If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
"B. Nice" wrote in message ... That's what I hate about those "leak test" sites. People who don't know what the results mean conclude that good firewall products are not good. Which would be the correct conclusion (as far as outbound control is concerned). Precisely. That's one of the reasons why "controlling outbound" is a broken concept. I agree with you, sort of. Like almost all security countermeasures, "controlling outbound" [via personal firewall software] is never going to be 100% effective. That doesn't make it useless or broken. "Controlling outbound" raises the bar, by blocking at least some bad things, and making you aware of the existence of some other bad things. The opposite of "controlling outbound" is to allow all traffic out without any monitoring or logging. Given a choice, I'd take a security countermeasure with some vulnerabilities over no countermeasure at all, especially if the countermeasure is inexpensive. And throwing in an external firewall device, proxy server, etc., makes "controlling outbound" alerting and blocking not so broken. Unfortunately, most leak test sites are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but instead of suggesting that "controlling outbound" is a broken concept, I think most leak test sites suggest that "controlling outbound" is an important concept. Those sites suggest that you can and should 1) buy the right firewall or 2) complain to your firewall vendor, and then you'll be secure. I think that could lead the user to having a false sense of security, which is a dangerous thing. Most people reading those web sites are going to conclude that "controlling outbound" is an important test and that it is an important factor they should consider when choosing a product. As a result, some otherwise good products might not be purchased. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
B. Nice wrote: After wrestling with ZoneAlarm alerts for several months, and getting no help from the ZA User Forums, Google searches or anything else as to what's good and what's bad, I just gave up, removed ZA and live, albeit with a good deal of paranoia, with the XP firewall, meticulously running various scans, sweeps and using a divining rod on a weekly basis to detect and remove any scumware that slid in past that firewall. It's very unlikely that something "slid in past the firewall". The scumware most likely sneaked in by you surfing the internet in an unsecure way (by using Internet Explorer for example) or by you installing and/or running questionable software. Dear Mr (or Ms) Nice (whichever the case may be), I appreciate your sage comments and candid advice regarding the inadequacies of all personal firewalls. I do use FireFox, have McAfee's SiteAdvisor in place to warn me about unsafe websites and the only 'questionable' software I'm running, that's given me any pause, is MicroSoft's. Seems every time I do an XP or Office update, I get this frenzied activity that wants to change the Browser's Home Page, both IE's and FireFox's, to the MSN website. If there were a cookbook solution for properly configuring ZoneAlarm, Kerio or any of the other personal firewalls, I think we average users would be more amenable to using one of those two-way firewall. It's better to skip these so-called "two-way" firewalls and replace them with "brainware" :-) Agreed, and I also agree with the subsequent poster that ZA is easy to install, and, if every access Alert is approved, it generally doesn't cause any problems. But that's kind of like using door-stops to prop open the front and back doors of your house. Not much risk if you live out in the country, terribly risky in the inner-cities, and the Internet is the worst of every city in the world's, inner-city. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 08:40:20 -0400, "karl levinson, mvp"
wrote: "B. Nice" wrote in message .. . That's what I hate about those "leak test" sites. People who don't know what the results mean conclude that good firewall products are not good. Which would be the correct conclusion (as far as outbound control is concerned). Precisely. That's one of the reasons why "controlling outbound" is a broken concept. I agree with you, sort of. Like almost all security countermeasures, "controlling outbound" [via personal firewall software] is never going to be 100% effective. Right. Not even close. Controlling inbound has proven to be possible and reliable to a certain high degree. Controlling outbound (with a personal firewall) has'nt - and never will. And therefore should'nt be considered a security meassure. That doesn't make it useless or broken. The idea itself is silly (if meant as a security meassure against malware trying to make outbound connecion) since you are trying to control malware that is already allowed to run. Malware is something you stop at the gate (for example with a good anti-virus product or simply by using your own common sense), not something you allow in and try to control. It's not called malware for nothing :-) "Controlling outbound" raises the bar, by blocking at least some bad things, and making you aware of the existence of some other bad things. By being able to stop a few things that don't mind being stopped leads to users believing that it works reliably and therefore poses a false sense of security on them. And users should NOT feel secure. Only providers of security software want users to feel secure. Well, a user should'nt feel unsecure either. But a user should be constantly aware of what he/she is doing. The opposite of "controlling outbound" is to allow all traffic out without any monitoring or logging. Given a choice, I'd take a security countermeasure with some vulnerabilities over no countermeasure at all, especially if the countermeasure is inexpensive. That's your choice. And you are free to do that, as long as you understand the limitations. But for reasons mentioned before, I find it a bad idea in most cases. And throwing in an external firewall device, proxy server, etc., makes "controlling outbound" alerting and blocking not so broken. I fully agree. I am only objecting to outbound control of "firewalls" running on the same machine as it is supposed to protect. Unfortunately, most leak test sites are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I disagree. It is important that users know what the real capabilities of the products they are using are. Especially since the topic is security. Normal users have no other possibilities than to believe what consultants or even worse, the software vendors, tell them. And that info is, to be polite, very unreliable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but instead of suggesting that "controlling outbound" is a broken concept, I think most leak test sites suggest that "controlling outbound" is an important concept. Those sites suggest that you can and should 1) buy the right firewall or 2) complain to your firewall vendor, and then you'll be secure. I think that could lead the user to having a false sense of security, which is a dangerous thing. I agree that a false sense of security is a dangerous thing. But I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say here. Most people reading those web sites are going to conclude that "controlling outbound" is an important test and that it is an important factor they should consider when choosing a product. As a result, some otherwise good products might not be purchased. That's true to some extent. For example, one may be lead to believe that the windows firewall is crap, while it is actually quite good. But in the end, it does'nt make much difference how many leaktests a firewall product can pass. Clever malware needs only one hole to get through. Therefore my point is that it should be used to get an idea of how personal firewalls in general perform - not for making descisions on which one to use. If that was also the point you were trying to make, then we agree. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
"Gman" wrote in message ups.com... Bruce Chambers wrote: cfman wrote: Can I prevent some unrecognized network communications which are originated from my PC from being initiated? Certainly. Simply install and properly configure a personal firewall. Ah, but here's the rub, Bruce, 'simply' and 'properly configured' should not be used in the same sentence when discussing ZoneAlarm, or any of the other personal firewalls. Given all of the XP and other app's processes (most with unrecognizable titles and unfathomable function) that insist on communicating with something in the great beyond to function, the average user (I am one of them) doesn't have a clue about how to properly configure a firewall, which processes to Allow and which ones to Block. For us, it is not simple. After wrestling with ZoneAlarm alerts for several months, and getting no help from the ZA User Forums, Google searches or anything else as to what's good and what's bad, I just gave up, removed ZA and live, albeit with a good deal of paranoia, with the XP firewall, meticulously running various scans, sweeps and using a divining rod on a weekly basis to detect and remove any scumware that slid in past that firewall. If there were a cookbook solution for properly configuring ZoneAlarm, Kerio or any of the other personal firewalls, I think we average users would be more amenable to using one of those two-way firewall. If you, or anyone else knows of such a cookbook, point us in the right direction. Just one man's opinion, Bruce. I concur with Gman |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
SPAM ME wrote:
"Gman" wrote in message ups.com... Bruce Chambers wrote: cfman wrote: Can I prevent some unrecognized network communications which are originated from my PC from being initiated? Certainly. Simply install and properly configure a personal firewall. Ah, but here's the rub, Bruce, 'simply' and 'properly configured' should not be used in the same sentence when discussing ZoneAlarm, or any of the other personal firewalls. Why not? I haven't come across one yet that wasn't mind-numbingly simple to use. Given all of the XP and other app's processes (most with unrecognizable titles and unfathomable function) that insist on communicating with something in the great beyond to function, the average user (I am one of them) doesn't have a clue about how to properly configure a firewall, which processes to Allow and which ones to Block. For us, it is not simple. It's not WinXP's processes that are the problem, nor have I seen an alert from a personal firewwall that did not make it quite clear what application was trying to send outbound signals. After wrestling with ZoneAlarm alerts for several months, and getting no help from the ZA User Forums, Google searches or anything else as to what's good and what's bad, I just gave up, removed ZA and live, albeit with a good deal of paranoia, with the XP firewall, meticulously running various scans, sweeps and using a divining rod on a weekly basis to detect and remove any scumware that slid in past that firewall. Your choice, of course. If there were a cookbook solution for properly configuring ZoneAlarm, Kerio or any of the other personal firewalls, I think we average users would be more amenable to using one of those two-way firewall. How could there be? How would anyone else know what applications *you* have installed on *your* computer, and which of those applications *you* want accessing the Internet? This is something only *you* can determine. If you don't know what you have installed on your own computer, and don't know what each application is supposed to be doing, please do us all a favor and disconnect the computer from the Internet. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrum Russell |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
"B. Nice" wrote in message ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but instead of suggesting that "controlling outbound" is a broken concept, I think most leak test sites suggest that "controlling outbound" is an important concept. Those sites suggest that you can and should 1) buy the right firewall or 2) complain to your firewall vendor, and then you'll be secure. I think that could lead the user to having a false sense of security, which is a dangerous thing. I agree that a false sense of security is a dangerous thing. But I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say here. I believe most leak test sites lead the user to believe that you should buy the firewall that does the best at "blocking outbound." Leak test sites often don't make it clear that once malware is on the computer, your personal firewall is toast. Personal firewalls can't block malware on your system, but leak test sites tend to make users think that the right ones can. On the other hand, personal firewalls can alert you to the existence of spyware, adware and some malware like viruses. Things like antivirus, network IDS, SSL, SSH, PGP, DEP execution prevention, etc. aren't 100% foolproof, they can be evaded and fooled. And yet they are frequently used, because they help reduce your risk. Most security countermeasures only reduce risk, not eliminate risk. That doesn't make them worthless. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:42:07 -0400, "karl levinson, mvp"
wrote: "B. Nice" wrote in message .. . Correct me if I'm wrong, but instead of suggesting that "controlling outbound" is a broken concept, I think most leak test sites suggest that "controlling outbound" is an important concept. Those sites suggest that you can and should 1) buy the right firewall or 2) complain to your firewall vendor, and then you'll be secure. I think that could lead the user to having a false sense of security, which is a dangerous thing. I agree that a false sense of security is a dangerous thing. But I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say here. I believe most leak test sites lead the user to believe that you should buy the firewall that does the best at "blocking outbound." Agreed. As we also agree that this is not a correct conclusion. Leak test sites often don't make it clear that once malware is on the computer, your personal firewall is toast. Ack. Personal firewalls can't block malware on your system, but leak test sites tend to make users think that the right ones can. Yes, that's bad. On the other hand, personal firewalls can alert you to the existence of spyware, adware and some malware like viruses. It can detect a few non-clever ones, yes. But as you also said: "Once malware is in, your computer is toast". And catching these few ones lead to a false sense of security for novices - and that's dangerous. Things like antivirus, network IDS, SSL, SSH, PGP, DEP execution prevention, etc. aren't 100% foolproof, they can be evaded and fooled. And yet they are frequently used, because they help reduce your risk. Yes, but well knowing that things like IDS and anti-virus products are also not too reliable, at least they are trying to stop things before they do any harm. Trying to control malware that is already running is just plain stupid. And users should know that. Most security countermeasures only reduce risk, not eliminate risk. True to some extent. There is however something about security. One can gain 100% security against a specific threat. Let's say a vulnerability is found in a specific network service. If you stop running that service you are 100% protected against that threat. And IMO for something to be considered a security meassure it has to at least be reliable to a certain high degree (like inbound control can be for example). Outbound control is not worthy of being considered a security meassure, IMHO. That doesn't make them worthless. Nearly. And dangerous, because novices are led to believe they are protected - fooled by the product vendors marketing departments. Some products are even dangerous because they add new vulnerabilities to your computer that you would not have without them. Examples: * The witty worm - targeting only computers running a specific PFW. * The SelfDoS attack - targeting only computers running specific PFW's with a faulty IDS implementation. * Bad design - some PFW's have severe design errors by not following MS's most basic recommendations for windows security - thereby allowing restricted users to gain administrative rights. And since this is by design, it is not something that can be fixed without rewriting. Specific PFW's have, for example had this error for several years - making it completely useless within a coorporate environment. And, in principle, allowing malware to gain administrative rights by itself, leading to a complete compromise - even though I am not aware of any actual reports about that - yet. There are many other examples. Just go google for personal firewall vulnerability - you may be surprised. If these were just ordinary applications I would'nt make much fuss about it, but these companies claim to be in the security business. They better start proving themselves worthy. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
"B. Nice" wrote in message ... Nearly. And dangerous, because novices are led to believe they are protected - fooled by the product vendors marketing departments. I agree that a false sense of security is dangerous, I also think that novices are just often going to be uninformed and largely untrainable about security issues. Novices are also prone to the opposite problem, an unnecessary panic when warned about security issues, which can lead them to make rash or unnecessary decisions, which should also be avoided. Security awareness and training programs for home and corporate users generally pick just a few of the most important take-home points and really dumb them down, hoping they'll stick. We still haven't succeeded in getting all home users to patch, use an AV, and use a firewall. The technical vulnerabilities of firewalls is useful for some more moderately technical users to know, but is too much info for other users. Some products are even dangerous because they add new vulnerabilities to your computer that you would not have without them. Examples: * The witty worm - targeting only computers running a specific PFW. Yes, but the Witty worm was not that widespread or common an occurrence, and people who were affected had neither the firewall update nor the antivirus update that would have prevented Witty infections. You'd want to compare the risk of using a firewall versus the risk of not using one, and choose the better of the two. In most environments, you usually have less risk by using some form of TCP/IP filtering on the workstation than not. I'm not a fan of Windows IPSec filtering rules on workstations, because the logging is not really good enough. So that pretty much leaves you with the Windows XP firewall, a third party software firewall, or a firewall device of some sort. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:31:23 -0600, Bruce Chambers
wrote: If you don't know what you have installed on your own computer, and don't know what each application is supposed to be doing, please do us all a favor and disconnect the computer from the Internet. That's just ridiculous. If you know exactly what applications are running on your computer you have absolutely no need for a personal firewall at all. The OP stated that he suspected some hidden programs in his PC making outgoing connections. And you threw in your usual "install and properly configure a personal firewall" magic bullet completely ignoring the fact that outbound control is highly unreliable. If you cannot provide better advice than that, please do us all a favour and disconnect your computer from the internet. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 17:12:32 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote: cfman wrote: Can I prevent some unrecognized network communications which are originated from my PC from being initiated? I am suspecting that some hidden malicious programs in my PC are making outgoing or outbound network communications. Can I prevent any such network traffic from happening? Yes, but not with the built-in Windows firewall. That it can not do this is probably its biggest disadvantage. Almost any third-party can do this, and is therefore a better choice. Staying with the windows firewall has some solid advantages. And installing a third-party firewall provides both advantages and disadvantages, so you cannot just conclude like you did. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:32:53 -0400, "karl levinson, mvp"
wrote: "B. Nice" wrote in message .. . Nearly. And dangerous, because novices are led to believe they are protected - fooled by the product vendors marketing departments. I agree that a false sense of security is dangerous, I also think that novices are just often going to be uninformed and largely untrainable about security issues. I don't think so. At least I will give it a try :-) Novices are also prone to the opposite problem, an unnecessary panic when warned about security issues, which can lead them to make rash or unnecessary decisions, which should also be avoided. True. "A false sense of insecurity". Security awareness and training programs for home and corporate users generally pick just a few of the most important take-home points and really dumb them down, hoping they'll stick. Way better than nothing. Simple things like "install the updates", "use a good anti-virus product", "use another browser than IE", "don't use Outlook or Outlook Express for e-mails" and "control your curiousity" make a big difference if followed IMHO. We still haven't succeeded in getting all home users to patch, use an AV, and use a firewall. I'm not sure I would agree to that. My experience is, that users are starting to be aware that they need to consider security. That does'nt mean they know how to manage a firewall though. The technical vulnerabilities of firewalls is useful for some more moderately technical users to know, but is too much info for other users. Vulnerabilities, yes. But if users can interpret the colourful ratings at ShieldsUp they can also understand the colourful ratings at firewallleaktester.com. Some products are even dangerous because they add new vulnerabilities to your computer that you would not have without them. Examples: * The witty worm - targeting only computers running a specific PFW. Yes, but the Witty worm was not that widespread or common an occurrence, and people who were affected had neither the firewall update nor the antivirus update that would have prevented Witty infections. It was just one of many examples of vulnerabilities of firewalls. Google is your friend. You'd want to compare the risk of using a firewall versus the risk of not using one, and choose the better of the two. Not fully correct. You'd need to consider the pros as well as the cons of both options. In most environments, you usually have less risk by using some form of TCP/IP filtering on the workstation than not. I'm not a fan of Windows IPSec filtering rules on workstations, because the logging is not really good enough. Then there is something like this http://wipfw.sourceforge.net/ - small, simple and reliable - as an alternative to IPSec rules. Or if you want something bigger (and more IPSec rules alike) with a nice GUI there is something like CHX-I from http://www.idrci.net/ Both alternatives come with stateful inspection / dynamic rules - and logging. So that pretty much leaves you with the Windows XP firewall, a third party software firewall, or a firewall device of some sort. Or: The windows firewall (or another good packet filter), a good anti-virus product and common sense. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
B. Nice wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:31:23 -0600, Bruce Chambers wrote: If you don't know what you have installed on your own computer, and don't know what each application is supposed to be doing, please do us all a favor and disconnect the computer from the Internet. That's just ridiculous. If you know exactly what applications are running on your computer you have absolutely no need for a personal firewall at all. The OP stated that he suspected some hidden programs in his PC making outgoing connections. And you threw in your usual "install and properly configure a personal firewall" magic bullet completely ignoring the fact that outbound control is highly unreliable. If you cannot provide better advice than that, please do us all a favour and disconnect your computer from the internet. Way to go B. Nice!!!!!! (Sorry Bruce, got carried away there.) Bruce 'normally' gives good advice and I am 'usually' more informed after reading his posts, so I will forgive him for jabbing me (and all us average users), this time. For your info, Bruce, I do know all of the programs I've installed, know which ones need to call home and which ones don't. What I don't know, but what techie-folks like you claim to know, is what all the MS alphabet-soup processes do or what they need to call home about. Googling those hieroglyphic processes gets generic info, with the proviso to 'Beware', that at some time in the past (or perhaps in the future), some scumbag has (or will) cleverly disguise a piece of malware to use that processes' name to wreck havoc. Then there are the demands from known legitimate MS processes, like Windows Explorer and others, to access the Internet. I have not found a good explanation as to why any of these processes 'have' to access the Internet, without the same proviso, 'Beware', scumbags have found a way to infiltrate those hallowed processes with malware also. Wish there were a simple, easily configured solution to block the work of those malware scumbags, but if there were, there would probably be a lot of geeks standing in soup lines around the world. Those who create malware, and those who create malware defenses. I wonder, is it possible that many of them are one in the same? Keep your computer connected Bruce, we need all of your expert advise and some of your flawed opinions. p.s. I finally found the culprit that was wrecking havoc with my Home Page. Turned out to be an app the computer mfgr. magnanimously threw in to their pre-install brew. Oh yeah, thankfully, gmail's SPAM filters do work. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
B. Nice wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:31:23 -0600, Bruce Chambers wrote: If you don't know what you have installed on your own computer, and don't know what each application is supposed to be doing, please do us all a favor and disconnect the computer from the Internet. That's just ridiculous. If you know exactly what applications are running on your computer you have absolutely no need for a personal firewall at all. I see that reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. I said "If *you* don't know what *you* have installed...." Where did I even imply that unknown software couldn't get into the system without the OP's knowledge. That's precisely why a firewall that checks outbound traffic is so essential. The OP stated that he suspected some hidden programs in his PC making outgoing connections. And you threw in your usual "install and properly configure a personal firewall" magic bullet completely ignoring the fact that outbound control is highly unreliable. It's no "magic bullet." It's best means of detecting unwanted outbound network traffic there is. How would you recommend the OP do it? A packet sniffer, perhaps? A hardware firewall appliance on his home LAN's perimeter? Oh, and one cannot ignore a "fact" that isn't a fact at all, but just your unsubstantiated opinion. Sure, personal firewalls are imperfect, but the good ones, when properly used, most definitely aren't "highly unreliable." Not even close. If you cannot provide better advice than that, please do us all a favour and disconnect your computer from the internet. And your "Software firewalls the monitor outbound traffic aren't 100% perfect so don't bother" is better advice? Get real. Even imperfect detection is better than none whatsoever. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrum Russell |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
SPAM ME wrote:
For your info, Bruce, I do know all of the programs I've installed, know which ones need to call home and which ones don't. That's very good. All computer users should have that same level of knowledge. What I don't know, but what techie-folks like you claim to know, is what all the MS alphabet-soup processes do or what they need to call home about. Googling those hieroglyphic processes gets generic info, with the proviso to 'Beware', that at some time in the past (or perhaps in the future), some scumbag has (or will) cleverly disguise a piece of malware to use that processes' name to wreck havoc. Then there are the demands from known legitimate MS processes, like Windows Explorer and others, to access the Internet. I have not found a good explanation as to why any of these processes 'have' to access the Internet, without the same proviso, 'Beware', scumbags have found a way to infiltrate those hallowed processes with malware also. That's easy to handle. First of all, only allow outbound access to named applications, such as iexplore.exe (Internet Explorer), msmin.exe (Outlook Express), and any other applications that you know need Internet access. For the anonymous processes, simply block them all. If that causes some application to stop working properly, it'll tell you. If an application or process asks to "act as a server," deny it. Wish there were a simple, easily configured solution to block the work of those malware scumbags, but if there were, there would probably be a lot of geeks standing in soup lines around the world. Those who create malware, and those who create malware defenses. I wonder, is it possible that many of them are one in the same? ... A common and so far unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. (Although I wouldn't be awfully surprised if some security firms have subsequently hired particularly creative hackers, on the premise that it takes a thief to catch a thief.) Keep your computer connected Bruce, we need all of your expert advise and some of your flawed opinions. And I apologize for coming off as rudely as I did. You managed, through no fault of your own, to hit one of my pet peeves. I have little to no tolerance for people who steadfastly refuse to learn how to safely use their computers, and then whine when they have problems. While you didn't whine, you did seem (to me) to be playing the "I don't know, and I shouldn't have to learn" card. My position: A computer is a tool, just like any other. A user who doesn't know how to safely use his computer (and perform basic maintenance on) is no better than a carpenter who can't safely use and maintain his power tools. Both are as dangerous to others as they are to themselves. There are five essential components to computer security: a knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly configured firewall, reliable and up-to-date antivirus software, and the prompt repair (via patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known vulnerabilities. The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the computer user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be no harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the inclination or desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All too few people keep their antivirus software current, install patches in a timely manner, or stop to really think about that cutesy link they're about to click. Firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be running, are important components of "safe hex," but they cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to secure his/her own computer. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrum Russell |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
does windows Firewall block "outgoing" traffics?
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:04:07 GMT, Leythos wrote:
In article , says... If you cannot provide better advice than that, please do us all a favour and disconnect your computer from the internet. And your "Software firewalls the monitor outbound traffic aren't 100% perfect so don't bother" is better advice? Get real. Even imperfect detection is better than none whatsoever. Bruce, B.Nice is part of the VB/SG group that believes nothing is good for security and the only solution is to not use a computer, just read their posts in the security groups some time. Thank you, Leythos - for giving me so many good laughs :-) First of all, I'm not a part of any "group". My opinion was formed long before I even knew about the ones you are referring to. My very first posting to c.s.f. proves that - and is there for everyone to find. But since you seem to be resistant to facts, I don't expect you to bother go looking. BTW, talking about "groups" - you seem to belong to the group of people refusing to provide references for your claims. The proof of that is freely available in the same group too for everyone to check. That leaves you with no credibility. I think we should just let people decide for themselves who they want to listen to. Anyone that suggests anything running on the host PC is crucified on the spot. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|