connections that you don't
want. I don't know why Microsoft didn't include outbound monitoring in the
XP firewall. Personally I don't care as I believe it to be of limited use
anyway. Outbound monitoring is included in the Vista firewall and many other
Microsoft products like ISA server.

This is obviously something I'm passionate about :-) Don't take it as
personal attack. Whenever I see a post espousing the usefulness of software
firewalls I am compelled to point out the fallacy of this approach to
security.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:11:12 -0300, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:

>Kayman wrote:


<snip>

>Did you know that some of the new Sysinternal (Microsoft) utilities call
>home without your knowledge?


You mean it contacts crl.microsoft.com? Uhhhhh.. big deal....

>Did you know that these Sysinternal utilities
>do not tell you that they call home and that they provide no inbuilt
>mechanism to stop this behaviour?


Wrong.

>Do you agree that those applications, amongst others, should be calling home
>without the user's knowledge?


Why are you running utilities from a company you don't trust? In fact,
with your obvious hostility towards MS, why are you running windows in
the first place?

>There are many other legitimate applications that call home for no
>valid reasons, when you install these application they don't always tell
>you that they will be calling home and they don't always make it easy to
>find that out or to disable "call home" features.


Any program you didn't code yourself is going to do a lot of things
without asking you for permission.

Legitimate programs for obvious reasons don't need to be controlled.

Furthermore, an outbound control measure is not going to indicate in
any way if what it's doing is good or bad. You just have a
preconceived opinion about it being bad (which just proves that you
are running software you don't trust).

<snip>

>The misinformation published in one of
>the Microsoft articles provided by another poster makes it clear that
>Microsoft and its shills are on a mission to discredit all firewalls
>that monitor outbound connections


or they just know their own OS well enough to realize that host-based
outbound control as a security measure against malware is a lost
battle.

>and to insist that the Microsoft
>firewall is somehow or other superior to all others.


In some areas it is.

<snip>

>Also, the firewall will be using resources just to do its basic job of
>keeping intruder out, the little extra needed to monitor outbound
>connections is negligible.


Do you realize the number of kernel hooks necessary to accomplish such
a task? And still it isn't even close to being reliable.

You probably also never considered the increase in attack vectors
introduced by PFW's.
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

dc wrote:

>Andy,
>
>What does the -b parameter do?


Here is the help description from netstat:

-b Displays the executable involved in creating each connection or
listening port. In some cases well-known executables host
multiple independent components, and in these cases the
sequence of components involved in creating the connection
or listening port is displayed. In this case the executable
name is in [] at the bottom, on top is the component it called,
and so forth until TCP/IP was reached. Note that this option
can be time-consuming and will fail unless you have sufficient

You can use an alternative method through the use of the -o switch.

-o Displays the owning process ID associated with each connection.

In order to determine the process name you can run task manger
(ctrl-alt-del), select view/select columns and add Process Identifier.
This will allow you to match the process ID output from the netstat
command with a process name.

>I couldn't find it, and when I included it, I got the help legend.


Older versions of the netstat command did not include the -b switch.

>After looking at the legend, I did this...
>c:\netstat -na > netstat.txt
>Did you mean to use another pararmeter
>and if so, what is the command


See the -o info above.

>What is this for? c:\more netstat.txt


It is the "more" command used to read the file "netstat.txt" created
when you used the ">" pipe command. Using more allows you to see the
entire file one page at a time. You could also use a text reader like
notepad or to stay in the DOS window try "edit netstat.txt".
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Click on the help menu and you will find out.

John

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Which Sysinternals apps call home?
>
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Straight Talk wrote:

>>Did you know that these Sysinternal utilities
>>do not tell you that they call home and that they provide no inbuilt
>>mechanism to stop this behaviour?

>
>
> Wrong.


If you know how to internally stop the Sysinternal Help utilities from
calling home please post your findings here. I would also like to hear
your advice and solutions as to port monitoring and outbound traffic
in general on Windows operating systems. Should users follow your
advice and ignore all outbound traffic? Should outbound traffic be
allowed to outside networks or should it be limited to the local network?

John
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>
>> It's a pc, apply your own logic (utilise sensible apps.); So take
>> ownership, do some research, do not consult advertisement-driven
>> publications and be responsible - *you* are in charge! If you don't like
>> pc go for available alternatives.

>
> Regardless of what you might think I am no slouch at computers and I don't
> use Adware!
>

Never thought you were incompetent. I just provided useful information for
you kind consideration.
>
> (Did you know that some of the new Sysinternal Microsoft) utilities call
> home without your knowledge?

Really.
>
> Did you know that these Sysinternal utilities do not tell you that they
> call home and that they provide no inbuilt mechanism to stop this
> behaviour?
>

Really.
>
> Do you agree that those applications, amongst others, should be calling
> home without the user's knowledge?

The ones I use don't call. If I'd feel comfortable with an apps. I wouldn't
mind.
>
> Do you agree that users should have no easy method to detect and stop
> these unwanted connections?

Define unwanted; Only install apps. you are comfortable with.
>
> By the contents of your posts I would say obviously not!

Far from it, that's what you're assuming, that's it. Read on the line, not
in between.
>
> There are many other legitimate applications that call home for no valid
> reasons, when you install these application they don't always tell you
> that they will be calling home and they don't always make it easy to find
> that out or to disable "call home" features.

I know, but then again I don't download junk - not even legitimate junk. But
wouldn't mind a 'home call' from an apps. I am comfortable with.
>
> I am sure you didn't know of the Sysinternal utilities calling home...
>

Which Sysinternals apps. call home?
>
> ...and I am sure that you are not in charge of your computer as much as
> you thing that you are!

Assumptions.
>
> But then you don't think that users should have a way of being made aware
> or of stopping those outbound connections so who cares about "being in
> charge" of their computers?
>

Naw, you don't know what I am thinking, never mind about that.
>
>> M/S firewall *can't* do (but they could) because it's recognised to be
>> waste of resources and time. And yes, PFW's are IMO of no value
>> whatsoever; I know because I operate without these apps.
>> John John, don't get blinded by all the marketing hype :)

>
> Marketing hype? It appears that you are the one blinded by marketing
> hype! Microsoft marketing hype!
>

If you are not comfortable with this apps. then uninstall and go for an
alternative.
>
> The misinformation published in one of the Microsoft articles provided by
> another poster makes it > clear that Microsoft and its shills are on a
> mission to discredit all firewalls...

It explains how things are in reality. The write-ups are educational and
non-binding. The authors have considerable credentials. Where are yours?
And where are the representatives with their credentials of PFW's refuting
the published arguments? Are you one of them?
>
> ...that monitor outbound connections and to insist that the Microsoft
> firewall is somehow or other superior to all others.

They don't claim superiority, just reality.
>
> Quite amusing when it's coming from an outfit that until a few years ago
> didn't even know what a firewall was!
>

You do underestimate M/S. (Or is it sarcasm?).
> As for your comments of "waste of resources" it is laughable to say the
> least. It this day and age of fast processors and large amounts of RAM
> this is a non issue.

A waste of resources in terms of manpower, spending time on an useless
(outbound filtering)feature. (Sorry for confusion).
>
> Also, the firewall will be using resources just to do its basic job of
> keeping intruder out, the little extra needed to monitor outbound
> connections is negligible.
> Lets get one thing perfectly clear here, I am not claiming, nor have I
> ever claimed that outbound connection monitoring was an effective method
> of dealing with all sorts of malware. I am simply saying that outbound
> monitoring is a useful tool that can alert you to some not so clever
> malware trying to call home and that it can alert you that something like
> your printer software, or Microsoft components might be trying to access
> the internet for no good reason at all. But then it appears that you
> think that users shouldn't know that these things are calling home.
> Neither you, nor Microsoft, nor anyone else will ever convince me that
> outbound connection monitoring is not a useful feature. Period!
>

Alright then; Good luck :)
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>Should users follow your
>advice and ignore all outbound traffic? Should outbound traffic be
>allowed to outside networks or should it be limited to the local network?


While you're waiting for your answer, you might visit this site and
follow its directions:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

What "help menu"? Hey, I just asked a question and I really want to know the
answer. Which Sysinternal apps call home? I presume you know of at least
some, or you wouldn't have made that statement.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:e0VXoKj0HHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Click on the help menu and you will find out.
>
> John
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Which Sysinternals apps call home?
>>
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine whatit is?

Preocess Explorer and Autoruns are two that do.

John

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> What "help menu"? Hey, I just asked a question and I really want to know the
> answer. Which Sysinternal apps call home? I presume you know of at least
> some, or you wouldn't have made that statement.
>
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?


"Uncle Grumpy" <unclegrumpy@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9jbqa39h9nca6fn5k5aatg32apcb46n8ip@4ax.com...
> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>Should users follow your
>>advice and ignore all outbound traffic? Should outbound traffic be
>>allowed to outside networks or should it be limited to the local network?

>
> While you're waiting for your answer, you might visit this site and
> follow its directions:
>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


No MS-MVP leaves home without one...
 
Re: Unknown download activity in background - how to determine what it is?

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:18:45 -0300, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca>
wrote:

>If you know how to internally stop the Sysinternal Help utilities from
>calling home please post your findings here.


It's not the app itself "phoning home". Clearing the
CodeBaseSearchPath key in the registry (Internet Settings) probably
does the job. But maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

Anyway, if you had taken the time to packet sniff the "phoning home"
instead of letting your PFW drive you paranoid, you would probably
have realized that it's no big deal and that this big scary MS thingy
isn't really spying on you.

>I would also like to hear your advice and solutions as to port monitoring
>and outbound traffic in general on Windows operating systems.


App's like CurrPorts and WireShark come to mind.

>Should users follow your advice and ignore all outbound traffic?


Users should think twice before installing all kinds of stuff. And
they should not let PFW's drive them paranoid. Problem is, neither the
PFW nor the user understands what's happening. I've seen users freak
out about app's "phoning home" to IP address 127.0.0.1

>Should outbound traffic be allowed to outside networks or should it be
>limited to the local network?


That's for the person in charge of the local network to decide.
However, there won't be much inter netting without allowing outbound
traffic.
 
Back
Top