On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:33:53 GMT, Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
> Here is a good start-
> MVPS hosts file
Already using it.
> Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock installed
Already using it.
> a good AV solution(like NOD32)
I use Avast, but if I want to stick with freeware, then I'd probably be
better off with Avira Antivir.
> Spyware Blaster
Never used it.
> Spybot Search+Destroy immunization
Already using it.
> Turn off Windows Messenger
First thing I did when started this PC.
Anything else?
--
s|b
s|b wrote:
> 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.
WinIPFW <http://wipfw.sourceforge.net>
(but only the latest SVN snapshot + some security fixes)
Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
> Here is a good start-
> MVPS hosts file
A very bad start for a proposedly good start. What should this **** be good
for, other than ****ing up the system?
> Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock installed
AdBlock is not security relevant. And, of course, what about Firefox? Even
NoScript can't make it any less broken. If you really like a Mozilla core,
take Mozilla SeaMonkey.
> a good AV solution(like NOD32)
This is not even a solution at all.
> Spyware Blaster
Oh please...
> Spybot Search+Destroy immunization
OH PLEASE...
> Turn off Windows Messenger
Eh... yeah? Of course, intentionally running an insecure-by-design software
is never a good idea.
s|b wrote:
> Anything else?
Yes. Please flatten and rebuild your system. You broke it.
"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> after much thought,came up with
this jewel in news:5okkncFn7a1hU2@mid.dfncis.de:
> Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
>
>
>> Here is a good start-
>> MVPS hosts file
>
>
> A very bad start for a proposedly good start. What should this
> **** be good for, other than ****ing up the system?
what???? a good hosts file doesn't f*ckup anything.
>> Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock installed
>
>
> AdBlock is not security relevant.
I just have no use for unsolicited ads...
> And, of course, what about
> Firefox? Even NoScript can't make it any less broken.
for control of javascript....
> If you
> really like a Mozilla core, take Mozilla SeaMonkey.
I use Portable Apps and SM is not yet available.
>> a good AV solution(like NOD32)
>
>
> This is not even a solution at all.
what do you use?
>
>> Spyware Blaster
>> Spybot Search+Destroy immunization
any added protection that uses no extra resources is a good thing.
>> Turn off Windows Messenger
>
> Eh... yeah? Of course, intentionally running an insecure-by-design
> software is never a good idea.
Why do you say anything is broken????
--
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.
Sebastian G. wrote:
> Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
>
>
>> Here is a good start-
>> MVPS hosts file
>
>
> A very bad start for a proposedly good start. What should this **** be
> good for, other than ****ing up the system?
>
what ???
common i know lots of entries pointing to localhost is a cat and mouse game
at best but still ...
>> Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock installed
>
>
> AdBlock is not security relevant. And, of course, what about Firefox?
> Even NoScript can't make it any less broken. If you really like a
> Mozilla core, take Mozilla SeaMonkey.
>
yes firefox is well ... a horrible code base but besides opera
are there really any good standards compliant (sort of) browsers out there
besides SM shares a LOT of that horrible code base
how is firefox broken ?
>> a good AV solution(like NOD32)
>
>
> This is not even a solution at all.
>
true but NOD32 is the nicest of all PAV solutions (personal anti-virus)
>> Spyware Blaster
>
>
> Oh please...
>
>> Spybot Search+Destroy immunization
>
>
> OH PLEASE...
>
>> Turn off Windows Messenger
>
>
> Eh... yeah? Of course, intentionally running an insecure-by-design
> software is never a good idea.
are you against IM or just against MSN + MSNP ?
Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
>>> MVPS hosts file
>>
>> A very bad start for a proposedly good start. What should this
>> **** be good for, other than ****ing up the system?
>
> what???? a good hosts file doesn't f*ckup anything.
It does. It slows down the resolver and, in case of Windows, even
partitially breaks it. Aside from that, it's simply superfluos.
Even further, it simply doesn't work, as a normal user doesn't have write
access to the HOSTS file, and doesn't have the privilege to restart the
system either - neither would this be reasonable.
>> If you
>> really like a Mozilla core, take Mozilla SeaMonkey.
> I use Portable Apps and SM is not yet available.
Mozilla SeaMonkey is profile-portable by design.
>>> a good AV solution(like NOD32)
>>
>> This is not even a solution at all.
> what do you use?
A real solution: a global non-exec policy enforced by the kernel.
>>> Spyware Blaster
>>> Spybot Search+Destroy immunization
>
> any added protection that uses no extra resources is a good thing.
Any added software increases complexity and therefore decreases security.
Unless it can actually justify this, it is a bad thing. Spyware scanners
definitely are bad, and this immunization stuff has only one purpose:
****ing up the system.
> Why do you say anything is broken????
Because it usually is. Just like your concept.
goarilla wrote:
> common i know lots of entries pointing to localhost is a cat and mouse game
> at best but still ...
it slows down the resolver and, in case of Windows, partitially breaks it.
Updating the HOSTS file requires write access that a normal user doesn't
have there, and an unwanted restart.
> yes firefox is well ... a horrible code base but besides opera
> are there really any good standards compliant (sort of) browsers out there
> besides SM shares a LOT of that horrible code base
Hm? The horrible code of Firefox starts where the common base ends.
> how is firefox broken ?
Just one keyword: Global Namespace Pollution
> true but NOD32 is the nicest of all PAV solutions (personal anti-virus
So what? I'd say my trash can is the most beautiful one in the area. Yet
it's full of garbage and stinks.
> are you against IM or just against MSN + MSNP ?
Not even against the MSN IM protocol, but you should use an IM
implementation that isn't designed to execute arbitrary commands of the
attackers choice by default - which applies to Windows Messenger, MSN
Messenger, MSN Explorer, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ/Lite and AIM. Quite strange
that all the "official" clients are all broken by design, and the
third-party implementations are the only safe ones...
Sebastian G. wrote:
> goarilla wrote:
>
>
>> common i know lots of entries pointing to localhost is a cat and mouse
>> game
>> at best but still ...
>
>
> it slows down the resolver and, in case of Windows, partitially breaks
> it. Updating the HOSTS file requires write access that a normal user
> doesn't have there, and an unwanted restart.
>
never had a problem with it on a win xp machine
but i don't really use the machine, my sister does
>> yes firefox is well ... a horrible code base but besides opera
>> are there really any good standards compliant (sort of) browsers out
>> there
>> besides SM shares a LOT of that horrible code base
>
>
> Hm? The horrible code of Firefox starts where the common base ends.
XUL is a big bloated piece of crap
>
>> how is firefox broken ?
>
>
> Just one keyword: Global Namespace Pollution
>
>> true but NOD32 is the nicest of all PAV solutions (personal anti-virus
>>
>
>
> So what? I'd say my trash can is the most beautiful one in the area. Yet
> it's full of garbage and stinks.
>
you may talk all big and mighty but you're probably working with homogenous
network environments in which ADS,group policy, proxy servers, etc, ...
can be implemented
sadly this isn't the case in 99,99 % of the home LAN environments and in
which NOD32 is really really nice
although it's a band-aid
>> are you against IM or just against MSN + MSNP ?
>
>
> Not even against the MSN IM protocol, but you should use an IM
> implementation that isn't designed to execute arbitrary commands of the
> attackers choice by default - which applies to Windows Messenger, MSN
> Messenger, MSN Explorer, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ/Lite and AIM. Quite
> strange that all the "official" clients are all broken by design, and
> the third-party implementations are the only safe ones...
true i use biltlebee + irssi
goarilla wrote:
> XUL is a big bloated piece of crap
Quite the contrary. It allows for reference safety, type safety and contract
enforcement, and is still very fast due to JIT. One could compare it to
Java, or rather Python (because it allows on-the-fly changes).
>> So what? I'd say my trash can is the most beautiful one in the area. Yet
>> it's full of garbage and stinks.
>>
>
> you may talk all big and mighty but you're probably working with homogenous
> network environments in which ADS,group policy, proxy servers, etc, ...
> can be implemented
I wouldn't call a mixture of SunRay with Solaris and Debian Linux, x86 with
Debian and Windows 2000 + XP homogenous.
But why do you name group policy? This is, by design, not a security measure.
> sadly this isn't the case in 99,99 % of the home LAN environments and in
> which NOD32 is really really nice
> although it's a band-aid
As you say: it's a band-aid. Nothing more. Security starts with addressing
the causing, not cascading the symptoms. Especially since the main problem,
lacking user education, is even further amplified.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote