J
John John (MVP)
Guest
Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released
Kayman wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:35:36 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote:
>
>
>>Kayman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Conversation in entirety:
>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8/b3486be8412ee2af?lnk=st&q=#b3486be8412ee2af
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only>
>>>>
>>>>This is one of those debates like *nix vs. Windows vs. OS X.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing is proven on any side, examples abound (some truthful and realistic
>>>
>>>>from the single instance, some not so much) and nothing but emotions and
>>>
>>>>egos get exposed.
>>>>
>>>>Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some good for
>>>>that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and legend and still
>>>>others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the latter is often over-looked
>>>>in the debate and glossed over at every turn by those opposed to the topic.)
>>>>
>>>>Ideas like "outbound only catches the stuff you already have and who says
>>>>the application in question did not just change your outbound rules as you
>>>>installed it so you still don't know you have it?" and "I like to know when
>>>>something attempts to 'call home'" seem to cover most of the arguments.
>>>>(Sound like "Windows has more security holes than other OSes" and "Macs just
>>>>don't get viruses"...? Yeah - same type of arguments. heh)
>>>>
>>>>In the end - both are right, both are wrong. It's a personal preference.
>>>>It's a way of computing, a mind-set, a need. I know many people who have
>>>>ran many different OSes for many many years without a single instance of
>>>>infection/infestation and they run no antivirus software and no antispyware
>>>>software. They continuously (when someone finds out) get questions like
>>>>"how do you know you actually don't have a virus or spyware/adware if you
>>>>don't run anythign to prevent/check for it?"
>>>>
>>>>In the end - I just go by the idea that making things more complicated is
>>>>seldom the proper course of action... Simplistic solutions are usually the
>>>>most effective and the most eloquent.
>>>>
>>>>So which way do _I_ lean? Doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>>Each person has their own reasoning behind whatever it is they do. I have
>>>>used many different solutions (I do like to try things - see what I can
>>>>learn and find) - and I do offer advice on the ones I tried that seemingly
>>>>did their jobs without _over-complicating_ my life just to keep it working.
>>>>However - I know that will be different for each person, and I cannot say
>>>>which is less complicated for any one of them. Advice: Try each solution
>>>>*if* this whole topic has any importance to you.
>>>>
>>>>All anyone here can offer is that someone practice some common sense. The
>>>>world is dangerous - your computer gives you options the rest of the world
>>>>does not (I cannot backup my car so that when I get in a wreck, I just
>>>>reload for near instant recovery) - use them. Protect yourself when you can
>>>>(Equate each of these to something on your computer: lock your doors to make
>>>>it harder for intruders to get in while you are there *or* away, wear a coat
>>>>when it is cold, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes, put on sunscreen to
>>>>protect your skin, brush your teeth to prevent cavities, pick up 'your
>>>>room', take out the garbage, cover your face when you cough/sneeze, store
>>>>copies of important documents(life insurance, will, deeds, etc) far away
>>>
>>>>from the originals, etc.)
>>>
>>>>I know someone could pull one (or more) argument for one side or the other
>>>>out of those - I could do it right now. heh
>>>>
>>>>The point - if the solution for everyone was obvious and one-sided - there
>>>>would be no discussion. Being that each person is unique with differing
>>>>experiences and external facts that help support their own experiences - the
>>>>discussion is never-ending. Not one person here can definitively win their
>>>>argument (even if you get rid of every actual 'crazy argument' -- although
>>>>who decides that is yet another debate. hah)
>>>>
>>>>Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that exasperated a
>>>>problem in a particular piece of software could spawn a conversation along
>>>>these lines... And the subject line stays the same through out. Amazing
>>>>really.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software per se.
>>>Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the introduction of NT.
>>>Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles about this subject
>>>extensively. It's an important security subject and the message is not easy
>>>to convey, especially if one is blinded by the hype created by the makers
>>>of 3rd party software.
>>
>>Before Windows XP what were people using?
>
>
> I don't know but *I* was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application
> and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner
What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even
mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue?
If third party firewalls are only "so-called firewalls" then the Windows
XP firewall is no different, it too is nothing more than a personal
firewall.
>> What were they using on NT4 and on Windows 2000?
>
>
> I don't know.
That doesn't surprise me.
>>Just because XP got a firewall now anything else has suddenly become
>>unfit for use?
>
>
> Well, these are throwaway words; If you were more open-minded' in relation
> to OS's and read (*and* comprehend) through pertinent write-ups (even in
> this thread), than it'd be obvious to you - and no, I am not a techie
I am more open minded than you are! I have no quibbles about which
firewall people decide to use, if they want to use the Windows firewall
that is fine, the Windows firewall offers protection for what it was
design to do, there is nothing wrong with it at all. If users want to
use other good firewalls that offer different features that is fine too,
many of these other firewalls are also good and they do everything that
the Windows firewall does plus they give users additional features that
users have asked for. That is fine by me, I don't care what they use
providing that they use something! You on the other hand think that you
should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling
them what to do. You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses.
When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate
them and try to impose your views on them. The fact is that there is
nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there and if
users want to use them it really is none of your business. You're
attempt to discredit all third party firewalls is plainly misguided, the
facts are that many of these other products are also good products and
many are free.
The bottom line is that you and others in your camp simply cannot back
that notion that you perpetuate that all third party firewalls are
incapable of protecting users. That is untrue, it is a lie, plain and
simple, there is no other way to put it.
John
Kayman wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:35:36 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote:
>
>
>>Kayman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Conversation in entirety:
>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8/b3486be8412ee2af?lnk=st&q=#b3486be8412ee2af
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only>
>>>>
>>>>This is one of those debates like *nix vs. Windows vs. OS X.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing is proven on any side, examples abound (some truthful and realistic
>>>
>>>>from the single instance, some not so much) and nothing but emotions and
>>>
>>>>egos get exposed.
>>>>
>>>>Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some good for
>>>>that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and legend and still
>>>>others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the latter is often over-looked
>>>>in the debate and glossed over at every turn by those opposed to the topic.)
>>>>
>>>>Ideas like "outbound only catches the stuff you already have and who says
>>>>the application in question did not just change your outbound rules as you
>>>>installed it so you still don't know you have it?" and "I like to know when
>>>>something attempts to 'call home'" seem to cover most of the arguments.
>>>>(Sound like "Windows has more security holes than other OSes" and "Macs just
>>>>don't get viruses"...? Yeah - same type of arguments. heh)
>>>>
>>>>In the end - both are right, both are wrong. It's a personal preference.
>>>>It's a way of computing, a mind-set, a need. I know many people who have
>>>>ran many different OSes for many many years without a single instance of
>>>>infection/infestation and they run no antivirus software and no antispyware
>>>>software. They continuously (when someone finds out) get questions like
>>>>"how do you know you actually don't have a virus or spyware/adware if you
>>>>don't run anythign to prevent/check for it?"
>>>>
>>>>In the end - I just go by the idea that making things more complicated is
>>>>seldom the proper course of action... Simplistic solutions are usually the
>>>>most effective and the most eloquent.
>>>>
>>>>So which way do _I_ lean? Doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>>Each person has their own reasoning behind whatever it is they do. I have
>>>>used many different solutions (I do like to try things - see what I can
>>>>learn and find) - and I do offer advice on the ones I tried that seemingly
>>>>did their jobs without _over-complicating_ my life just to keep it working.
>>>>However - I know that will be different for each person, and I cannot say
>>>>which is less complicated for any one of them. Advice: Try each solution
>>>>*if* this whole topic has any importance to you.
>>>>
>>>>All anyone here can offer is that someone practice some common sense. The
>>>>world is dangerous - your computer gives you options the rest of the world
>>>>does not (I cannot backup my car so that when I get in a wreck, I just
>>>>reload for near instant recovery) - use them. Protect yourself when you can
>>>>(Equate each of these to something on your computer: lock your doors to make
>>>>it harder for intruders to get in while you are there *or* away, wear a coat
>>>>when it is cold, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes, put on sunscreen to
>>>>protect your skin, brush your teeth to prevent cavities, pick up 'your
>>>>room', take out the garbage, cover your face when you cough/sneeze, store
>>>>copies of important documents(life insurance, will, deeds, etc) far away
>>>
>>>>from the originals, etc.)
>>>
>>>>I know someone could pull one (or more) argument for one side or the other
>>>>out of those - I could do it right now. heh
>>>>
>>>>The point - if the solution for everyone was obvious and one-sided - there
>>>>would be no discussion. Being that each person is unique with differing
>>>>experiences and external facts that help support their own experiences - the
>>>>discussion is never-ending. Not one person here can definitively win their
>>>>argument (even if you get rid of every actual 'crazy argument' -- although
>>>>who decides that is yet another debate. hah)
>>>>
>>>>Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that exasperated a
>>>>problem in a particular piece of software could spawn a conversation along
>>>>these lines... And the subject line stays the same through out. Amazing
>>>>really.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software per se.
>>>Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the introduction of NT.
>>>Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles about this subject
>>>extensively. It's an important security subject and the message is not easy
>>>to convey, especially if one is blinded by the hype created by the makers
>>>of 3rd party software.
>>
>>Before Windows XP what were people using?
>
>
> I don't know but *I* was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application
> and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner
What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even
mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue?
If third party firewalls are only "so-called firewalls" then the Windows
XP firewall is no different, it too is nothing more than a personal
firewall.
>> What were they using on NT4 and on Windows 2000?
>
>
> I don't know.
That doesn't surprise me.
>>Just because XP got a firewall now anything else has suddenly become
>>unfit for use?
>
>
> Well, these are throwaway words; If you were more open-minded' in relation
> to OS's and read (*and* comprehend) through pertinent write-ups (even in
> this thread), than it'd be obvious to you - and no, I am not a techie
I am more open minded than you are! I have no quibbles about which
firewall people decide to use, if they want to use the Windows firewall
that is fine, the Windows firewall offers protection for what it was
design to do, there is nothing wrong with it at all. If users want to
use other good firewalls that offer different features that is fine too,
many of these other firewalls are also good and they do everything that
the Windows firewall does plus they give users additional features that
users have asked for. That is fine by me, I don't care what they use
providing that they use something! You on the other hand think that you
should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling
them what to do. You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses.
When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate
them and try to impose your views on them. The fact is that there is
nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there and if
users want to use them it really is none of your business. You're
attempt to discredit all third party firewalls is plainly misguided, the
facts are that many of these other products are also good products and
many are free.
The bottom line is that you and others in your camp simply cannot back
that notion that you perpetuate that all third party firewalls are
incapable of protecting users. That is untrue, it is a lie, plain and
simple, there is no other way to put it.
John