Firewall Recommendations

[Lance Delacroix]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:10 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com>
prounounced a fatwah thus:

>Well, Mr. Expert - I guess that you should write a book so that you can
>teach every internet security expert in the world - 99.9% of whom disagree
>strongly with you - how things should PROPERLY be done. And of course, all
>the rest of us too while you are at it.
>
>Mozilla - you mean the one owned and developed by Netscape? This Netscape -

Mozilla developed by Netscape? You've got some serious delusions
happening there, bud.

[mto]

"Lance Delacroix" <lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:fpq1hvcm7g5ed57imgmf34tg5q0q11qog0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:10 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> prounounced a fatwah thus:
>
> >Well, Mr. Expert - I guess that you should write a book so that you can
> >teach every internet security expert in the world - 99.9% of whom
disagree
> >strongly with you - how things should PROPERLY be done. And of course,
all
> >the rest of us too while you are at it.
> >
> >Mozilla - you mean the one owned and developed by Netscape? This
Netscape -
>
> Mozilla developed by Netscape? You've got some serious delusions
> happening there, bud.
>
Not hardly - go look up the history of Mozilla. Netscape released its
sourcecode for the Netscape browser as Open Source in order to get a bunch
of developers to work on it for free. Mozilla is to this day the underlying
basis of Netscape - has been ever since it's first release. I was a beta
tester

[Lance Delacroix]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:42:33 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com>
prounounced a fatwah thus:

>
>"Lance Delacroix" <lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:fpq1hvcm7g5ed57imgmf34tg5q0q11qog0@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:10 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com>
>> prounounced a fatwah thus:
>>
>> >Well, Mr. Expert - I guess that you should write a book so that you can
>> >teach every internet security expert in the world - 99.9% of whom
>disagree
>> >strongly with you - how things should PROPERLY be done. And of course,
>all
>> >the rest of us too while you are at it.
>> >
>> >Mozilla - you mean the one owned and developed by Netscape? This
>Netscape -
>>
>> Mozilla developed by Netscape? You've got some serious delusions
>> happening there, bud.
>>
>Not hardly - go look up the history of Mozilla. Netscape released its
>sourcecode for the Netscape browser as Open Source in order to get a bunch
>of developers to work on it for free.

"Released" its source code; then Netscape doesn't *own* it.

"To get a bunch of developers to work on it for free"; then Netscape
doesn't *develop* it.

Here's what you wrote:

>Mozilla - you mean the one owned and developed by Netscape?

Mozilla is neither owned nor developd by Netscape.

> Mozilla is to this day the underlying
>basis of Netscape - has been ever since it's first release. I was a beta
>tester

Gosh. A beta tester, huh? Whew.

[mto]

"Lance Delacroix" <lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:tk62hv8o720ltpu5mca9mj0mrckjqo6ukp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:42:33 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> prounounced a fatwah thus:
>
> >
> >"Lance Delacroix" <lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >news:fpq1hvcm7g5ed57imgmf34tg5q0q11qog0@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:10 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> >> prounounced a fatwah thus:
> >>
> >> >Well, Mr. Expert - I guess that you should write a book so that you
can
> >> >teach every internet security expert in the world - 99.9% of whom
> >disagree
> >> >strongly with you - how things should PROPERLY be done. And of
course,
> >all
> >> >the rest of us too while you are at it.
> >> >
> >> >Mozilla - you mean the one owned and developed by Netscape? This
> >Netscape -
> >>
> >> Mozilla developed by Netscape? You've got some serious delusions
> >> happening there, bud.
> >>
> >Not hardly - go look up the history of Mozilla. Netscape released its
> >sourcecode for the Netscape browser as Open Source in order to get a
bunch
> >of developers to work on it for free.
>
> "Released" its source code; then Netscape doesn't *own* it.
>
> "To get a bunch of developers to work on it for free"; then Netscape
> doesn't *develop* it.
>
> Here's what you wrote:
>
> >Mozilla - you mean the one owned and developed by Netscape?
>
> Mozilla is neither owned nor developd by Netscape.
>
> > Mozilla is to this day the underlying
> >basis of Netscape - has been ever since it's first release. I was a beta
> >tester
>
> Gosh. A beta tester, huh? Whew.

"Used to be owned" then, development prompted by and still used by Netscape
which used to be a decent browser until they sold out and is now a piece of
spamware

Yeah, it was heavy work LOL

[sponge]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:13:04 -0500, M.L.
<mel2000remoovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>>Begin by doing things right, which means hardening XP networking:
>>
>>http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/breves/...win.en.html.en
>>
>>Then it makes not a twit of difference which Firewall you use since
>>you don't need one. I like Sygate PF for its excellent traffic log.
>>This can be of some use in tracking down unwanted apps trying to
gain
>>internet access. But you also need a good running process viewer or
>>two. You should also use Spybot and AdAware.
>>
>>Next, dump IE and OE and use only apps that have been designed with
>>security in mind. Use the latest Mozilla or Mozilla based browsers.
NS
>>7.10 is excellent. Use something like Privoxy for ad blocking, etc.
>
>Telling strangers to just dump the apps they've been using is almost
>always bad advice. Fact is, no one will know how secure Mozilla is
>until it's been tested like IE and Outlook. I use IE and used to use
>Outlook, and had no security problems with either after configuring
>them properly.

Mozilla is extremely well tested and known bugs fixed.
IE is a disaster. One that's well-documented. Just take a look at the
SecurityFocus, Bugtraq, and other archives -- new exploits discovered
just about every day. Microsott doesn'r always patch it's bugs,
including some in IE6, and some extremely critical flaws are
considered "features" by Microsoft, like ActiveX downloads.
Some wise soul once said patching holes in IE is like patching holes
in a wicker basket. Apparently, some people think a wicker basket is a
boat.

>>For email and newsgroups, you can use Netscape. I prefer using
Pegasus
>>and Free Agent.
>
>That sounds like spamming.

Recommending programs isn't spamming. Anymore than posting here
hawking how wonderful IE is could be spamming on your part.

Sponge
Sponge's Anti-Spyware Source
www.geocities.com/yosponge

[sponge]

Gotta take issue on this one. Look at any of the archives of the major
security providers. Bugs in IE are found on a daily basis, and
Microsoft has reached a point where they won't even fix some of them
-- even critical ones.
IE and OE may well be the most insecure programs in existence. If
someone held a gun to my head and said that I could only do one single
thing to secure my system, I'd probably pick dumping IE/OE over
anything else, perhaps even using a firewall.
You're right that properly locking down IE and OE makes them safER.
But there is little defense against the exploits besides dumping IE
entirely. To say nothing of the fact that many malicious and
privacy-invading scripts are geared solely at IE users. Why try to
patch leaks in a boat riddled with holes when you can have a new boat
that was designed right in the first place?

>See Eric's vast information about security and privacy. I use
IE-SPYAD.
>http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm <== main site
>http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/btw/ie/ie-opts.htm <== IE security

Again, if you understand how Internet Explorer works, IE-Spyad is a
joke. If you follow Eric's own advice and properly secure your
Internet Zone, you don't need IE-Spyad in the first place, since
ActiveX and VBScripting will be disabled. If you have sites you want
to be able to visit and use ActiveX, place them in your trusted zone.
If you want to be able to visit sites and not have them drop ActiveX
or VBScripts on you, then you don't need to futz with the Restricted
Zone because you'll already have ActiveX downloads turned off. And,
that way, if you come across a site that's not on IE-Spyad's lists,
you'll still be protected.
The flaws are a different story. No security setting you can control
will protect you against all of those exploits. Many can be stopped by
disabling JavaScript (Active Scripting). Of course, half the web will
be unavailable to you if you do that, but that's about the only way IE
can be used SOMEWHAT safely. Some can be prevented by disabling other
features. Some can't be prevented at all, aside from patching or using
another browser.

P.S. Sorry, I'm not bustin' your balls. Just pointing things out.

Sponge
Sponge's Anti-Spyware Source
www.geocities.com/yosponge

[mto]

"sponge" <yosponge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d76ec03.0307122208.2f89d8e0@posting.google.c om...
> Gotta take issue on this one. Look at any of the archives of the major
> security providers. Bugs in IE are found on a daily basis, and
> Microsoft has reached a point where they won't even fix some of them
> -- even critical ones.
> IE and OE may well be the most insecure programs in existence. If
> someone held a gun to my head and said that I could only do one single
> thing to secure my system, I'd probably pick dumping IE/OE over
> anything else, perhaps even using a firewall.
> You're right that properly locking down IE and OE makes them safER.
> But there is little defense against the exploits besides dumping IE
> entirely. To say nothing of the fact that many malicious and
> privacy-invading scripts are geared solely at IE users. Why try to
> patch leaks in a boat riddled with holes when you can have a new boat
> that was designed right in the first place?
>
> >See Eric's vast information about security and privacy. I use
> IE-SPYAD.
> >http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm <== main site
> >http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/btw/ie/ie-opts.htm <== IE security
>
> Again, if you understand how Internet Explorer works, IE-Spyad is a
> joke. If you follow Eric's own advice and properly secure your
> Internet Zone, you don't need IE-Spyad in the first place, since
> ActiveX and VBScripting will be disabled. If you have sites you want
> to be able to visit and use ActiveX, place them in your trusted zone.
> If you want to be able to visit sites and not have them drop ActiveX
> or VBScripts on you, then you don't need to futz with the Restricted
> Zone because you'll already have ActiveX downloads turned off. And,
> that way, if you come across a site that's not on IE-Spyad's lists,
> you'll still be protected.
> The flaws are a different story. No security setting you can control
> will protect you against all of those exploits. Many can be stopped by
> disabling JavaScript (Active Scripting). Of course, half the web will
> be unavailable to you if you do that, but that's about the only way IE
> can be used SOMEWHAT safely. Some can be prevented by disabling other
> features. Some can't be prevented at all, aside from patching or using
> another browser.
>
> P.S. Sorry, I'm not bustin' your balls. Just pointing things out.
>
> Sponge
> Sponge's Anti-Spyware Source
> www.geocities.com/yosponge

Visited your site last night Sponge. Great info. I do have to take
exception with you on one little thing though. Mozilla may be a very secure
browser (I haven't bothered with it in years) but the point is that 96% of
all internet users currently use IE. FAR too many of them are highly
insecure about changing anything at all on their machines out of some
misguided fear they will break the thing. I have one client that pays me
$50 an hour to travel to his home to do things like uncheck the box in OE
that says "hang up when finished" - and it has taken me 2 years to get him
to the point where he will call me and follow instructions to do things like
that himself. He is not unusual by a long shot.

The browser war is over. Bill won. Even to the point that nearly all
websites no longer bother to spend the extra time and money to make their
sites display correctly in anything else (that used to be a VERY spendy
proposition.)

I don't like MS anymore than anyone else. Their business practices often
leave much to be desired. IE is insecure, OE is a disaster and IM is
outright spyware. But that IS what nearly everyone uses, for various and
sundry reasons, not least of which is that while there are things that are
more secure, they are often more difficult to use, not as intuitive, and
lack the bells and whistles that many users enjoy.

Seems to me that those that are concerned with things like security, privacy
and spyware should be focusing efforts more on changing laws, educating the
public as to **reasonable** things that they will actually do, developing
easy to use tools to force IE/OE into some semblance of reasonable security
and encouraging the public to express themselves to Microsoft rather than
simply saying "get rid of IE/OE." That isn't going to happen anymore than
Apple, which had a FAR better product than MS, had the first prayer after
Bill's products went into IBM.

[Dave G]

"Dave G" <Dave G@NoSpam.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:bemrc3$kc6$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Okay... so I had some annoying pop up ads through the messenger service
(see
> my previous post)...
>
> Digging a little deeper (following a post by YK) I find I am in need of a
> personal Firewall.... yes I know... What am I doing in the spyware NG if I
> don't already have one of these!!!
>
> Any recommendations out there... My machine spec is Win XP, IE6, Outlook
> Express, McAfee v6.02, Modem Dial Up (although soon to move to broadband)
> and I use Kazaa Lite occasionally.
>
> What's best for my needs...
>
> Regards
>
> Dave G
>
>

Dear All

Thanks for all of the responses... and I apologise if my post dragged anyone
into an argument about whose browser/firewall/anti-virus software/ad-blocker
is best.

I really only wanted a bit of advice on adding a little extra security to my
system.... I don't think anyone even commented about me using Kazaa Lite
every now and then... which surprised me a little!!

I will certainly consider giving Mozilla a try for a change... and probably
go for something like Kerio or Zone Alarm Pro... I'll stick with my
subscription to McAfee as I've had no problems with them at all for the last
3 years and I already use Ad-Aware after every web session which certainly
helps.

Many thanks to all who replied to my post

Dave G

[mto]

"Dave G" <Dave G@NoSpam.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:besbb6$l33$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Dave G" <Dave G@NoSpam.Co.UK> wrote in message
> news:bemrc3$kc6$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Okay... so I had some annoying pop up ads through the messenger service
> (see
> > my previous post)...
> >
> > Digging a little deeper (following a post by YK) I find I am in need of
a
> > personal Firewall.... yes I know... What am I doing in the spyware NG if
I
> > don't already have one of these!!!
> >
> > Any recommendations out there... My machine spec is Win XP, IE6, Outlook
> > Express, McAfee v6.02, Modem Dial Up (although soon to move to
broadband)
> > and I use Kazaa Lite occasionally.
> >
> > What's best for my needs...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dave G
> >
> >
>
> Dear All
>
> Thanks for all of the responses... and I apologise if my post dragged
anyone
> into an argument about whose browser/firewall/anti-virus
software/ad-blocker
> is best.
>
> I really only wanted a bit of advice on adding a little extra security to
my
> system.... I don't think anyone even commented about me using Kazaa Lite
> every now and then... which surprised me a little!!
>
> I will certainly consider giving Mozilla a try for a change... and
probably
> go for something like Kerio or Zone Alarm Pro... I'll stick with my
> subscription to McAfee as I've had no problems with them at all for the
last
> 3 years and I already use Ad-Aware after every web session which certainly
> helps.
>
> Many thanks to all who replied to my post
>
> Dave G
>

You're welcome BTW, both SpyBlaster S&D (worth it's weight in gold and
free) and AdAware have posted new updates this week.

[Dave G]

"mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:vh3d2p4bk71n40@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave G" <Dave G@NoSpam.Co.UK> wrote in message
> news:besbb6$l33$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Dave G" <Dave G@NoSpam.Co.UK> wrote in message
> > news:bemrc3$kc6$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Okay... so I had some annoying pop up ads through the messenger
service
> > (see
> > > my previous post)...
> > >
> > > Digging a little deeper (following a post by YK) I find I am in need
of
> a
> > > personal Firewall.... yes I know... What am I doing in the spyware NG
if
> I
> > > don't already have one of these!!!
> > >
> > > Any recommendations out there... My machine spec is Win XP, IE6,
Outlook
> > > Express, McAfee v6.02, Modem Dial Up (although soon to move to
> broadband)
> > > and I use Kazaa Lite occasionally.
> > >
> > > What's best for my needs...
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Dave G
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Dear All
> >
> > Thanks for all of the responses... and I apologise if my post dragged
> anyone
> > into an argument about whose browser/firewall/anti-virus
> software/ad-blocker
> > is best.
> >
> > I really only wanted a bit of advice on adding a little extra security
to
> my
> > system.... I don't think anyone even commented about me using Kazaa Lite
> > every now and then... which surprised me a little!!
> >
> > I will certainly consider giving Mozilla a try for a change... and
> probably
> > go for something like Kerio or Zone Alarm Pro... I'll stick with my
> > subscription to McAfee as I've had no problems with them at all for the
> last
> > 3 years and I already use Ad-Aware after every web session which
certainly
> > helps.
> >
> > Many thanks to all who replied to my post
> >
> > Dave G
> >
>
> You're welcome BTW, both SpyBlaster S&D (worth it's weight in gold and
> free) and AdAware have posted new updates this week.
>
>

Got the Ad-aware one - I check updates everytime I run it

Cheers