"Double Z" <zzinkmetairie@nospammingplzbellsouth.net> wrote in
news:TM2dnTqNvcavjYzanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com :
> don't mind me
ok
--
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
Email.: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com
Web...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
PGP...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt
Lord Possum wrote:
> In article <MPG.21789728da8e9ed7989927@newsgroups.comcast.net >,
> al@aohell.com says...
>
>> Is that particularly small for a Firewall? I'm not sure your
>> description of Sygate being "really bloated", is entirely accurate.
>> I'm not pushing or endorsing Sygate, but my installation is 12 megs.
>> That's not that bloated IMO. If it, or any software package, does
>> what it advertises, 4 megs doesn't make THAT much of a difference.
>> I've tried most "endorsed" firewalls, but I always seem to "go
>> back" to Sygate. Al
> ============================
>
> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>
> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
> is faster.
>
> Lord Possum
What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated in
my opinion.
In comp.security.firewalls Gary <gareth@capecod.net> wrote:
> Lord Possum wrote:
>> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
>> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
>> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
>> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>>
>> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
>> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
>> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
>> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
>> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
>> is faster.
>
> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated
> in my opinion.
It just has serious design flaws and won't receive any bugfixes anymore.
Some qualification for a "security" product.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
In comp.security.firewalls Gary <gareth@capecod.net> wrote:
> Lord Possum wrote:
>> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
>> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
>> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
>> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>>
>> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
>> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
>> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
>> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
>> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
>> is faster.
>
> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated
> in my opinion.
It just has serious design flaws and won't receive any bugfixes anymore.
Some qualification for a "security" product.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2007@planetcobalt.net> after much
thought,came up with this jewel in news:fg2n7nUkp7L2@news.in-ulm.de:
> In comp.security.firewalls Gary <gareth@capecod.net> wrote:
>> Lord Possum wrote:
>>> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not
>>> only the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and
>>> the number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on
>>> RAM resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>>>
>>> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
>>> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or
>>> any better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much
>>> to those who don't care how much room a program takes up, but
>>> the extra 4MB means more of something else for me. And, in the
>>> end result, NetVeda is faster.
>>
>> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not
>> bloated in my opinion.
>
> It just has serious design flaws and won't receive any bugfixes
> anymore. Some qualification for a "security" product.
>
> cu
> 59cobalt
Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of resources.
A router/harding your system/safe-hex is the way to go.
max
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Tools http://max.shplink.com/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
Gary wrote:
> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated in
> my opinion.
Sygate is bloated by design.
Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
> Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of resources.
Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall doesn't mean
that it's not a security concept or can't be part of it. Indeed it is a
host-based packet filter, and, if used correctly (which already excludes all
the common "personal firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this
excludes all the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.
> A router/harding your system/safe-hex is the way to go.
The common SOHO router stuff is neither a firewall nor is it suitable to
implement a routing firewall.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:37:15 +0100, Sebastian G. wrote:
> > Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of resources.
> Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall doesn't mean
> that it's not a security concept or can't be part of it. Indeed it is a
> host-based packet filter, and, if used correctly (which already excludes all
> the common "personal firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this
> excludes all the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.
Can you suggest alternative software other than the common "personal
firewall" stuff that will achieve a certain gain of security (on a
Windows OS) ? Tnx.
--
s|b
"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> after much thought,came up with
this jewel in news:5okdovFn7fe1U1@mid.dfncis.de:
> Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
>
>
>> Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of
>> resources.
>
>
> Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall
> doesn't mean that it's not a security concept or can't be part of
> it. Indeed it is a host-based packet filter, and, if used
> correctly (which already excludes all the common "personal
> firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this excludes all
> the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.
>
>> A router/harding your system/safe-hex is the way to go.
>
>
> The common SOHO router stuff is neither a firewall nor is it
> suitable to implement a routing firewall.
Your correct. I think a router provides better protection than using
a software firewall(some routers include a packet filter). And
turning off un-needed services,using a more secure e-mail
client/browser(like Thunderbird,Firefox) is better than relying on a
software firewall alone.
max
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Tools http://max.shplink.com/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
"s|b" <private@usenet4all.org> after much thought,came up with this
jewel in news:Jy7Vi.179033$nI4.8773744@phobos.telenet-ops.be:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:37:15 +0100, Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> > Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of
>> > resources.
>
>> Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall
>> doesn't mean that it's not a security concept or can't be part of
>> it. Indeed it is a host-based packet filter, and, if used
>> correctly (which already excludes all the common "personal
>> firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this excludes
>> all the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.
>
> Can you suggest alternative software other than the common
> "personal firewall" stuff that will achieve a certain gain of
> security (on a Windows OS) ? Tnx.
>
Here is a good start-
MVPS hosts file
Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock installed
a good AV solution(like NOD32)
Spyware Blaster
Spybot Search+Destroy immunization
Turn off Windows Messenger
max
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Tools http://max.shplink.com/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote