"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:5oskh0FocibuU1@mid.dfncis.de:

> Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
>> news:5or7lsFo7ldiU1@mid.dfncis.de:
>>
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You've got my curiosity. What problem do you have with the listed
>>>> applications?
>>>
>>> Beside the obvious?
>>
>> I don't know the obvious problems you have with the programs listed,
>> hence my question. Would you elaborate please?
>
>
> Firefox: the worst thing you could made out of the Gecko platform

Examples please?

> NOD32: virus scanner... highly incomplete approach and high potential
> for parsing vulnerabilities and privilege escalation

NOD32 is considered one of the best engines available, Would you mind
explaining further these issues you have with it?

> Spyware Blaster: spyware scanner... totally stupid approach, horrible
> amount of false positives, and of cause it's too stupid to do a simple
> unprivileged task without administrative privileges

Spyware Blaster...isn't a scanner, at all. How can it get any false
positives sir? It doesn't scan for anything. And, it can't do it's thing
without admin rights, due to the registry keys which have to be modified.
That's a good thing. I wouldn't want a program being able to set those
keys if I was on the guest account.

> Spybot Search+Destroy immunization: aside from cluttering the
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE hive full of useless ClassID, it achieves exactly
> what? malware authors simply use randomly generated GUIDs or simply


Blocks installation of older malware applications with GUID's that are
already known and used.

> registrationless COM. MSIE still remains fully vulnerable to

I certainly don't dispute the security risks present with MSIE.

> all. Windows Messenger: another documented security hole by design

I've never been a fan of windows messenger either, sir.

>
>> My linksys is a routing firewall, sir. I specify the ports I want
>> redirected inside the lan and it does so.
>
>
> So what? Can you specify something like:
>
> queue: prerouting:
> route TCP syn from any to me
> queue postrouting:
> check-state
> deny TCP syn from any to me 1-1023
> allow TCP syn from any to any keep-state
> allow TCP syn,ack from any to me keep-state
> allow TCP ack from any to me keep-state

Nope, I certainly can't.

> If not, then obviously didn't ask anything that would be sufficient
> for a firewall concept yet.

I asked you specifically what you felt was a firewall, I didn't ask for a
trolling response. And I thank you for the time you spent responding
to me.




--
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