Will a Firewall or Proxy server protect against these spy programs? I'm
guessing they won't because having to lower your browser security settings
to allow cookies and sometimes activeX controls to access a particular
website would leave you vulnerable. For instance, my own ip requires i have
cookies turned on to access my account. Any thoughts? TIA Doug.
"Doug" <DeliverSpam@Landfill.Com> wrote in message
newsAGdnek_mt7_z8SiXTWJkw@gbronline.com...
> Will a Firewall or Proxy server protect against these spy programs? I'm
> guessing they won't because having to lower your browser security settings
> to allow cookies and sometimes activeX controls to access a particular
> website would leave you vulnerable. For instance, my own ip requires i
have
> cookies turned on to access my account. Any thoughts? TIA Doug.
Get a new IPZone Alarm Pro will let you set scripting functions and
cookies by individual web site for just such times.
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:19:42 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Doug"
<DeliverSpam@Landfill.Com> wrote:
>
> Will a Firewall or Proxy server protect against these spy programs?
[snip]
Not if you do something silly to obviate them, they won't.
> I'm
> guessing they won't because having to lower your browser security
> settings to allow cookies and sometimes activeX controls to access a
> particular website would leave you vulnerable.
[snip]
This is a perfect example of what I was just talking about. Are you
familiar with the old joke about the man who goes to the Doctor:
Man: "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I hold my arm like this!"
Doctor: "Then don't hold your arm like that."
Get the point?
> For instance, my own ip requires i have
> cookies turned on to access my account.
[snip]
Say what? That sentence doesn't even make any sense.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news9l0mvgkd79a38uaievo5eq132aurrqpc7@news.rcn.com...
<SNIP>
> > For instance, my own ip requires i have
> > cookies turned on to access my account.
> [snip]
>
> Say what? That sentence doesn't even make any sense.
Sure it does - lots of ISPs (AOL, NetZero, bunch of others) make you read
your email through their particular browser or their web interface. No
cookies = no email. PITA and good grounds for a new ISP as far as I'm
concerned, but many of the ISPs have strongly promoted the idea that you
need a PhD to set up a dial up connection without their own special software
and lots of people buy into that.
Thanks for the comments, I've got a firewall coming that I'll look at. As
for the ISP I can dial in and surf with shields at maximum but can't access
my account settings unless I drop the security. There is no front end for
my ISP just dial in with w98. I've heard of zone alarm and will check into
that also. thanks again. Doug.
"Doug" <DeliverSpam@Landfill.Com> wrote in message
news
> Will a Firewall or Proxy server protect against these spy programs? I'm
> guessing they won't because having to lower your browser security settings
> to allow cookies and sometimes activeX controls to access a particular
> website would leave you vulnerable. For instance, my own ip requires i
have
> cookies turned on to access my account. Any thoughts? TIA Doug.
>
>
>
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:20:02 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
> "Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> message news
> <SNIP>
> > > For instance, my own ip requires i have
> > > cookies turned on to access my account.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Say what? That sentence doesn't even make any sense.
>
> Sure it does - lots of ISPs (AOL, NetZero, bunch of others) make you read
> your email through their particular browser or their web interface.
[snip]
Well first, he said "IP", not "ISP". Now granted, his statement does make a
bit more sense if we assume that was a typo; but that still leaves open the
question of the claim's veracity... And no "real" ISP could possibly even
implement such a requirement, since "access my account" does not even imply
the use of ANY "browser" (especially in the context of E-Mail!) let alone a
proprietary one.
Now, to engage in some even wilder speculation, *IF* what you're talking
about isn't really an ISP, but rather an OSP such as AOL, CompuServe, etc.,
who do not (necessarily) follow established interoperability standards, then
all bets are off -- but that would be a special case, and it doesn't seem to
apply to the OP anyway:
--> From: "Doug" <DeliverSpam@Landfill.Com>
--> Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
--> Subject: Firewall or Proxey server protection?
--> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:19:42 -0500
--> Message-ID: <pAGdnek_mt7_z8SiXTWJkw@gbronline.com>
--> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.66.118
^^^^^^^^^^^
|
Note ------------------------+
OrgName: Great Barrier Reef, Inc.
OrgID: GBRI
Address: PO Box 1177
City: Joplin
StateProv: MO
PostalCode: 64802
Country: US
NetRange: 69.9.64.0 - 69.9.111.255
CIDR: 69.9.64.0/19, 69.9.96.0/20
NetName: GBRONLINE001
NetHandle: NET-69-9-64-0-1
Parent: NET-69-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: DNS01.GBRONLINE.COM
NameServer: DNS02.GBRONLINE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2002-11-27
Updated: 2003-07-18
OrgAbuseHandle: GBRAB-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: GBRABUSE
OrgAbusePhone: +1-417-659-8991
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@gbronline.com
OrgTechHandle: IPADM87-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Administrator
OrgTechPhone: +1-417-659-8991
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@gbronline.com
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-09-26 19:15
Looks like a standard-issue (small, local) ISP to me.
> No cookies = no email.
[snip]
This simply isn't true -- nor CAN it be. At least most mail clients don't
even support "cookies", which are exclusively an HTTP artifact. HTTP is
*not* a mail protocol. This is not to say that mail systems cannot have
web-based auxillary interfaces; but that's beside the point. If whatever
"messaging system" a given person is using *requires* a web browser, let
alone "cookies", then it's not even Internet E-Mail, by definition.
> PITA and good grounds for a new ISP as far as I'm
> concerned, but many of the ISPs have strongly promoted the idea that you
> need a PhD to set up a dial up connection without their own special
> software and lots of people buy into that.
That is a different issue entirely, and not really related to the topic at
hand.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:24:38 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Doug"
<DeliverSpam@Landfill.Com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments, I've got a firewall coming that I'll look at.
> As for the ISP I can dial in and surf with shields at maximum
[snip]
*Please* try to use "real" terminology, if you want anyone to understand
what you're talking about. For example, the phrase "shields at maximum" is
utterly meaningless outside of a science-fiction novel; so no one here has
any idea what you're intending by that.
> ...but can't
> access my account settings unless I drop the security.
[snip]
What, exactly, do you mean by "account settings"? And for that matter, what
exactly do you mean by "drop the security"? If you're talking about things
like changing your log-on password, or mail-forwarding tables, etc., where
the ISP would prudently want to insure that you and ONLY you can access
those settings, then the use of things like an encrypted connection, and an
explicitly entered (probably multiple times) password, etc., is only
reasonable -- but none of these things imply obviating your own security
measures.
> There is no front
> end for my ISP just dial in with w98.
[snip]
Again, it would seem that your use of sloppy terminology is getting in the
way here. What *exactly* do (you think) you mean by "no front end for my
ISP"?
Beyond that, if the standard Win98 DUN (Dial-Up Networking) applet will get
you connected and logged on, then by definition your ISP is *not* doing
anything out of the ordinary.
> I've heard of zone alarm and will
> check into that also.
[snip]
Don't bother.
It's next-to-useless, even under the best of circumstances; and in the hands
of a novice (which, no insult intended, it is obvious you are) it can very
easily do more harm than good. See: <http://samspade.org/d/persfire.html>
and <http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html>.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote