FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:20:55 GMT, Root Kit wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:24:04 +0700, Kayman
wrote:

In fact, whenever B.Nice (aka Straight Talk and now Root Kit) was touching
this issue he was attacked from left, right and center, incl. MVP's; They
were over him like a bad rash!

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it
is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
-Schoepenhouer

Very true indeed

And then the fourth stage: "What were we thinking?!"

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Kayman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:20:55 GMT, Root Kit wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:24:04 +0700, Kayman
wrote:

In fact, whenever B.Nice (aka Straight Talk and now Root Kit) was touching
this issue he was attacked from left, right and center, incl. MVP's; They
were over him like a bad rash!
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it
is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
-Schoepenhouer

Very true indeed

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:02:00 -0400, Leonard Grey wrote:

And then the fourth stage: "What were we thinking?!"

I wouldn't know, now would I?
Do you consider your thoughts to be important?
Do organized beliefs of a group or individual supercede facts?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:24:00 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
*a*m wrote:

The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party application
couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files says
a lot about how well it's programmed.

Indeed.

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/micro...486be8412ee2af



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

[This has got to be one of the longest & most crossposted 'Threads That Will
Not Die' I've seen in quite some time. Now I wish I'd set the Followup-To
in my original post for alt.zonies.misc_rant newsgroup! eg]

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

"Stinger" wrote in message
news:B7A45133-F148-4507-85CB- Bottom line, this update is important since
it was a gapping hole in Windows
for quite some time. Great that Windows decided to do something about it.
Bad it renders tried and true helper 3rd party software that has been used
for years by the general public trying its best to close that huge hole in
Windows (with what is considered "overkill) and at the same time
consumers
are unable to even get on the internet without a single word of caution
from
the makers of the operating system. Ironically, they left it up to the
geeks
of the world to figure it out. Nice from a company that assumes it's the
industry leader.


You should do a bit of research before you post. The gaping hole was in the
way DNS worked. It was not Windows specific. Almost every OS was affected.
In fact almost everything that interacted with DNS in any way was affected.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526

Take a look at some of the affected products.

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day. I don't think
at the end of the debate either of us would change their mind. You think
they're great. I think they're mostly hype and snake oil. There is no
debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched and
it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows.
The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party application
couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files says
a lot about how well it's programmed. It wasn't any changes in the files
that broke your software. It was just the fact that the files changed that
broke it. If an application can't deal with the fact that an OS may update
itself it's not an application I would want on my computer.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/





Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier
attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a static
IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows firewall
(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and
watch what happens. You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in
your computer world. Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without the
aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors.

Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle.
You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world
outside of the protection of this forum? Sure, most computer users are small
fish in a big see but not all of us....obviously. I for one would rather be
safe with my firewall protection than to take the word of someone that
discounts security as easliy as the like of this group.

Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is
"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. Windows is also the most
common OS in the world. But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web
pages. Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really say
that??) is laughable. Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS issue
should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a firewall
isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. What conduit is being used
for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via
ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for those
reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites -- "If the
records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your
ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS
problem. If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, ask
yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there
wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm?

Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic!

You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real
world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:20:01 -0700, Stinger
wrote:

Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier
attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a static
IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows firewall
(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and
watch what happens.

So - what's going to happen? Please enlighten us.

You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in
your computer world.

I don't recall anyone claiming security isn't important.

Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without the
aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors.

Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle.

Do you have any technical arguments to prove otherwise, or are you
just babbling?

You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world
outside of the protection of this forum?

Feel free.

Sure, most computer users are small fish in a big see but not all of us..
..obviously. I for one would rather be safe with my firewall protection
than to take the word of someone that discounts security as easliy as the
like of this group.

No one here forces you to stop using pseudo-security software.

Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is
"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time.

Really? - I guess that comes as a major chock to all of us...

Windows is also the most common OS in the world.

It is? - You continue to surprise...

But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web
pages.

Well... it's also an ActiveX rich web client if you ask me.

Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really say
that??) is laughable.

I don't honestly think you understood what he said.

Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS issue
should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a firewall
isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy.

Blasphemy? - Holy sh...

What conduit is being used for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via
ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for those
reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites -- "If the
records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your
ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS
problem.

Do you even understand the problem?

If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, ask
yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there
wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm?

Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic!

You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real
world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.

It's hard to avoid MS products also in the real world ;-)


BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes
you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security
software company do you represent?

"Stinger" wrote in message
...


"Kerry Brown" wrote:

"Stinger" wrote in message
news:B7A45133-F148-4507-85CB- Bottom line, this update is important
since
it was a gapping hole in Windows
for quite some time. Great that Windows decided to do something about
it.
Bad it renders tried and true helper 3rd party software that has been
used
for years by the general public trying its best to close that huge hole
in
Windows (with what is considered "overkill) and at the same time
consumers
are unable to even get on the internet without a single word of caution
from
the makers of the operating system. Ironically, they left it up to the
geeks
of the world to figure it out. Nice from a company that assumes it's
the
industry leader.


You should do a bit of research before you post. The gaping hole was in
the
way DNS worked. It was not Windows specific. Almost every OS was
affected.
In fact almost everything that interacted with DNS in any way was
affected.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526

Take a look at some of the affected products.

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day. I don't
think
at the end of the debate either of us would change their mind. You think
they're great. I think they're mostly hype and snake oil. There is no
debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched
and
it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows.
The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party
application
couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files
says
a lot about how well it's programmed. It wasn't any changes in the files
that broke your software. It was just the fact that the files changed
that
broke it. If an application can't deal with the fact that an OS may
update
itself it's not an application I would want on my computer.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/





Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier
attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a
static
IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows
firewall
(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and
watch what happens. You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in
your computer world. Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without
the
aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors.

Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle.
You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world
outside of the protection of this forum? Sure, most computer users are
small
fish in a big see but not all of us....obviously. I for one would rather
be
safe with my firewall protection than to take the word of someone that
discounts security as easliy as the like of this group.

Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is
"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. Windows is also the
most
common OS in the world. But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web
pages. Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really
say
that??) is laughable. Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS
issue
should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a
firewall
isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. What conduit is being used
for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via
ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for
those
reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites -- "If the
records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your
ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
understand
the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS
problem. If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial,
ask
yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there
wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm?

Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic!

You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real
world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.


I live in the real world. I manage networks for a living. This includes
managing the network security for a government contractor who gets audited
for security yearly. I use real firewalls (not software firewalls) every
day. The networks I manage use many products and OS's, other than
Microsoft's, that do DNS lookups. Here's what happened with the DNS changes.
Windows was using DNS as it was supposed be used. A flaw was found in the
way DNS communications work. This flaw had nothing to do with Windows. All
of the major networking hardware and software developers were made aware of
this and as a group decided to make a change in the way DNS communications
worked to close this possible exploit. This change in the way DNS
communications worked meant some low level system files in Windows needed to
be updated. FWIW my Linux computers and some of the hardware firewall
appliances I manage also had some low level changes because of this as well.
The change was made and some Windows files were updated via Windows Updates.
At this point some versions of Zone Alarm barfed. I don't use Zone Alarm so
the rest of the story I gleaned from reading Zone Alarm forums and official
announcements. The Zone Alarm application noticed that some Windows files
had changed and decided not to allow these files to communicate to the
Internet. It wasn't anything in the way the files worked, merely that they
had changed, that caused the problem. Because these are system files Zone
Alarm doesn't ask about them. Clearing the Zone Alarm database so that it
would not think the files were changed fixed the problem. How is an OS
supposed to update itself if it can't change files? The way that Zone Alarm
monitors and responds to system file changes is flawed.

You have misquoted me. I never said "firewalls are all hype and snake oil".
I said "We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day."
followed by "I think they're mostly hype and snake oil." Of course not all
firewalls are hype and snake oil. Software firewalls that advertise they can
stop malicious outbound traffic are. If you want to quote me anywhere,
including this forum, please quote me verbatim without changes.

Oh and by the way, I know of of many people using both XP and Vista with
only the Windows firewall running on their computer. What am I supposed to
see happen? They have no more problems with malware than anyone else. In
fact the ones that I set up have almost no malware problems at all. Many of
them don't have a router (i.e. dialup) yet they don't have any problems with
malware. How will your preferred firewall solution help protect them better
than they are now? Maybe you could tell us exactly how their security will
be improved by using a different software firewall?

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

"Root Kit" wrote:


BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes
you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security
software company do you represent?


The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission
statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in taking
things out of context. It's boring when people do that.

Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from others.

Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word...
"There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be
patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with
Windows."

Nothing to do with Windows??????????

Why didn't you copy and paste the most important part of my last post Root
Kit? You know the one...

"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"

PS - don't see you posting a static IP yet Root Kit...

"Stinger" wrote in message
...


"Root Kit" wrote:


BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes
you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security
software company do you represent?


The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission
statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in
taking
things out of context. It's boring when people do that.

Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from
others.

Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word...
"There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to
be
patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do
with
Windows."

Nothing to do with Windows??????????

I stand by the statement. The flaw iself had nothing to do with Windows. It
was a flaw in the DNS communications protocol. Windows was using the
existing protocol which was flawed. This meant that Windows had to be
changed to work with the new protocol or it would be vulnerable. How is this
a Windows problem? It's a DNS problem that all developers that make products
that communicate with DNS servers have had to deal with.

I agree with Root Kit. You havn't provided technical details of how a
software firewall that does outbound monitoring improves security over the
Windows firewall. You haven't tried to refute the fact that Zone Alarm's
monitoring of and reaction to system file changes is flawed. You obviously
misunderstand what caused Microsoft to update the DNS client in Windows. I'm
done with the conversation unless you can provide us with some technical
reasons that back up your assertions. I like a good debate as much as
anybody but it's pointless unless you at least try to back up your
statements.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:10:03 -0700, Stinger
wrote:

Why didn't you copy and paste the most important part of my last post Root
Kit? You know the one...

You mean the one where you avoided answering what would happen to the
machine protected with "just" the windows firewall?

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

"Stinger" wrote in message
...


"Root Kit" wrote:


BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes
you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security
software company do you represent?


The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission
statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in
taking
things out of context. It's boring when people do that.

Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from
others.

Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word...
"There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to
be
patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do
with
Windows."

Nothing to do with Windows??????????

I stand by the statement. The flaw iself had nothing to do with Windows. It
was a flaw in the DNS communications protocol. Windows was using the
existing protocol which was flawed. This meant that Windows had to be
changed to work with the new protocol or it would be vulnerable. How is this
a Windows problem? It's a DNS problem that all developers that make products
that communicate with DNS servers have had to deal with.

I agree with Root Kit. You havn't provided technical details of how a
software firewall that does outbound monitoring improves security over the
Windows firewall. You haven't tried to refute the fact that Zone Alarm's
monitoring of and reaction to system file changes is flawed. You obviously
misunderstand what caused Microsoft to update the DNS client in Windows. I'm
done with the conversation unless you can provide us with some technical
reasons that back up your assertions. I like a good debate as much as
anybody but it's pointless unless you at least try to back up your
statements.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/





And I've yet to see anyone answer the most important question, you include
Kerry..

"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"

Windows has to be changed to work with the new protocol? So either there
was something wrong with Windows before or after the new protocol was
invoked...which is it? Can't have it both ways. If everything was fine
before the new DNS protocol was invoked, we're right back to my question
above. You don't need to have technical expertise to see when people dance
cokmpletely around a subject folks.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:00:03 -0700, Stinger
wrote:

And I've yet to see anyone answer the most important question, you include
Kerry..

"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"

Why should anyone bother answering a question which exists only in
your head?

Windows has to be changed to work with the new protocol?

Just like all the other platforms.

So either there was something wrong with Windows before or after the new protocol was
invoked...which is it? Can't have it both ways. If everything was fine
before the new DNS protocol was invoked, we're right back to my question
above.

Seems like you're talking to stay awake.

You don't need to have technical expertise to see when people dance
cokmpletely around a subject folks.

That's true. Everyone can see that's what you're doing.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote:

snip for brevity

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?

John, John (MVP), as I mentioned in a preceding thread, you can't be very
intelligent and your lateral thinking capabilities are vitually not
existent! Prior NT these apps were basically regarded essential tools.
Don't you you know the meaning of *"incidentally"*?

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.

The WinXp firewall application is an *integral* part of the OS and deals
with inbound protection and therefore does not give you a false sense of
security. Best of all, it doesn't implement lots of nonsense like
pretending that outbound traffic needs to be monitored. And yes,
technically speaking, 'firewall' is really a misnomer.

What were they using on NT4 and on Windows 2000?


I don't know.

That doesn't surprise me.

Why is that, and what is that supposed to mean?
Ah, I recall a statement you made in a previous message:
"*We all know* that the Windows firewall is sufficient and good at it's
job...".
I envy you for having the gift to know thoughts of others. (And my crystal
ball ain't working - bummer).

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!

But it seems your comprehension is lacking :-)

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,

Agree, as long it is not a 3rd party software (so-called) firewall!
When starting learning to drive a car I wanted to drive on the 'left' side
of the road because at the time I thought there was nothing wrong with it
all, in fact I thought that driving on the middle of the road is much
safer. Boy am I glad that somebody put me straight!

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,

We are talking about 3rd party software (so-called) firewall applications!
The user gets easily blinded by all the hype created by the makers of 3rd
party (so-called) firewalls. Now they believe it (your're one of them) and
if an opportunity presents itself I will continue posting links with
articles saying otherwise in order to create some realistic counterbalance.
Heck, even Sunbelt (the makers of Kerio) concede that outbound controll of
their software is basically a useless POS.
In the end it's the user (not you or I) who'll decide.

I don't care what they use...

Nor do I. But *you* should be ashamed of yourself for making such a
statement. As a MVP you should set an example and advise novices and the
uninformed to the best of your ability and in accordance with your vast and
specialized knowledge (isn't that you've got the 'badge' in the first
place?)! And all you can say "I don't care".

providing that they use something!

(LOL) I refrain from commenting! Except that I sincerely believe that you
must have demonstrated some skills prior being awarded with a MVP badge.
Would you please stick to these particular skills and refrain from
commenting and/or making statements related to Internet Security!
(Embarrasing, really).

You on the other hand think that you
should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling
them what to do.

Bunk, you don't know what what I am thinking [PERIOD]!
I provide links to educational articles provided by well respected authors
who are highly regarded and respected in the Internet Security Community;
Their credentials are outstanding!
I know you disregard the writings of these authors as 'nonsense'. You do
recall your statement in a previous post:
"I really don't know why you keep spewing this *nonsense* out..."
'Nuff said.

You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses.

Call it what you wish. Based on what I know, I am eager providing a counter
balance, the accompanied links of my posts speak for themself (if
understood).

When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate
them and try to impose your views on them.

You tried this before. Providing educational links to the uninformed can
hardly be considered 'berating'.
You're some kind of a frustrated individual, to say the least!

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.

The fact is there are a lot of things wrong with these Illusion ware! You
just don't seem do understand it. I will continue making it my business
providing links to educational article, so what are you going to do about
it? Users can take heed or ignore these write-ups. Heck, it's a free
country and this is usenet.
If you feel so strong about it, why don't you join a moderated forum!

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.

Since almost all educational and factual write-ups fail to get commercial
support, my effort to provide this material opposing the hype created by
the makers of 3rd party software (so-called) firwall is justified and
right.
Now be honest, which software company do you work for?

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.

The bottom line is that 3rd party (so-called) firewall applications
promoting the importance of 'outbound control" are *without exception*
snake oil!
BTW, aside from your MVP badge, what are your credentials?