On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:35:19 -0500, Terminator

<terminator@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> You got all kind of excuses Alias -- (The Excuse - Alias), and you

>>> always go into a tap dance, jig and spin.

>>

>> More insults but no proof. How surprising.

>>

>> Alias

>

>Its truly amazing that someone like Alias responds to a post titled

>"How well does the Windows Vista Firewall work" and has absolutely

>nothing informative, relative or intelligent to offer. What a waste of

>time!

 

More amazing to me how quick assorted Microsoft apologists regardless

of topic have some desperate need to try to defend the undefendable

arrogance, stupidity and recklessness of Microsoft bug riddled, hacker

prone software. Oh well, nothing I can do about it except point out

how stupid it is to be a Microsoft stooge.

 

More on point, it is foolish to expect Microsoft to be able to offer a

decent firewall since they are the dopes that dumped a hacker's dream

(any version of Windows) on a unsuspecting public with the pre Vista

versions of Windows paying hardly any concern at all to so-called

security issues preferring instead to run everything wide open which

is WHY hackers have little trouble attacking Windows.

 

Thinking any firewall from Microsoft will "protect" you is like asking

a bank robber to watch over your piggy bank. You got to be kidding.

 

The point that always zooms over the heads of the Microsoft faithful

is Microsoft doesn't know how to write a secure operating system. They

never have and likely never will. Their method, a proven failure is to

patch. That fixes one leak, but soon another springs up.

 

So how well does Vista's so-called firewall work?

 

Ask any hacker. He/she will tell you how easy it is to penetrate.

 

Want facts?

 

Windows Defender in real world testing using a sampling of 25 spyware

and malicious code samples FAILED TO IDENTIFY or PROTECT from 84% of

these known threats. Ouch!

 

http://www.bakmansblog.com/2007/04/how_secure_is_m.html

 

Windows Firewall, configured by default in Vista to help protect

user's computers as soon as Windows Vista boots. While it can restrict

both inbound and outbound traffic, outbound filtering needs to be

configured manually or using Group Policy. Like Windows Defender,

Windows Firewall should be seen as a complement to third-party

solutions, not a replacement.

 

Feel safer now?

 

Hint: The more outside UNBIASED information you read, the more you

know how DUMB the typical Microsoft apologist stooge actually is. -)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> Please substantiate your claim that routers come without the firewall

> enabled by default. Document one such model, from any manufacturer. If you

> have a list, so much the better. Heck, even if you can't find documentation,

> just name them and I'll go find out what's what, even if I have to track

> someone down on the phone and have them personally check.

>

 

Edimax BR 6104-K is the one I use and I have the same experience with

numerous Conceptronic routers for starters. They also come with blank

passwords. The little instruction booklet that comes with them gives

instructions on how to access the router, create a password and enable

the firewall.

 

Alias

Another poster who apparently has not even tried

Windows OneCare v.2.5 and experienced its

excellent security features and capabilities.

 

--

Carey Frisch

Microsoft MVP

Windows Desktop Experience -

Windows System & Performance

 

 

 

 

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> And you're just as foolish as Carey.

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://grystmill.com

>

> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:nbrn84ts6kajn3ombm7esfts1kp05qpl44@4ax.com...

> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:33:00 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

> > <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

> >

> >>Install a good, comprehensive, security program,

> >>such as Windows OneCare, and you'll not have to

> >>worry about those issues. You can try it FREE

> >>for ninety (90) days. This is a brand new version

> >>and includes a very robust firewall.

> >

> > So does his router. That plus Vista's native firewall will cover him

> > just fine in that department and it won't cost him anything.

>

>

>

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:09:41 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>Every router I've ever installed that has a firewall had the firewall

>enabled by default. Not saying every single one is that way, but every one

>I've ever installed out of the package has had the firewall enabled. And I'm

>not talking about NAT, which, of course, is also almost always enabled by

>default. Can you please provide a list of those routers which do not have

>the firewall and/or NAT enabled by default? I'd like to make sure that none

>of the routers I'm responsible for fall into the category. I mean, I've been

>into most of them to open a few ports, so I know those ones are already

>working, but if you had a list of devices known that fulfill your claim

>(like maybe it's one of the setup steps in the manual?), I'd love to have a

>copy.

>

>Making broad statements about things of which you have only minimal

>knowledge is one of the things that makes you so despised in these groups.

>(Is there anything at all in this world about which you have more than a

>modicum of knowledge? I don't even think you know much about Linux.) I'm a

>good researcher. Want me to look up a psychiatric specialist for you so you

>can work out why it is you can't help but be wrong all the time and can't

>help yourself broadcasting it to the world? Kinda sick, don't you think?

 

Plastering MVP after your name makes you a expert?

 

Well a lot of dopes suffer from that mental handicap as anyone reading

this group on a regular basis is well aware.

 

ROTFLMAO!

>

> That one vulnerability was patched in days but it's been months that

> Windows users have been jumping up and down about it because they finally

> came up with ONE exploit. BFD. If you keep your Ubuntu up-to-date and

> enable a hard NAT firewall in your router, it's BULLET PROOF compared to

> Windows of any flavor.

>

 

You really don't understand security do you? Yes, currently Linux isn't

attacked as much as Windows so it's less likely you will be the victim of

crooks while surfing the Internet using Linux rather than Windows. This fact

does not make you invulnerable or as you say BULLET PROOF. By your own

admission, quoted above, Linux needs to be kept up to date and you need to

protect all devices in your network. That was the point of my original post

to this thread. Software alone is not a strong enough security measure. Your

posts that everyone should switch to Linux don't address any of this, until

your last reply to me. The Internet is not a safe place. You need to take

some basic precautions no matter what OS you happen to be using. If someone

is not practicing safe surfing and not keeping their OS and applications up

to date switching from Windows to Linux won't help them. If your reason for

posting here is to help people by answering their questions then you should

expand on your answers a bit rather than just suggesting everyone switch to

Linux. Switching to Linux may be a valid option in some cases but the switch

alone isn't the full answer. If you have other reasons for posting then

maybe you could enlighten us on what they are.

 

--

Kerry Brown

MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration

http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

Ringmaster wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:09:41 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>

>> Every router I've ever installed that has a firewall had the firewall

>> enabled by default. Not saying every single one is that way, but every one

>> I've ever installed out of the package has had the firewall enabled. And I'm

>> not talking about NAT, which, of course, is also almost always enabled by

>> default. Can you please provide a list of those routers which do not have

>> the firewall and/or NAT enabled by default? I'd like to make sure that none

>> of the routers I'm responsible for fall into the category. I mean, I've been

>> into most of them to open a few ports, so I know those ones are already

>> working, but if you had a list of devices known that fulfill your claim

>> (like maybe it's one of the setup steps in the manual?), I'd love to have a

>> copy.

>>

>> Making broad statements about things of which you have only minimal

>> knowledge is one of the things that makes you so despised in these groups.

>> (Is there anything at all in this world about which you have more than a

>> modicum of knowledge? I don't even think you know much about Linux.) I'm a

>> good researcher. Want me to look up a psychiatric specialist for you so you

>> can work out why it is you can't help but be wrong all the time and can't

>> help yourself broadcasting it to the world? Kinda sick, don't you think?

>

> Plastering MVP after your name makes you a expert?

>

> Well a lot of dopes suffer from that mental handicap as anyone reading

> this group on a regular basis is well aware.

>

> ROTFLMAO!

 

My hubby 'Ringmaster' enjoys insulting people who are smarter than he

is. His psychiatrist is changing his medication next week to treat his

mental illness. We all hope for the best!

Ringmaster wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:35:19 -0500, Terminator

> <terminator@earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>>>> You got all kind of excuses Alias -- (The Excuse - Alias), and you

>>>> always go into a tap dance, jig and spin.

>>> More insults but no proof. How surprising.

>>>

>>> Alias

>> Its truly amazing that someone like Alias responds to a post titled

>> "How well does the Windows Vista Firewall work" and has absolutely

>> nothing informative, relative or intelligent to offer. What a waste of

>> time!

>

> More amazing to me how quick assorted Microsoft apologists regardless

> of topic have some desperate need to try to defend the undefendable

> arrogance, stupidity and recklessness of Microsoft bug riddled, hacker

> prone software. Oh well, nothing I can do about it except point out

> how stupid it is to be a Microsoft stooge.

>

> More on point, it is foolish to expect Microsoft to be able to offer a

> decent firewall since they are the dopes that dumped a hacker's dream

> (any version of Windows) on a unsuspecting public with the pre Vista

> versions of Windows paying hardly any concern at all to so-called

> security issues preferring instead to run everything wide open which

> is WHY hackers have little trouble attacking Windows.

>

> Thinking any firewall from Microsoft will "protect" you is like asking

> a bank robber to watch over your piggy bank. You got to be kidding.

>

> The point that always zooms over the heads of the Microsoft faithful

> is Microsoft doesn't know how to write a secure operating system. They

> never have and likely never will. Their method, a proven failure is to

> patch. That fixes one leak, but soon another springs up.

>

> So how well does Vista's so-called firewall work?

>

> Ask any hacker. He/she will tell you how easy it is to penetrate.

>

> Want facts?

>

> Windows Defender in real world testing using a sampling of 25 spyware

> and malicious code samples FAILED TO IDENTIFY or PROTECT from 84% of

> these known threats. Ouch!

>

> http://www.bakmansblog.com/2007/04/how_secure_is_m.html

>

> Windows Firewall, configured by default in Vista to help protect

> user's computers as soon as Windows Vista boots. While it can restrict

> both inbound and outbound traffic, outbound filtering needs to be

> configured manually or using Group Policy. Like Windows Defender,

> Windows Firewall should be seen as a complement to third-party

> solutions, not a replacement.

>

> Feel safer now?

>

> Hint: The more outside UNBIASED information you read, the more you

> know how DUMB the typical Microsoft apologist stooge actually is. -)

>

 

Mr. Ringmaster has always ignored the facts so he can argue like a

lunatic. He has a huge inferiority complex he is being treated for.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> Please don't confuse NAT routing and firewalls.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation

>

 

Yes, I know that NAT is mapping technology. But in the case of Alias,

one must keep it as simple as possible.

 

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-NAT.asp

 

I know who the impersonators (in the link below) are when it comes to FW

technology with a 3rd party personal FW, Windows Vista FW, some other

host based solution on Linux or otherwise not being a FW with two

network interfaces. One network interface facing the network it is

protecting from, and one for the network it is protecting.

 

http://www.more.net/technical/netserv/tcpip/firewalls/

 

I have spent a lot of time since 2001 in the FW and security NG(s)in

learning from others and helping posters looking for FW and security advice.

 

I know there are other host based FW solutions, but this is the one I

have used on a Windows 2K server at the time, which is very good that

also explains what is and what is not FW technology, before I moved away

from it and packet filtering FW routers to a FW appliance.

 

http://www.vicomsoft.com/knowledge/reference/firewalls1.html

 

There are MS and Linux users (professionals) that come into that NG

about FW, O/S(s) and security knowledge on both platforms that would

hammer someone like Alias that really has limited knowledge of

everything but thinks it knows everything. Just like what is happening

with Alias here where it banters with nonsense justification, they would

despise Alias there too and hammer Alias. :)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:45:14 -0700

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

> >

> > That one vulnerability was patched in days but it's been months

> > that Windows users have been jumping up and down about it because

> > they finally came up with ONE exploit. BFD. If you keep your Ubuntu

> > up-to-date and enable a hard NAT firewall in your router, it's

> > BULLET PROOF compared to Windows of any flavor.

> >

>

> You really don't understand security do you? Yes, currently Linux

> isn't attacked as much as Windows so it's less likely you will be the

> victim of crooks while surfing the Internet using Linux rather than

> Windows. This fact does not make you invulnerable or as you say

> BULLET PROOF. By your own admission, quoted above, Linux needs to be

> kept up to date and you need to protect all devices in your network.

> That was the point of my original post to this thread. Software alone

> is not a strong enough security measure. Your posts that everyone

> should switch to Linux don't address any of this, until your last

> reply to me. The Internet is not a safe place. You need to take some

> basic precautions no matter what OS you happen to be using. If

> someone is not practicing safe surfing and not keeping their OS and

> applications up to date switching from Windows to Linux won't help

> them. If your reason for posting here is to help people by answering

> their questions then you should expand on your answers a bit rather

> than just suggesting everyone switch to Linux. Switching to Linux may

> be a valid option in some cases but the switch alone isn't the full

> answer. If you have other reasons for posting then maybe you could

> enlighten us on what they are.

>

 

Alias' expertise in ubuntu is knowing how to link to it.

 

--

Hobbes,Tiger Extraordinaire

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.co.uk> wrote in message

news:g6i7pm$l7q$1@aioe.org...

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> Please substantiate your claim that routers come without the firewall

>> enabled by default. Document one such model, from any manufacturer. If

>> you have a list, so much the better. Heck, even if you can't find

>> documentation, just name them and I'll go find out what's what, even if I

>> have to track someone down on the phone and have them personally check.

>>

>

> Edimax BR 6104-K is the one I use and I have the same experience with

> numerous Conceptronic routers for starters. They also come with blank

> passwords. The little instruction booklet that comes with them gives

> instructions on how to access the router, create a password and enable the

> firewall.

>

> Alias

 

The Edimax and Conceptronic routers seem to be made by the same

manufacturer. Their manuals contain essentially the same verbiage.

Both manuals note that the default user name and password are

"admin" and "1234". There is no "Firewall Enable" function per se.

Like all routers, "Firewall" functionality is in selectively allowing

or disallowing protocols and/or port access. A consumer class

router is just a router.

 

....Chris

Alias wrote:

> FB wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Kicking Albright wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Kicking Albright wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Nonny wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:15:00 -0700, Flyerfan27

>>>>>>>> <Flyerfan27@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Hello,

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I recently removed McAfee form my laptop with Vista Home

>>>>>>>>> Premium OP. I installed the free version of AVG Antivirus for

>>>>>>>>> virus protection in McAfee's place. I was going to look for a

>>>>>>>>> firewall program too, but saw that the Vista built in Windows

>>>>>>>>> Firewall took over that job. My question is do these 2 programs

>>>>>>>>> give me enough protection for my laptop? Can I trust these 2

>>>>>>>>> programs to protect my desktop computer? My desktop is hard

>>>>>>>>> wired to my router

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Your router has a firewall too,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Usually, it has to be enabled because it isn't enabled by default.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> This is garbage Alias.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Um, no it isn't.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Yes it is Alais.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Um, no it isn't and you can't prove otherwise.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> You are stupidly arrogant.

>> Get lost loser.

>

>

> You can't prove otherwise either. All you can do is hurl insults.

>

You prove otherwise!

And thanks for playing!

Alias wrote:

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> Please substantiate your claim that routers come without the firewall

>> enabled by default. Document one such model, from any manufacturer. If

>> you have a list, so much the better. Heck, even if you can't find

>> documentation, just name them and I'll go find out what's what, even

>> if I have to track someone down on the phone and have them personally

>> check.

>>

>

> Edimax BR 6104-K is the one I use and I have the same experience with

> numerous Conceptronic routers for starters. They also come with blank

> passwords. The little instruction booklet that comes with them gives

> instructions on how to access the router, create a password and enable

> the firewall.

>

 

The thing is a home user's $20 piece of junk. About the only thing it's

good for is a doorstop.

 

You try Cisco, SnappGear, Watchguard someone like that, that makes FW

routers and not this toaster oven junk you tossed out here.

Alias wrote:

> Terminator wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Kicking Albright wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Kicking Albright wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Kicking Albright wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Nonny wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:13:20 +0100, "Marc "

>>>>>>>>>> <RmEaMrOcVE@imarc.co.uk>

>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:nmvn84hdn2p637f3ugb3eeq4oig4jk0t15@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:48:00 -0700, Carey Frisch [MVP]

>>>>>>>>>>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the excellent Windows OneCare package, there is

>>>>>>>>>>>>> no need to install a multitude of different security software.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> With the excellent free apps available, there is no need to

>>>>>>>>>>>> spend

>>>>>>>>>>>> money.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Vista is the only modern OS that requires all this crap to

>>>>>>>>>>> stay secure.

>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that changes with Windows 7.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If the table were turned and Linux had the market share that

>>>>>>>>>> Windows

>>>>>>>>>> has, Linux would have all the world's hackers working to break

>>>>>>>>>> it as

>>>>>>>>>> Windows does now.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> That's the FUD that MS and shills like Carey would like you to

>>>>>>>>> believe. It just isn't true.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That's BS Alias because what the person is saying is true. Linux

>>>>>>>> is not as popular as MS in the home user sector, therefore, they

>>>>>>>> are not coming after the Linux platform like they do with the MS

>>>>>>>> platform because it doesn't have the ignorant home user sector

>>>>>>>> using the O/S as much.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Linux is no bed of roses, it has the same fallible human beings

>>>>>>>> that develop program solutions for the platform and the O/S

>>>>>>>> itself. They are NOT super human beings Alias, and Linux in the

>>>>>>>> wrong hands does and will get attacked.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Care to substantiate your FUD (as if)? The only way my box can be

>>>>>>> compromised is if you're sitting in front of it with your hands

>>>>>>> on the keyboard and mouse.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You substantiate your FUD that some program or O/S written by

>>>>>> fallible human beings that put their pants on one leg at a time

>>>>>> can't be attacked in the wrong hands Alias.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Linux and the programs written for the Linux platform are NOT

>>>>>> written by super human beings. Linux didn't originate on some

>>>>>> distant planet and made its way to Earth.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Human beings are not perfect and nothing we do or create will ever

>>>>>> be perfect. Linux is swiss cheese just like the O/S(s). The only

>>>>>> thing Linux has going for it is that it's not in the hands of the

>>>>>> masses. So the hackers have no reason to come after it, like they

>>>>>> do with the MS platform.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That's all that's being said here Alias. And that O/S you hold so

>>>>>> dearly and you are a fan of cannot be attacked in the wrong hands

>>>>>> those same mases of hands that you covet to come to Linux won't

>>>>>> expose the Linux faults when the hackers follow them is ridiculous

>>>>>> to think that will not happen.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You cannot be this stupid, blind and naive. But maybe you are all

>>>>>> of that with a total brainwashing.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I didn't think you could substantiate your FUD. All you can do is

>>>>> hurl unfounded insults. Ho hum.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I can't help it if the truth hurts. If you can't stand the heat,

>>>> then get out of the kitchen, Alias.

>>>>

>>>

>>> When you post the truth, I'll alert the media.

>>>

>>>> <copied - You tossed an insult here yourself.>

>>>>

>>>> >>>>> That's the FUD that MS and shills like Carey would like you to

>>>> >>>>> believe. It just isn't true.

>>>

>>>

>>> No insults there. It is FUD and Carey is a shill.

>>>

>>> Now the insults continue:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> You have total brainwashed yourself, and you have not given any

>>>> evidence as to why Linux is not swiss cheese just like any other O/S

>>>> in the wrong hands.

>>>>

>>>> You got all kind of excuses Alias -- (The Excuse - Alias), and you

>>>> always go into a tap dance, jig and spin.

>>>

>>>

>>> More insults but no proof. How surprising.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> Its truly amazing that someone like Alias responds to a post titled

>> "How well does the Windows Vista Firewall work" and has absolutely

>> nothing informative, relative or intelligent to offer. What a waste

>> of time!

>

>

> It's NOT amazing how your ilk can only come up with insults and no proof.

>

 

That would be you mr liar, mr troll. You've getting a good and well

deserved asskick and seem oblivious to that fact. You must be even

dumber than anyone originally thought...if that is even possible.

Keep it up, it's now entering the realm of 'unbelievable"!...LOL!

> Alias

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:09:41 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>Every router I've ever installed that has a firewall had the firewall

>enabled by default.

 

Thank you for that!

 

When I read that it needed to be configured I scratched my head

wondering how I'd missed that. I immediately went to the

configuration panel for my router and couldn't find a damned thing.

 

I should have remembered that I'd put my system to several different

tests online to check my security with only the router for a firewall

and it passed every test thrown at it.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:21:42 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>And you're just as foolish as Carey.

 

Nope. He's in a category all his own in that regard.

 

>--

>Gary S. Terhune

>MS-MVP Shell/User

>http://grystmill.com

>

>"Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>news:nbrn84ts6kajn3ombm7esfts1kp05qpl44@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:33:00 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"

>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Install a good, comprehensive, security program,

>>>such as Windows OneCare, and you'll not have to

>>>worry about those issues. You can try it FREE

>>>for ninety (90) days. This is a brand new version

>>>and includes a very robust firewall.

>>

>> So does his router. That plus Vista's native firewall will cover him

>> just fine in that department and it won't cost him anything.

>

Alias wrote:

> Kerry Brown wrote:

>

>> Assuming you haven't somehow disabled Windows Defender you have a

>> reasonable amount of protection as far as anti-malware software is

>> concerned. Note that this does not make you invulnerable. You will

>> still be infected if you don't practice safe hex/surfing/computing or

>> whatever you want to call it.

>>

>> Even more important than what programs you have installed is keeping

>> your computer up to date and using a bit of common sense. By keeping

>> your computer up to date this doesn't mean just Windows updates. You

>> need to make sure every program installed on your computer is up date.

>> Many of them do a poor job of doing this themselves. At least once a

>> month you should manually check for updates on every program you have

>> installed.

>>

>> You need to pay attention to what is happening on your computer. If

>> you see a balloon warning by the clock that some program needs

>> updating pay attention to it. If it's a program you recognise then

>> allow the update. If you don't recognise it find out what it is and

>> why it's warning you. Google is a great help for this. If a UAC prompt

>> pops up unexpectedly then figure out why before you allow it. If

>> you're not sure write down the details of what you were doing that

>> caused it, don't allow it, then Google it to see what may have caused

>> it. If you are on a web site and you are prompted to install or allow

>> something unexpectedly don't do it. Never, ever, ever click on an ad

>> on any web site. Never, ever open any email attachment unless you were

>> expecting it. Even if the attachment is from someone you know don't

>> open it unless you were expecting an attachment form them. If you

>> weren't expecting it then email them to see if they really sent the

>> attachment before opening it. Basically if you're not sure of

>> something, don't do it until you are sure.

>>

>> Malware is very big business. The malware developers are always ahead

>> of the anti-malware developers. There is no magic software that will

>> make you invulnerable. Your best defense is user education, keeping

>> everything on your computer up to date, then lastly installing

>> anti-malware software.

>>

>

> Actually, the best defense is to not use Windows of any flavor and move

> up to Linux Ubuntu which is bullet proof compared to Windows.

>

> http://www.ubuntu.com

>

> Alias

 

Still spamming and trolling I see. More than likely you have an infected

linux box and don't even know or can't bring yourself to admit it.

You're the quintessential loser, loser!

Ringmaster wrote:

>

> Want facts?

>

> Windows Defender in real world testing using a sampling of 25 spyware

> and malicious code samples FAILED TO IDENTIFY or PROTECT from 84% of

> these known threats. Ouch!

 

This is NOT FW technology Albright. It's malware and virus detection

which needs a layered approach with another solution like a 3rd party AV

solution.

>

> http://www.bakmansblog.com/2007/04/how_secure_is_m.html

>

> Windows Firewall, configured by default in Vista to help protect

> user's computers as soon as Windows Vista boots. While it can restrict

> both inbound and outbound traffic, outbound filtering needs to be

> configured manually or using Group Policy. Like Windows Defender,

> Windows Firewall should be seen as a complement to third-party

> solutions, not a replacement.

 

The Vista FW/packet filter does what it is suppose to do or any solution

of this nature, which is to stop unsolicited inbound packets from

reaching services running by default and to allow advanced packing

filtering rules to be created for inbound and outbound packets, with

packets being stopped at the boot if need be, which no 3rd party

solution can do that -- protect the network connection at boot and make

network connection wait until personal FW/packet filter is running.

 

So, I wouldn't run a personal FW/personal packet filter by itself with a

computer that has a direct connection to the modem, and therefore a

direct connection to the Internet. I don't care what the O/S is or the

vendor of the host based personal FW/personal packet filter is either.

 

That's why I will use IPsec as a complementary solution, which is on

Vista to supplement a 3rd party personal FW/packet filter solution as

well, like I do with Vista's FW/packet filter with the machine that has

a direct connection to the Internet - no border device like a router or

FW applince sitting between the modem and the computer.

 

http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_traffic_with_ipsec.htm

 

I implemented the AnalogX IPsec rules with IPsec supplementing the Vista

FW/packet filter and they are running side by side.

 

http://www.analogx.com/CONTENTS/articles/ipsec.htm

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813878

 

I don't have any problems Albright.

 

Why are you always on the negative Albright?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:06:37 -0400

Kicking Albright <Albright@Kicking.com> wrote:

> Ringmaster wrote:

> >

> > Want facts?

> >

> > Windows Defender in real world testing using a sampling of 25

> > spyware and malicious code samples FAILED TO IDENTIFY or PROTECT

> > from 84% of these known threats. Ouch!

>

> This is NOT FW technology Albright. It's malware and virus detection

> which needs a layered approach with another solution like a 3rd party

> AV solution.

> >

> > http://www.bakmansblog.com/2007/04/how_secure_is_m.html

> >

> > Windows Firewall, configured by default in Vista to help protect

> > user's computers as soon as Windows Vista boots. While it can

> > restrict both inbound and outbound traffic, outbound filtering

> > needs to be configured manually or using Group Policy. Like Windows

> > Defender, Windows Firewall should be seen as a complement to

> > third-party solutions, not a replacement.

>

> The Vista FW/packet filter does what it is suppose to do or any

> solution of this nature, which is to stop unsolicited inbound packets

> from reaching services running by default and to allow advanced

> packing filtering rules to be created for inbound and outbound

> packets, with packets being stopped at the boot if need be, which no

> 3rd party solution can do that -- protect the network connection at

> boot and make network connection wait until personal FW/packet filter

> is running.

>

> So, I wouldn't run a personal FW/personal packet filter by itself

> with a computer that has a direct connection to the modem, and

> therefore a direct connection to the Internet. I don't care what the

> O/S is or the vendor of the host based personal FW/personal packet

> filter is either.

>

> That's why I will use IPsec as a complementary solution, which is on

> Vista to supplement a 3rd party personal FW/packet filter solution as

> well, like I do with Vista's FW/packet filter with the machine that

> has a direct connection to the Internet - no border device like a

> router or FW applince sitting between the modem and the computer.

>

> http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_traffic_with_ipsec.htm

>

> I implemented the AnalogX IPsec rules with IPsec supplementing the

> Vista FW/packet filter and they are running side by side.

>

> http://www.analogx.com/CONTENTS/articles/ipsec.htm

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813878

>

> I don't have any problems Albright.

>

> Why are you always on the negative Albright?

>

 

Simple...misery loves company.

 

--

Hobbes,Tiger Extraordinaire

Btman73157 Wrote:

> I found a program online to test how well your firewall works:

> 'GRC*|*LeakTest -- Firewall Leakage Tester**'

> ('GRC|LeakTest -- Firewall Leakage Tester'

> (http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm))

>

> I can't comment on the reliability of the program but for me, the

> windows firewall needs to be on its maximum setting to work, so I use

> Kaspersky's firewall which is described as working aggresively and

> properly.

 

Do not trust on "Leak test" with ur Windows FW. It will not detect the

threat and actually that is a virus in a testing back ground. Stopped by

CA and threat fire

 

Avast is a good free AV for home users followed by AVG free and Anvir

Bitdefender, Kaspersky and CA are the top commercial AV

Webroot Spysweeper is the Ultimate spy,ad,malware destroyer.

Unbeatable. But not free

Spyware terminator is also good one partially act as firewall too. But

some times sytem slows down

Threat fire is a good av scanner and can be used together with any

other AV, so ur machine is double protected.

I have not found NOD32 interactive. I had used it for one month and

never find any threat or pop up. I am not sure about that

Kaspersky have inbuilt intrusion method which act as FW. So KIS users

can disable the other FW

Stand alone FW comodo is the number one together with Zonealarm.

Both are happy with mre CPU usage.

A good AV(Avast prefer), webroot spysweeper, windows defender and

windows FW is a good combination, in addition ur system is capable, use

spyware terminator or Threat fire

 

Spyware blaster may be a bloatware, complete uninstallation is not

possible. Ur security center displays that as available spyware after

uninstallation. Do not know whether bugs of windows or spyware blaster

 

Spybot search and destroy is a good registry protector same for spyware

terminator, but I prefer disable services of remote registry

 

 

--

phoenix_abhi

 

'Technical Development and INDIA'

(http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/home.jsp)

 

:cool:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

phoenix_abhi's Profile: http://winvistaclub.com/forum/member.php?userid=110

View this thread: http://winvistaclub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17476

Ringmaster wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:35:19 -0500, Terminator

> <terminator@earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>

>>>>You got all kind of excuses Alias -- (The Excuse - Alias), and you

>>>>always go into a tap dance, jig and spin.

>>>

>>>More insults but no proof. How surprising.

>>>

>>>Alias

>>

>>Its truly amazing that someone like Alias responds to a post titled

>>"How well does the Windows Vista Firewall work" and has absolutely

>>nothing informative, relative or intelligent to offer. What a waste of

>>time!

>

>

> More amazing to me how quick assorted Microsoft apologists regardless

> of topic have some desperate need to try to defend the undefendable

> arrogance, stupidity and recklessness of Microsoft bug riddled, hacker

> prone software. Oh well, nothing I can do about it except point out

> how stupid it is to be a Microsoft stooge.

>

> More on point, it is foolish to expect Microsoft to be able to offer a

> decent firewall since they are the dopes that dumped a hacker's dream

> (any version of Windows) on a unsuspecting public with the pre Vista

> versions of Windows paying hardly any concern at all to so-called

> security issues preferring instead to run everything wide open which

> is WHY hackers have little trouble attacking Windows.

>

> Thinking any firewall from Microsoft will "protect" you is like asking

> a bank robber to watch over your piggy bank. You got to be kidding.

>

> The point that always zooms over the heads of the Microsoft faithful

> is Microsoft doesn't know how to write a secure operating system. They

> never have and likely never will. Their method, a proven failure is to

> patch. That fixes one leak, but soon another springs up.

>

> So how well does Vista's so-called firewall work?

>

> Ask any hacker. He/she will tell you how easy it is to penetrate.

>

> Want facts?

>

> Windows Defender in real world testing using a sampling of 25 spyware

> and malicious code samples FAILED TO IDENTIFY or PROTECT from 84% of

> these known threats. Ouch!

>

> http://www.bakmansblog.com/2007/04/how_secure_is_m.html

>

> Windows Firewall, configured by default in Vista to help protect

> user's computers as soon as Windows Vista boots. While it can restrict

> both inbound and outbound traffic, outbound filtering needs to be

> configured manually or using Group Policy. Like Windows Defender,

> Windows Firewall should be seen as a complement to third-party

> solutions, not a replacement.

>

> Feel safer now?

>

> Hint: The more outside UNBIASED information you read, the more you

> know how DUMB the typical Microsoft apologist stooge actually is. -)

>

OMG! mr gotemeyer, are you as dumb and stupid as you seem?

Or do you assume that we're all as dumb and stupid as you are?

You like changing the subject matter, in this case from a software/virus

firewall (which Vista comes with, turned on by default), to the maleware

software Defender.

Do you really know the difference?

I doubt it.

Nonny wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:13:20 +0100, "Marc " <RmEaMrOcVE@imarc.co.uk>

> wrote:

>

>> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:nmvn84hdn2p637f3ugb3eeq4oig4jk0t15@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:48:00 -0700, Carey Frisch [MVP]

>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> With the excellent Windows OneCare package, there is

>>>> no need to install a multitude of different security software.

>>> With the excellent free apps available, there is no need to spend

>>> money.

>> Vista is the only modern OS that requires all this crap to stay secure.

>> Hope that changes with Windows 7.

>

> If the table were turned and Linux had the market share that Windows

> has, Linux would have all the world's hackers working to break it as

> Windows does now.

 

However, a question remains. Would they succeed in the same spectacular

manner they have done with windows? )

 

--

norm

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:17:55 -0400, norm <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

>> If the table were turned and Linux had the market share that Windows

>> has, Linux would have all the world's hackers working to break it as

>> Windows does now.

>

>However, a question remains. Would they succeed in the same spectacular

>manner they have done with windows? )

 

I really couldn't care less. My computer works fine. That's all I

care about.

norm wrote:

> Nonny wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:13:20 +0100, "Marc " <RmEaMrOcVE@imarc.co.uk>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>> news:nmvn84hdn2p637f3ugb3eeq4oig4jk0t15@4ax.com...

>>>

>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:48:00 -0700, Carey Frisch [MVP]

>>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> With the excellent Windows OneCare package, there is

>>>>> no need to install a multitude of different security software.

>>>>

>>>> With the excellent free apps available, there is no need to spend

>>>> money.

>>>

>>> Vista is the only modern OS that requires all this crap to stay secure.

>>> Hope that changes with Windows 7.

>>

>>

>> If the table were turned and Linux had the market share that Windows

>> has, Linux would have all the world's hackers working to break it as

>> Windows does now.

>

>

> However, a question remains. Would they succeed in the same spectacular

> manner they have done with windows? )

>

 

Proly better, seeing as how most linux users falsely believe their linux

boxes are bullet proof!

"Easy pickings" is the term I'd use to best describe them should linux

ever become really "main stream", which proly will never happen.

Chris S. wrote:

>

> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.co.uk> wrote in message

> news:g6i7pm$l7q$1@aioe.org...

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> Please substantiate your claim that routers come without the firewall

>>> enabled by default. Document one such model, from any manufacturer.

>>> If you have a list, so much the better. Heck, even if you can't find

>>> documentation, just name them and I'll go find out what's what, even

>>> if I have to track someone down on the phone and have them personally

>>> check.

>>>

>>

>> Edimax BR 6104-K is the one I use and I have the same experience with

>> numerous Conceptronic routers for starters. They also come with blank

>> passwords. The little instruction booklet that comes with them gives

>> instructions on how to access the router, create a password and enable

>> the firewall.

>>

>> Alias

>

> The Edimax and Conceptronic routers seem to be made by the same

> manufacturer. Their manuals contain essentially the same verbiage.

> Both manuals note that the default user name and password are

> "admin" and "1234". There is no "Firewall Enable" function per se.

> Like all routers, "Firewall" functionality is in selectively allowing

> or disallowing protocols and/or port access. A consumer class

> router is just a router.

>

> ...Chris

 

In both there is a section called, of all things, "Firewall" with two

choices: enable or disable.

 

Alias

fb wrote:

> norm wrote:

>> Nonny wrote:

>>

>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:13:20 +0100, "Marc " <RmEaMrOcVE@imarc.co.uk>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Nonny" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:nmvn84hdn2p637f3ugb3eeq4oig4jk0t15@4ax.com...

>>>>

>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:48:00 -0700, Carey Frisch [MVP]

>>>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> With the excellent Windows OneCare package, there is

>>>>>> no need to install a multitude of different security software.

>>>>>

>>>>> With the excellent free apps available, there is no need to spend

>>>>> money.

>>>>

>>>> Vista is the only modern OS that requires all this crap to stay secure.

>>>> Hope that changes with Windows 7.

>>>

>>>

>>> If the table were turned and Linux had the market share that Windows

>>> has, Linux would have all the world's hackers working to break it as

>>> Windows does now.

>>

>>

>> However, a question remains. Would they succeed in the same

>> spectacular manner they have done with windows? )

>>

>

> Proly better, seeing as how most linux users falsely believe their linux

> boxes are bullet proof!

> "Easy pickings" is the term I'd use to best describe them should linux

> ever become really "main stream", which proly will never happen.

 

All talk and no walk. Can you hack my machine? No? Why not, asshole?

 

Alias