A question about Firewall in XP

[T O M M Y]

I know there is a built-in firewall in XP for limiting access to the
computer and securing it from hackers...I also-beside that Firewall -use
ZoneAlarm Pro when browsing the net....

My question is : "Is it enough to use only XP's firewall, or for more
security and stability additional firewalls are also needed?"

And " Is it right that firewalls can't stop viruses from stepping into the
computer,and their only aim is security from hacking activities?"

Any suggestion is much regarded

[purplehaz]

The xp firewall is not enough cause it does not block outbound connections.
Using both is not needed and could cause probs. Using ZA alone is the best
way to go in your setup.

A firewall can stop a virus/trojan. There are many that just look for open
ports and install silently when they find the port open. A perfect example
is the ms blast worm. If you had a firewall enabled you cannot get the ms
blast virus. But a firewall is in no way a substitute for a good anti-virus
program.

"T O M M Y" > wrote in message
...
> I know there is a built-in firewall in XP for limiting access to the
> computer and securing it from hackers...I also-beside that Firewall -use
> ZoneAlarm Pro when browsing the net....
>
> My question is : "Is it enough to use only XP's firewall, or for more
> security and stability additional firewalls are also needed?"
>
> And " Is it right that firewalls can't stop viruses from stepping into the
> computer,and their only aim is security from hacking activities?"
>
> Any suggestion is much regarded
>
>
>

[Patrick]

T O M M Y wrote:
> I know there is a built-in firewall in XP for limiting access to the
> computer and securing it from hackers...I also-beside that Firewall
> -use ZoneAlarm Pro when browsing the net....
>
> My question is : "Is it enough to use only XP's firewall, or for
> more security and stability additional firewalls are also needed?"
>
> And " Is it right that firewalls can't stop viruses from stepping
> into the computer,and their only aim is security from hacking
> activities?"
>
> Any suggestion is much regarded

I used XP firewal, it stopped the NETBIOS (Messenger Service) thingy for a
while, then started letting them through.
So installed ZA free fing, along with AVG etc, I haven't ever had a virus.
(am I speaking too loud).

[whoever]

"T O M M Y" > wrote in
:

> And " Is it right that firewalls can't stop viruses from stepping into
> the computer,and their only aim is security from hacking activities?"

Most viruses these days are distributed by e-mail - a firewall won't
prevent such a virus. Worms, on the other hand, usually work by connecting
to your machine from "outside", so a firewall can protect against a worm.

In the last couple of weeks, the MS Blaster worm and the Sobig-F virus have
hit the headlines. A firewall would have blocked the first, but not the
2nd.

[PS]

Tom-

With the XP ICF (internet connection firewall) my system is invisible to the
'Shields Up' test! This is good.

http://grc.com/default.htm

ICF only protects you from incoming traffic. Zone-Alarm will monitor
outgoing traffic from your system, which will come in handy if your system
is infected with a trojan.

PS
"This post represents MY opinion and experiences only"

"T O M M Y" > wrote in message
...
> I know there is a built-in firewall in XP for limiting access to the
> computer and securing it from hackers...I also-beside that Firewall -use
> ZoneAlarm Pro when browsing the net....
>
> My question is : "Is it enough to use only XP's firewall, or for more
> security and stability additional firewalls are also needed?"
>
> And " Is it right that firewalls can't stop viruses from stepping into the
> computer,and their only aim is security from hacking activities?"
>
> Any suggestion is much regarded
>
>
>

[Frank Saunders MS-MVP, IE/OE]

I'm perfectly happy just using the WinXP firewall.
I never open email attachments that contain a virus.

--
Frank Saunders MS-MVP, IE/OE
Please Reply to Newsgroup
www.fjsmjs.com


"T O M M Y" > wrote in message
...
> I know there is a built-in firewall in XP for limiting access to the
> computer and securing it from hackers...I also-beside that Firewall -use
> ZoneAlarm Pro when browsing the net....
>
> My question is : "Is it enough to use only XP's firewall, or for more
> security and stability additional firewalls are also needed?"
>
> And " Is it right that firewalls can't stop viruses from stepping into the
> computer,and their only aim is security from hacking activities?"
>
> Any suggestion is much regarded
>
>
>

[Robert]

Hi, Tommy!

You might want to have a look at the following page (_"Personal Firewalls"
are mostly snake-oil_):

http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html

"Maybe it'll block trojans from phoning home, but if you've run a trojan
your system is completely compromised "

Cheers,
Robert

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

A load of CRAP. Personal Firewalls DO work try some of them on some of the
testing sites.

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, Tommy!
>
> You might want to have a look at the following page (_"Personal Firewalls"
> are mostly snake-oil_):
>
> http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html
>
> "Maybe it'll block trojans from phoning home, but if you've run a trojan
> your system is completely compromised "
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
>

[sli]

Robert wrote:
> Hi, Tommy!
>
> You might want to have a look at the following page (_"Personal
> Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil_):
>
> http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html
>
Funny, he doesn't mention that a personal firewall could have provented a
few hundred thousand computers from getting the recent blast worm.
Considering the investment is $0 some might consider it worthwhile.

[Frank Saunders MS-MVP, IE/OE]

Yes. The much-looked-down-upon WinXP firewall stopped MSBlaster if it was
already applied to the connection.

--
Frank Saunders MS-MVP, IE/OE
Please Reply to Newsgroup
www.fjsmjs.com


"sli" > wrote in message
...
> Robert wrote:
> > Hi, Tommy!
> >
> > You might want to have a look at the following page (_"Personal
> > Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil_):
> >
> > http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html
> >
> Funny, he doesn't mention that a personal firewall could have provented a
> few hundred thousand computers from getting the recent blast worm.
> Considering the investment is $0 some might consider it worthwhile.
>
>

[Robert]

Hi!

Maybe I should have quoted the page more extensively as apparently no one
bothered to go and read for themselves.

Here is a more detailed quote:

"A 'personal firewall' isn't a firewall. A firewall is a dedicated box with
(usually) two or three ethernet ports running no services other than a
firewall. My preferred configuration is an x86 box with a couple of tulip
cards running FreeBSD or OpenBSD and ipf, though you can do OK with Linux
and iptables too. You can run either on a $100 obsolete PC. (*BSD is better,
but Linux is easier for a new user to configure).
Even the little hardware NAT boxes that you can get for sharing a DSL
connection or cable modem are way better than any 'software firewall' (The
NetGear RT311 and RT314 are extremely sophisticated and flexible NATs and
start at less than $100 - they do full NATing, allow port forwarding and
filtering to a protected network (NetGear Firewalls and NATs).

So... what does a 'personal firewall' actually do? Well, effectively it
listens on all the ports on your system. This provides no real additional
security over turning off the services that you don't use.

I'll repeat that - it provides no real additional security over turning off
the services that you don't use. (Maybe it'll block trojans from phoning
home, but A) if you've run a trojan your system is completely compromised"

Cheers,
Robert

[sli]

Robert wrote:
>
> So... what does a 'personal firewall' actually do? Well, effectively
> it listens on all the ports on your system. This provides no real
> additional security over turning off the services that you don't use.
>
And what service would you turn off to prevent being infected with the blast
worm? I know a "personal firewall", (even if it's not a real firewall,
according to your author), will prevent it, but I don't know what service
to turn off to prevent it.

[CZ]

Robert:

>> Even the little hardware NAT boxes that you can get for sharing a DSL
connection or cable modem are way better than any 'software firewall' (The
NetGear RT311 and RT314 are extremely sophisticated and flexible NATs and
start at less than $100 - they do full NATing, allow port forwarding and
filtering to a protected network (NetGear Firewalls and NATs).

Agreed. I have two of the RT 314s. Excellent products.


>> So... what does a 'personal firewall' actually do? Well, effectively it
listens on all the ports on your system. This provides no real additional
security over turning off the services that you don't use.

I disagree as follows:
BID does intrusion detection (RT 314 does not)
ZA free allows me to control what programs can call home (RT 314 does not)
NIS provides control over fragmented IP (RT 314 does not)

Also, a user with a host based firewall does not have to choose which
services to disable, thus avoid the possibility of causing problems due to
dependencies

>> I'll repeat that - it provides no real additional security over turning
off
the services that you don't use. (Maybe it'll block trojans from phoning
home, but A) if you've run a trojan your system is completely compromised"

On a clean install of XP Pro, I have had ZA free prompt me re: about 18 of
XP's applets/features/whatever calling home. I would associate that with
security.

[Robert]

Hi, CZ!

Thanks for a very informed and informative answer.

Cheers,
Robert

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

if I hadn't read the thread, I wouldn't know what on earth you were talking
about. Please quote the post (or at least the pertinent parts of it) you are
replying to.

Thank you.

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, CZ!
>
> Thanks for a very informed and informative answer.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
>

[whoever]

"Robert" > wrote in
:

> Even the little hardware NAT boxes that you can get for
> sharing a DSL connection or cable modem are way better than any
> 'software firewall' (The NetGear RT311 and RT314 are extremely
> sophisticated and flexible NATs and start at less than $100 - they do
> full NATing, allow port forwarding and filtering to a protected
> network (NetGear Firewalls and NATs).

I'm a big fan of these boxes, and I encourage anyone that I know who is
getting a broadband connection to consider shelling out the extra money (or
put it on their christmas "wish list") for one.

> So... what does a 'personal firewall' actually do? Well, effectively
> it listens on all the ports on your system. This provides no real
> additional security over turning off the services that you don't use.
>
> I'll repeat that - it provides no real additional security over
> turning off the services that you don't use. (Maybe it'll block
> trojans from phoning home, but A) if you've run a trojan your system
> is completely compromised"

The article you're quoting is fairly typical of the sort of technical
bigotry that is rife in the area of compurers generally (I know - I'm
regularly guilty of it myself). The author thinks personal firewalls are a
waste of time because he doesn't think he needs one.

There's one thing that a "personal firewall" can do that no external box
can do - it can verify that outbound connections are being made by services
that are allowed to make them. Finding out that you've got a trojan is the
first step to rectifying the problem, and a personal firewall may be the
only way you will find out. (Unfortunately, for the not technically
inclined, asking for verification about outbound processes doesn't help
much, because it either causes terminal confusion, or they turn the
prompting off, and everything is allowed access the internet. It would be
nice if there was a setting that allowed personal firewalls to ask a
centralised database on the internet of a particular client application was
"safe", and only prompt the user if the application was unknown).

Both SoBig and Blaster would have been far less "successful" if more people
were using something like ZoneAlarm.

[Patrick]

Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> if I hadn't read the thread, I wouldn't know what on earth you were
> talking about. Please quote the post (or at least the pertinent parts
> of it) you are replying to.
>
> Thank you.

I agree, we can't have people throwing "thank you's" out into cyber space,
will-nilly.

>
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi, CZ!
>>
>> Thanks for a very informed and informative answer.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robert

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

Not sure whether to LOL or not!

"Patrick" > wrote in message
...
> Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> > if I hadn't read the thread, I wouldn't know what on earth you were
> > talking about. Please quote the post (or at least the pertinent parts
> > of it) you are replying to.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> I agree, we can't have people throwing "thank you's" out into cyber space,
> will-nilly.
>
> >
> > "Robert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Hi, CZ!
> >>
> >> Thanks for a very informed and informative answer.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Robert
>
>

[whoever]

"Robert" > wrote in
:

> The regular argument in favour of "personal firewalls" like ZoneAlarm
> is that they will stop outbound Trojans from phoning home to mummy
> while the Windows XP built-in firewall just won't.
>
> I may be dumb but there is still a question that puzzles me.
>
> If you have got the Windows XP built-in firewall + a good antivirus with
> regular daily updates, is it still possible for Trojans to get into your
> system at all (not mine, mind you!)?

Define "regular updates". They didn't do much to stop Sobig-F, did they?
Yet Sobig-F should have triggered an alert from ZoneAlarm, for example.

> d) and above all avoided opening suspicious messages with attachments,

People who can't pass d) aren't likely to pass a, b or c.

[Sami Garzon]

"Robert" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> I am personally convinced that if everybody
>
> a) had a good regularly updated antivirus (I can recommend the eTrust EZ
> Antivirus for absolute efficiency and ultra-fast reactivity),
> b) ran some kind of firewall on their systems,
> c) used mail filtering programs like MailWasher,
> d) and above all avoided opening suspicious messages with attachments,

Add:

e) Had its OS updated (I can recommend windowsupdate),

[Patrick]

Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
> Not sure whether to LOL or not!

Nicely, 'taken on the the chin' Gordon :)

>
> "Patrick" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote:
>>> if I hadn't read the thread, I wouldn't know what on earth you were
>>> talking about. Please quote the post (or at least the pertinent
>>> parts of it) you are replying to.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> I agree, we can't have people throwing "thank you's" out into cyber
>> space, will-nilly.
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Hi, CZ!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for a very informed and informative answer.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Robert

[Robert]

Hi, Whoever!

The eTrust antivirus had an update ready only a few hours after the Sobig virus
was known.

Quite a few of these Sobig-infected messages were sent to one of my email
accounts.

As I had been warned by eTrust not to "trust" such messages, I did not even look
at them.

I killed them all on the server.

But I would have done so in any case.

Messages with attachments from unknown senders should always be destroyed
systematically.

This method is even better than relying on firewalls and antiviruses.

It simply uses common sense and minimal Internet education.

Cheers,
Robert

[Frank Saunders MS-MVP, IE/OE]

d) is the key to avoiding viruses, trojans and worms. Someone may send you
a virus that your anti-virus supplier hasn't even published an update for
yet, but d) will protect you. The WinXP firewall is perfectly good
protection against such monsters as MSBlaster, although it is also necessary
to keep up to date with critical patches at Windows Update.

--
Frank Saunders MS-MVP, IE/OE
Please Reply to Newsgroup
www.fjsmjs.com


"Robert" > wrote in message
...
> Hi!
>
> The regular argument in favour of "personal firewalls" like ZoneAlarm
> is that they will stop outbound Trojans from phoning home to mummy
> while the Windows XP built-in firewall just won't.
>
> I may be dumb but there is still a question that puzzles me.
>
> If you have got the Windows XP built-in firewall + a good antivirus with
> regular daily updates, is it still possible for Trojans to get into your
> system at all (not mine, mind you!)?
>
> And if Trojans cannot get in, what is the use of firewalls that would
> prevent them from communicating with the outside world?
>
> I am personally convinced that if everybody
>
> a) had a good regularly updated antivirus (I can recommend the eTrust EZ
> Antivirus for absolute efficiency and ultra-fast reactivity),
> b) ran some kind of firewall on their systems,
> c) used mail filtering programs like MailWasher,
> d) and above all avoided opening suspicious messages with attachments,
>
> Trojans, Worms and Viruses would not spread like they currently do.
>
> How can people be so dumb as to think that Microsoft is writing to them?
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
>
>
>

[whoever]

"Robert" > wrote in
:

> The eTrust antivirus had an update ready only a few hours after the
> Sobig virus was known.

You didn't quote what you were responding to. The fact the eTrust had an
update ready only a few hours after SoBig-F went wild didn't stop it being
the most virulent virus the internet has ever seen.

What percentage of users do you think update their AV signatures once a
week, or better? On one machine that I use, that only has a dialup
connection, I only update them once every couple of months, because it
takes 20-30 minutes to update the signatures on that slow connection.

[Robert]

Hi, Whoever!

First, maybe people buy the wrong antiviruses!

Then,obviously people don't update their antivirus
protection frequently enough.

On average, eTrust issue antivirus database updates
every day! Sometimes when viral activity is strong, they
issue updates twice a day!

You cannot expect antivirus protection unless you install
all appropriate updates as soon as they become available.

The same is true of the Windows Updates. They offer
adequate protection only to people who bother to
download and install them.

I personally use a standard 56 K dial-up connection.
Downloading the eTrust database update takes only
a few minutes every day. These updates weigh 500 KB
on average.

Files that take 20-30 minutes to download are usually files
that weigh more than 5 MB.

There must be something wrong with your connection settings,
or your ISP is not giving you a third of the bandwidth
that they should!

56K dial-up connections are slow compared to ADSL or
cable, bu they are not supposed to be so slow as yours seems
to be!

Cheers,
Robert

---- Original Message ----
From: whoever
Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlooke xpress,microsoft.public.window
sxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,micr osoft.public.windowsxp.securit
y_admin
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: A question about Firewall in
XP

| The fact the eTrust had an | update ready only a few hours after SoBig-F
| went wild didn't stop it being the most virulent virus the internet has ever
seen.
|
| What percentage of users do you think update their AV signatures once a
| week, or better? On one machine that I use, that only has a dialup
| connection, I only update them once every couple of months, because it
| takes 20-30 minutes to update the signatures on that slow connection.

[purplehaz]

"whoever" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert" > wrote in
> :
>
> > The eTrust antivirus had an update ready only a few hours after the
> > Sobig virus was known.
>
> You didn't quote what you were responding to. The fact the eTrust had an
> update ready only a few hours after SoBig-F went wild didn't stop it being
> the most virulent virus the internet has ever seen.
>
> What percentage of users do you think update their AV signatures once a
> week, or better? On one machine that I use, that only has a dialup
> connection, I only update them once every couple of months, because it
> takes 20-30 minutes to update the signatures on that slow connection.
>

Most any av program can be set up auto-update and auto-install. No user
action is required. Even on dialup, so it takes long, connect start
downloading and walk away. Come back 1/2 hour later and your done. Having
dialup is not an excuse to not download new virus definitions.

[T O M M Y]

What about people having an old never-updated XP Pro? I have a dial up
connection and couldn't update my XP at any time...
well, I still run the old XP (ver 2002) since Microsoft only supports its
high speed connection customers.( Although many people still use slow dial
up connections around the world). Besides, you may go away from your
computer
during the update time, but what can you do with dialup accidental
disconnections? Even the best download accelerator programs do not support
XP's built-in update....
Better Microsoft break down its download updates into smaller one to help
customers like us working in a more secure environment.


"purplehaz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "whoever" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > The eTrust antivirus had an update ready only a few hours after the
> > > Sobig virus was known.
> >
> > You didn't quote what you were responding to. The fact the eTrust had an
> > update ready only a few hours after SoBig-F went wild didn't stop it
being
> > the most virulent virus the internet has ever seen.
> >
> > What percentage of users do you think update their AV signatures once a
> > week, or better? On one machine that I use, that only has a dialup
> > connection, I only update them once every couple of months, because it
> > takes 20-30 minutes to update the signatures on that slow connection.
> >
>
> Most any av program can be set up auto-update and auto-install. No user
> action is required. Even on dialup, so it takes long, connect start
> downloading and walk away. Come back 1/2 hour later and your done. Having
> dialup is not an excuse to not download new virus definitions.
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Microsoft doesn't "support only its high speed connection
customers." Where you have gotten such an absurd idea? Don't try to
blame Microsoft for your complete lack of patience. Millions of
people still use dial-up connections, and yet manage to maintain their
operating systems with current updates. You'll need to find another
excuse; one that's at least semi-plausible.

As for "accidental" disconnections when using DUN, consult your
ISP and local telephone company, both of which are outside of
Microsoft's control.

"Even the best download accelerator programs do not support XP's
built-in update..." I'm not surprised at this, as "download
accelerators" are nothing but snake oil, smoke and mirrors designed to
separate the gullible from their money.

The hotfixes and patches Microsoft makes available are already
separately available, both to keep any single download relatively
small, and to allow the educated user to chose which specific ones
apply in his unique computing environment. Large updates are called
Service Packs, and are made readily available on CD, for a nominal
shipping charge, if you don't care to wait for the download.


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


"T O M M Y" > wrote in message
...
> What about people having an old never-updated XP Pro? I have a dial
up
> connection and couldn't update my XP at any time...
> well, I still run the old XP (ver 2002) since Microsoft only
supports its
> high speed connection customers.( Although many people still use
slow dial
> up connections around the world). Besides, you may go away from your
> computer
> during the update time, but what can you do with dialup accidental
> disconnections? Even the best download accelerator programs do not
support
> XP's built-in update....
> Better Microsoft break down its download updates into smaller one to
help
> customers like us working in a more secure environment.
>
>

[David Candy]

I don't update. Either XP was fit for sale or it wasn't. I maintain it =
was so updates are unnecessary. Because I don't update I don't have any =
problems.

--=20
David Candy
http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros/
http://www.simtel.com/pub/pd/18669.html
"T O M M Y" > wrote in message =
...
> What about people having an old never-updated XP Pro? I have a dial up
> connection and couldn't update my XP at any time...
> well, I still run the old XP (ver 2002) since Microsoft only supports =
its
> high speed connection customers.( Although many people still use slow =
dial
> up connections around the world). Besides, you may go away from your
> computer
> during the update time, but what can you do with dialup accidental
> disconnections? Even the best download accelerator programs do not =
support
> XP's built-in update....
> Better Microsoft break down its download updates into smaller one to =
help
> customers like us working in a more secure environment.
>=20
>=20
> "purplehaz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "whoever" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Robert" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > The eTrust antivirus had an update ready only a few hours after =
the
> > > > Sobig virus was known.
> > >
> > > You didn't quote what you were responding to. The fact the eTrust =
had an
> > > update ready only a few hours after SoBig-F went wild didn't stop =
it
> being
> > > the most virulent virus the internet has ever seen.
> > >
> > > What percentage of users do you think update their AV signatures =
once a
> > > week, or better? On one machine that I use, that only has a dialup
> > > connection, I only update them once every couple of months, =
because it
> > > takes 20-30 minutes to update the signatures on that slow =
connection.
> > >
> >
> > Most any av program can be set up auto-update and auto-install. No =
user
> > action is required. Even on dialup, so it takes long, connect start
> > downloading and walk away. Come back 1/2 hour later and your done. =
Having
> > dialup is not an excuse to not download new virus definitions.
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Tommy;
Microsoft does support dial-up.
Your ISP may be timing you off as many do.
You can also try just one or two at a time, other than a few, most do
not take to long.
Of course if you wait to long, they pile up and it may take a while
even on high speed access.
However stay away from so called accelerators, most are nice spyware
for the distributors.

Instead download the updates from the Windows Update Catalog and burn
to CD.
Do it at a computer that has high speed internet access and a burner.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=323166

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
http://dts-l.org/index.html


"T O M M Y" > wrote in message
...
> What about people having an old never-updated XP Pro? I have a dial
up
> connection and couldn't update my XP at any time...
> well, I still run the old XP (ver 2002) since Microsoft only
supports its
> high speed connection customers.( Although many people still use
slow dial
> up connections around the world). Besides, you may go away from your
> computer
> during the update time, but what can you do with dialup accidental
> disconnections? Even the best download accelerator programs do not
support
> XP's built-in update....
> Better Microsoft break down its download updates into smaller one to
help
> customers like us working in a more secure environment.
>
>
> "purplehaz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "whoever" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Robert" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > The eTrust antivirus had an update ready only a few hours
after the
> > > > Sobig virus was known.
> > >
> > > You didn't quote what you were responding to. The fact the
eTrust had an
> > > update ready only a few hours after SoBig-F went wild didn't
stop it
> being
> > > the most virulent virus the internet has ever seen.
> > >
> > > What percentage of users do you think update their AV signatures
once a
> > > week, or better? On one machine that I use, that only has a
dialup
> > > connection, I only update them once every couple of months,
because it
> > > takes 20-30 minutes to update the signatures on that slow
connection.
> > >
> >
> > Most any av program can be set up auto-update and auto-install. No
user
> > action is required. Even on dialup, so it takes long, connect
start
> > downloading and walk away. Come back 1/2 hour later and your done.
Having
> > dialup is not an excuse to not download new virus definitions.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

[Bob]

Two things: McAfee Personal Firewall Plus and McAfee Virus Scan Online are
on my machine and I was notified that Sobig.F was attached to a message.
McAfee puts out auto updates whenever necessary. The firewall also alerts
you whenever E.T. tries to phone home.

"whoever" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert" > wrote in
> :
>
> > The regular argument in favour of "personal firewalls" like ZoneAlarm
> > is that they will stop outbound Trojans from phoning home to mummy
> > while the Windows XP built-in firewall just won't.
> >
> > I may be dumb but there is still a question that puzzles me.
> >
> > If you have got the Windows XP built-in firewall + a good antivirus with
> > regular daily updates, is it still possible for Trojans to get into your
> > system at all (not mine, mind you!)?
>
> Define "regular updates". They didn't do much to stop Sobig-F, did they?
> Yet Sobig-F should have triggered an alert from ZoneAlarm, for example.
>
> > d) and above all avoided opening suspicious messages with attachments,
>
> People who can't pass d) aren't likely to pass a, b or c.

[Alun Jones [MS MVP]]

In article >, "David Candy"
> wrote:
>I don't update. Either XP was fit for sale or it wasn't. I maintain it =
>was so updates are unnecessary. Because I don't update I don't have any =
>problems.

Wow. I hate to think what you do when your car manufacturer sends out a
safety recall. Me, I use the information in the recall to either fix it
myself, or take it to a mechanic.

Sure, it takes a little time, and it leaves me without a car for an hour or
two at a time, but at least I don't find myself the victim of an accident
that could have been prevented by following the recall instructions.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
1602 Harvest Moon Place | .
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.