Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).

When I shut down the PC I see a message telling "do you want to stop Outpost
service....." and both if I say yes or not the comp takes a lot of time to
switch off.

I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of "stop
Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".

Any hint, please?

Thank you

Marky

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:06:11 +0200, "themark"
wrote:



>Any hint, please?

http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum/

>
>Thank you
>
>Marky
>

BTW, Outpost is not really a firewall. It's a badly implemented packet
filter.

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

"B. Nice" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:8apag2pbjo70jdncf7n3ikorjsjjeoh807@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:06:11 +0200, "themark"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Any hint, please?
>
> http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum/
>
> >
> >Thank you
> >
> >Marky
> >
>
> BTW, Outpost is not really a firewall. It's a badly implemented packet
> filter.
>
> /B. Nice
>
Which FW would you advice then? Thanks

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

themark wrote:
> I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).

Sincere condolences.

> I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of "stop
> Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".
> Any hint, please?

Because Outpost has sincere security design flaws, maybe you could
consider using just the Windows-Firewall.

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:04:01 +0200, "themark"
wrote:

>
>"B. Nice" ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:8apag2pbjo70jdncf7n3ikorjsjjeoh807@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:06:11 +0200, "themark"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Any hint, please?
>>
>> http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum/
>>
>> >
>> >Thank you
>> >
>> >Marky
>> >
>>
>> BTW, Outpost is not really a firewall. It's a badly implemented packet
>> filter.
>>
>> /B. Nice
>>
>Which FW would you advice then? Thanks
>

Assuming that you are talking about protecting the machine you are
using yourself - none.

What to put instead would depend on your configuration and needs.

Having a look at previous threads could also be helpful.

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <4ml1pjF6jmvtU1@individual.net>, themarkNOSPAM@tele2.it
says...
> I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).
>
> When I shut down the PC I see a message telling "do you want to stop Outpost
> service....." and both if I say yes or not the comp takes a lot of time to
> switch off.
>
> I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of "stop
> Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".
>
> Any hint, please?
>
> Thank you
>
> Marky
>
>
>
If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
forums.Windows firewall has had bugs too.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:38:31 +0100, bassbag
wrote:

>In article <4ml1pjF6jmvtU1@individual.net>, themarkNOSPAM@tele2.it
>says...
>> I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).
>>
>> When I shut down the PC I see a message telling "do you want to stop Outpost
>> service....." and both if I say yes or not the comp takes a lot of time to
>> switch off.
>>
>> I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of "stop
>> Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".
>>
>> Any hint, please?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Marky
>>
>>
>>
>If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
>forums.

If you want application filtering for the purpose of trying to control
malware you are in trouble.

>Windows firewall has had bugs too.

Also by design?

>me

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:
> If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
> forums.Windows firewall has had bugs too.

Do you know the security design flaws Outpost has? And: what "bugs" are
you talking about?

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <450590bf@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> bassbag wrote:
> > If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
> > forums.Windows firewall has had bugs too.
>
> Do you know the security design flaws Outpost has? And: what "bugs" are
> you talking about?
>
> Yours,
> VB.
>
You can ask at outpost forums if your not sure about outpost design ,and
google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <6q3bg2tp6if216dgcm6d1r1mhhk92hup1n@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:38:31 +0100, bassbag
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4ml1pjF6jmvtU1@individual.net>, themarkNOSPAM@tele2.it
> >says...
> >> I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).
> >>
> >> When I shut down the PC I see a message telling "do you want to stop Outpost
> >> service....." and both if I say yes or not the comp takes a lot of time to
> >> switch off.
> >>
> >> I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of "stop
> >> Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".
> >>
> >> Any hint, please?
> >>
> >> Thank you
> >>
> >> Marky
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
> >forums.
>
> If you want application filtering for the purpose of trying to control
> malware you are in trouble.
>
> >Windows firewall has had bugs too.
>
> Also by design?
>
> >me
>
> /B. Nice
>
>
Thanks for your opinion...and google is your friend regarding windows
firewall.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:
> > Do you know the security design flaws Outpost has? And: what "bugs" are
> > you talking about?
> You can ask at outpost forums if your not sure about outpost design

I'm pretty sure about Outpost's design, because we tested it. Outpost
has bad security design flaws, for example it installs a system service,
which opens windows and therefore makes your PC vulnerable to privilege
elevation attacks, and it makes a PC vulnerable to the SelfDoS attack.

>,and
> google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.

It isn't. I can't find what you're claiming. May I ask you to specify
what you're meaning and to offer proofs, please?

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <4505ab90@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> bassbag wrote:
> > > Do you know the security design flaws Outpost has? And: what "bugs" are
> > > you talking about?
> > You can ask at outpost forums if your not sure about outpost design
>
> I'm pretty sure about Outpost's design, because we tested it. Outpost
> has bad security design flaws, for example it installs a system service,
> which opens windows and therefore makes your PC vulnerable to privilege
> elevation attacks, and it makes a PC vulnerable to the SelfDoS attack.


Perhaps youd better not use outpost then if you feel insecure.


> >,and
> > google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.
>
> It isn't. I can't find what you're claiming. May I ask you to specify
> what you're meaning and to offer proofs, please?
>

You havent looked hard enough.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:

> You havent looked hard enough.

Then show us! Until then I will assume you are FOS. Outpost is an
annoying piece of software. The only other software I have found more
annoying is Anti-Hook.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article , no1@home.today says...
> bassbag wrote:
>
> > You havent looked hard enough.
>
> Then show us! Until then I will assume you are FOS. Outpost is an
> annoying piece of software. The only other software I have found more
> annoying is Anti-Hook.
>

Assume what you wish....perhaps you should google on how to google and
get results?.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot wrote:
> bassbag wrote:
>
>> You havent looked hard enough.
>
>
> Then show us! Until then I will assume you are FOS. Outpost is an
> annoying piece of software. The only other software I have found more
> annoying is Anti-Hook.

You better watch out bass. Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent
and kin to 000-Dennis-Le-Menice his daddy seems to be on another Mission
Impossible. You should request that he prove to us that he is not on
something, because he is for sure looking like he needs maximum strength
meds of some sort. ;-)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <3fkNg.10721$xQ1.3179@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Duane
Arnold <"Do forget about it"@PleaeDo.BET> says...
> Garrot wrote:
> > bassbag wrote:
> >
> >> You havent looked hard enough.
> >
> >
> > Then show us! Until then I will assume you are FOS. Outpost is an
> > annoying piece of software. The only other software I have found more
> > annoying is Anti-Hook.
>
> You better watch out bass. Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent
> and kin to 000-Dennis-Le-Menice his daddy seems to be on another Mission
> Impossible. You should request that he prove to us that he is not on
> something, because he is for sure looking like he needs maximum strength
> meds of some sort. ;-)
>
>
Hehe...very funny Duane. The only "tripping" i see so often here, is of
the "ego" kind.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

"bassbag" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:MPG.1f6f9356bd9e70939896e6@news.ispserve.co.uk...
> In article <4ml1pjF6jmvtU1@individual.net>, themarkNOSPAM@tele2.it
> says...
> > I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).
> >
> > When I shut down the PC I see a message telling "do you want to stop
Outpost
> > service....." and both if I say yes or not the comp takes a lot of time
to
> > switch off.
> >
> > I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of
"stop
> > Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".
> >
> > Any hint, please?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Marky
> >
> >
> >
> If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
> forums.Windows firewall has had bugs too.
> m

jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
everyone seems to be hurted personally
maybe this is the one and only time I will post here

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:03:21 +0200, "themark"
wrote:



>jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this

If you had taken the time to do a little research back in the group
first, you would have known ;-)

>everyone seems to be hurted personally

I don't see that. However, I do see some posters taking the word
security in the group name seriously.

>maybe this is the one and only time I will post here

Your choice. But one can actually learn something from time to time by
reading this newsgroup. And luckily there are different opinions to
almost any topic.

Just my personal opinion.

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure about Outpost's design, because we tested it. Outpost
> > has bad security design flaws, for example it installs a system service,
> > which opens windows and therefore makes your PC vulnerable to privilege
> > elevation attacks, and it makes a PC vulnerable to the SelfDoS attack.
> Perhaps youd better not use outpost then if you feel insecure.

I don't use it.

> > > google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.
> > It isn't. I can't find what you're claiming. May I ask you to specify
> > what you're meaning and to offer proofs, please?
> You havent looked hard enough.

Really? Or don't you know what you're talking about?

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <45069390@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> bassbag wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure about Outpost's design, because we tested it. Outpost
> > > has bad security design flaws, for example it installs a system service,
> > > which opens windows and therefore makes your PC vulnerable to privilege
> > > elevation attacks, and it makes a PC vulnerable to the SelfDoS attack.
> > Perhaps youd better not use outpost then if you feel insecure.
>
> I don't use it.

Good for you.
>
> > > > google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.
> > > It isn't. I can't find what you're claiming. May I ask you to specify
> > > what you're meaning and to offer proofs, please?
> > You havent looked hard enough.
>
> Really? Or don't you know what you're talking about?

I do...its you that seem confused.
me
>
> Yours,
> VB.
>

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <4mn4drF6pedjU1@individual.net>, themarkNOSPAM@tele2.it
says...
>
> "bassbag" ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:MPG.1f6f9356bd9e70939896e6@news.ispserve.co.uk...
> > In article <4ml1pjF6jmvtU1@individual.net>, themarkNOSPAM@tele2.it
> > says...
> > > I use Outpost firewall on a XP SP2 system (NOD 32 as antivir soft).
> > >
> > > When I shut down the PC I see a message telling "do you want to stop
> Outpost
> > > service....." and both if I say yes or not the comp takes a lot of time
> to
> > > switch off.
> > >
> > > I tried to search into Outpost properties to find an option kind of
> "stop
> > > Outpost without asking" or something like that but no luck".
> > >
> > > Any hint, please?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Marky
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > If you want application filtering,stick with outpost and ask at the
> > forums.Windows firewall has had bugs too.
> > m
>
> jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
> everyone seems to be hurted personally
> maybe this is the one and only time I will post here
>
>
>
You havent started a fuss at all.What was the outcome of your
question?.Did you try outpost or some other firewall or decide none of
them wasnt for you?
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Duane Arnold wrote:

> You better watch out bass. Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent
> and kin to 000-Dennis-Le-Menice his daddy seems to be on another Mission
> Impossible. You should request that he prove to us that he is not on
> something, because he is for sure looking like he needs maximum strength
> meds of some sort. ;-)
>

Poor wittle Dwayne is stilled pissed over the ass -whooping I gave him.
Don't worry Dwayne, time heals.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

themark wrote:

> jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
> everyone seems to be hurted personally
> maybe this is the one and only time I will post here
>
>

Welcome to Usenet, this is normal behavior for Usenet.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> You better watch out bass. Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent
>> and kin to 000-Dennis-Le-Menice his daddy seems to be on another
>> Mission Impossible. You should request that he prove to us that he is
>> not on something, because he is for sure looking like he needs maximum
>> strength meds of some sort. ;-)
>>
>
> Poor wittle Dwayne is stilled pissed over the ass -whooping I gave him.
> Don't worry Dwayne, time heals.

You really think so do you?

LOL

Duane :)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> You better watch out bass. Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent
>> and kin to 000-Dennis-Le-Menice his daddy seems to be on another
>> Mission Impossible. You should request that he prove to us that he is
>> not on something, because he is for sure looking like he needs maximum
>> strength meds of some sort. ;-)
>>
>
> Poor wittle Dwayne is stilled pissed over the ass -whooping I gave him.
> Don't worry Dwayne, time heals.

And he bit bit again . :-)

LOL, I got to get back to work.

LOL

Duane :)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent wrote: ;-)
> themark wrote:
>
>> jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
>> everyone seems to be hurted personally
>> maybe this is the one and only time I will post here
>>
>>
>
> Welcome to Usenet, this is normal behavior for Usenet.

I didn't read the other part of the original post, but I bet you, you
little smart mouth bastard, you had a smart remark.

We'll meet again Agent. You put yourself here I didn't put here.

EOR ;-)

Duane :)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:
> > > > > google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.
> > > > It isn't. I can't find what you're claiming. May I ask you to specify
> > > > what you're meaning and to offer proofs, please?
> > > You havent looked hard enough.
> > Really? Or don't you know what you're talking about?
> I do...its you that seem confused.

I take that as an "I'm just claiming, and I don't want to proof
anything" from you. Then a discussion with you will be useless.

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:55:23 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article , no1@home.today says...
>> themark wrote:
>>
>> > jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
>> > everyone seems to be hurted personally
>> > maybe this is the one and only time I will post here
>>
>> Welcome to Usenet, this is normal behavior for Usenet.
>
>No, this is standard behavior for children and people that troll. Usenet
>is only confrontational when people, either side or both, are too
>immature to care that their point may be incorrect.

*LOL*. Does this mean that from now on you will also start to care if
your points may actually be incorrect?

>Kind of like the "Only windows firewall is good enough for every case
>posted here" group, that states nothing other than the Windows firewall
>can really protect anyone.

First of all, that's just another example of your common twist of
words.

Second, there are many groups here. Like the "I don't have to prove
anything or provide references for my claims" group which you belong
to.

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Duane Arnold wrote:

> You put yourself here I didn't put here.

I take it English is not your first language.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <4507dbfe@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> bassbag wrote:
> > > > > > google is your friend regarding windows firewall bugs.
> > > > > It isn't. I can't find what you're claiming. May I ask you to specify
> > > > > what you're meaning and to offer proofs, please?
> > > > You havent looked hard enough.
> > > Really? Or don't you know what you're talking about?
> > I do...its you that seem confused.
>
> I take that as an "I'm just claiming, and I don't want to proof
> anything" from you. Then a discussion with you will be useless.
>
> Yours,
> VB.
>
And I take it that your either too thick or just too lazy to use google
search,....but you are correct in one thing ,a discussion between us
would be useless.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:
> And I take it that your either too thick or just too lazy to use google
> search,

Or in other words: you're telling lies.

VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <450835e1@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> bassbag wrote:
> > And I take it that your either too thick or just too lazy to use google
> > search,
>
> Or in other words: you're telling lies.
>
> VB.
>

No...it just proves my previous assumptions of you being too stupid and
lazy are correct.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag schrieb:

> In article <450835e1@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> > bassbag wrote:
> > > And I take it that your either too thick or just too lazy to use goog=
le
> > > search,
> >
> > Or in other words: you're telling lies.
> >
> > VB.
> >
>
> No...it just proves my previous assumptions of you being too stupid and
> lazy are correct.


You=B4re childish. Name your evidence and discuss it.

Thomas

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

bassbag wrote:
> > Or in other words: you're telling lies.
> No...it just proves my previous assumptions of you being too stupid and
> lazy are correct.

Claims without proofs, refusing to make proofs, being offending instead
=> k00k.

*PLONK*

VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <1158177839.577313.296520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
thomas.hertel@gmx.net says...
>
> bassbag schrieb:
>
> > In article <450835e1@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> > > bassbag wrote:
> > > > And I take it that your either too thick or just too lazy to use google
> > > > search,
> > >
> > > Or in other words: you're telling lies.
> > >
> > > VB.
> > >
> >
> > No...it just proves my previous assumptions of you being too stupid and
> > lazy are correct.
>
>
> You=3Fre childish. Name your evidence and discuss it.
>
> Thomas
>
>
I dont believe i was addressing you, unless you think yourself as some
sort of Volker Birk protege?.If so,then the answers clear...google is
your friend ;)
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

In article <4508677c@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> bassbag wrote:
> > > Or in other words: you're telling lies.
> > No...it just proves my previous assumptions of you being too stupid and
> > lazy are correct.
>
> Claims without proofs, refusing to make proofs, being offending instead
> => k00k.
>
> *PLONK*
>
> VB.
>
Its hardly my fault that you are incapable of using a search engine.Being
offensive seems to be an equally unwelcome trait of yours Mr Birk.
me

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> You put yourself here I didn't put here.
>
>
> I take it English is not your first language.

When I talked to your mama and told her to shave her nasty back, she did
have a problem. ;-)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent, when I talked to your mama
and told her I wanted to see the little Agent, she told me she had just
given you your bottle and you were in the crib knocked out.

She told me when the little 007-Carrot wakes up, she would either put
you on your pony the broom handle with the sock on it and you could
hippity hop your way. Her other option she had was putting you on the *I
Spy Big Wheel* and you could power peddle your way to see me.

I told her either way she did it make sure she put you in street traffic
and lets see if the little Agent makes it. She agreed to the suggestion.



EOR

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:52 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article ,
>b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:55:23 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>>
>> >In article , no1@home.today says...
>> >> themark wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
>> >> > everyone seems to be hurted personally
>> >> > maybe this is the one and only time I will post here
>> >>
>> >> Welcome to Usenet, this is normal behavior for Usenet.
>> >
>> >No, this is standard behavior for children and people that troll. Usenet
>> >is only confrontational when people, either side or both, are too
>> >immature to care that their point may be incorrect.
>>
>> *LOL*. Does this mean that from now on you will also start to care if
>> your points may actually be incorrect?
>>
>> >Kind of like the "Only windows firewall is good enough for every case
>> >posted here" group, that states nothing other than the Windows firewall
>> >can really protect anyone.
>>
>> First of all, that's just another example of your common twist of
>> words.
>>
>> Second, there are many groups here. Like the "I don't have to prove
>> anything or provide references for my claims" group which you belong
>> to.
>

subject>

The point here is that you are just as stubborn as the ones you are
pointing fingers at.

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:40:40 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article ,
>b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:52 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> >b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:55:23 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article , no1@home.today says...
>> >> >> themark wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > jeez, I only asked for a hint, did not want to start a fuss like this
>> >> >> > everyone seems to be hurted personally
>> >> >> > maybe this is the one and only time I will post here
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Welcome to Usenet, this is normal behavior for Usenet.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, this is standard behavior for children and people that troll. Usenet
>> >> >is only confrontational when people, either side or both, are too
>> >> >immature to care that their point may be incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> *LOL*. Does this mean that from now on you will also start to care if
>> >> your points may actually be incorrect?
>> >>
>> >> >Kind of like the "Only windows firewall is good enough for every case
>> >> >posted here" group, that states nothing other than the Windows firewall
>> >> >can really protect anyone.
>> >>
>> >> First of all, that's just another example of your common twist of
>> >> words.
>> >>
>> >> Second, there are many groups here. Like the "I don't have to prove
>> >> anything or provide references for my claims" group which you belong
>> >> to.
>> >
>>
>> >> subject>
>>
>> The point here is that you are just as stubborn as the ones you are
>> pointing fingers at.
>
>Being on the right side is not being stubborn, but I expected a comment
>like that from you.

Ditto.

/B. Nice

--
Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Duane Arnold wrote:
> Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent, when I talked to your mama
> and told her I wanted to see the little Agent, she told me she had just
> given you your bottle and you were in the crib knocked out.
>
> She told me when the little 007-Carrot wakes up, she would either put
> you on your pony the broom handle with the sock on it and you could
> hippity hop your way. Her other option she had was putting you on the *I
> Spy Big Wheel* and you could power peddle your way to see me.
>
> I told her either way she did it make sure she put you in street traffic
> and lets see if the little Agent makes it. She agreed to the suggestion.
>
>
>
> EOR

You're defnitely some Euro trash weenie, one can easily tell from your
goofy sense of humour.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent and Euro Trash fish a special
kind of fish with a hook in the mouth and butt wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent, when I talked to your mama
>> and told her I wanted to see the little Agent, she told me she had
>> just given you your bottle and you were in the crib knocked out.
>>
>> She told me when the little 007-Carrot wakes up, she would either put
>> you on your pony the broom handle with the sock on it and you could
>> hippity hop your way. Her other option she had was putting you on the
>> *I Spy Big Wheel* and you could power peddle your way to see me.
>>
>> I told her either way she did it make sure she put you in street
>> traffic and lets see if the little Agent makes it. She agreed to the
>> suggestion.
>>
>>
>>
>> EOR
>
>
> You're defnitely a EOR Specilist and you're great, one can easily tell from your
> *Rag Game* that you're too good for me. I have no game. :(

It's for a 007-Goofy-Carrot-Fish. You're such the Euro fish and you're
one of the goofy Euro trash fish at that. You're the kind of goofy Euro
Trash fish that you will jump out of the water, put a hook in your mouth
and your butt, and you won't get out of the boat.

I may have to call your mama after she finishes shaving her back and
tell her to come get her *boy*. He's loose again and he's playing in the
river.



You put yourself here. I didn't put you here. ;-)



I'll keep casting the line.

EOR

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:

>
> You're defnitely some Euro trash weenie, one can easily tell from your
> goofy sense of humour.

Ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahha! I certainly doubt it.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Duane Arnold wrote:

> I'll keep casting the line.

You've been casting the line? Grandeurs of delusion is more like it.
Stay away from Duane kiddies, he's not quite right in the head.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot aka 007-Carrot Spyware Secret Agent and fish on the hook wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> I'll keep casting the line.
>
>
> Carrot is on the line again? Grandeurs of 007-Carrot with his delusions of App Control
> is more like it. And he's king of the PFW's

> Stay away from Garrot folks, he's a smart mouth little *clown* the 007-Carrot
> with a big ego and big head to boot.

Is that right? Say it's not so little Agent. Say it's not so little Agent.

Little Agent shows up in the NG and tries to prove himself. He thinks
his shit don't stink and he knows it all, because he's the little smart
mouth Agent. He is just another dime a dozen *clown* that shows up in
the NG at least once a year. It never fails.

It's the same song and dance, just another *clown*. ;-)

We've all seen it before little Agent. You're not special.

EOR

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Duane Arnold wrote:

> Is that right? Say it's not so little Agent. Say it's not so little Agent.
>
> Little Agent shows up in the NG and tries to prove himself. He thinks
> his shit don't stink and he knows it all, because he's the little smart
> mouth Agent. He is just another dime a dozen *clown* that shows up in
> the NG at least once a year. It never fails.
>
> It's the same song and dance, just another *clown*. ;-)
>
> We've all seen it before little Agent. You're not special.
>
> EOR
>
>
>
>

I've been posting and reading here for years, dork. Too bad you can't
accept the fact that a firewall with outbound protection can be of use
against some shitware. Oh right, you're a developer of shitware yourself
so that explains it.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot aka 007-Carrot Shitware Secret Agent wrote:
> Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> Is that right? Say it's not so little Agent. Say it's not so little
>> Agent.
>>
>> Little Agent shows up in the NG and tries to prove himself. He thinks
>> his shit don't stink and he knows it all, because he's the little
>> smart mouth Agent. He is just another dime a dozen *clown* that shows
>> up in the NG at least once a year. It never fails.
>>
>> It's the same song and dance, just another *clown*. ;-)
>>
>> We've all seen it before little Agent. You're not special.
>>
>> EOR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I've been posting and reading here for years, dork. Too bad you can't
> accept the fact that a firewall with outbound protection can be of use
> against some shitware. Oh right, you're a developer of shitware yourself
> so that explains it.

Oh, should I call you Garrot aka 007-Carrot Shitware Secret Agent with
the *World's Dirtiest Job* now? What oh what are you doing with your
computer 007-Carrot?

If you have been coming here for years, then you should know better than
this and that you can't stop an enema. You CANNOT do it with toilet
paper. Toilet pager CAN'T stop shit.

Up until now, I never noticed your dumbass before. Therefore, you must
have been insignificant. Did you learn your smart mouth tactics over the
years too?

I am kicking back in the boat and the poll is over the side.

I'll be here casting as long as you want to be here boy. ;-)

EOR - Equal Oppertunity Ragger

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Toilet paper CAN'T stop shit.



EOR

Re: Toilet pager can"t stop shit -- sounds better.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:10:16 GMT, Duane Arnold <"Do forget about
it"@PleaeDo.BET> wrote:


>I am kicking back in the boat and the poll is over the side.
>
>I'll be here casting as long as you want to be here boy. ;-)

You won't catch any fish without any bait.

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Garrot wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:10:16 GMT, Duane Arnold <"Do forget about
> it"@PleaeDo.BET> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I am kicking back in the boat and the poll is over the side.
>>
>>I'll be here casting as long as you want to be here boy. ;-)
>
>
> You won't catch any fish without any bait.

Oh, so you admit that you are a fish? I already told you that you were a
Euro Trash fish a bottom feeder. They usually eat other's *shitware*.

Your shit is so weak at the game that's it pathetic. You can even come
back with anything worth a decent return gun fire on my part. ;-)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

> Your shit is so weak at the game that's it pathetic. You *can't* even
> come back with anything worth a decent return gun fire on my part. ;-)



EOR

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Apologies for replying late to this thread, but I can't let this slip.

Leythos wrote:
> Are you stating that applications can not create exceptions in the
> windows firewall?

Applications can do that in exactly two cases:

a) UPnP is enabled and allowed to make changes to the firewall.
b) The application is run with admin privileges.

UPnP should rather be disabled anyway, so a) is not an issue, and in the
case of b) any application has full control over the system anyway, so
there's no way of stopping it from doing anything it pleases.

> Are you stating that windows firewall includes monitoring services
> that provide users with real-time information on in/out traffic?

Anyone who feels he needed this can install PortReporter [1], which has
much less impact on system resources than any personal firewall I have
seen up to now.

[1] http://support.microsoft.com/?id=837243

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4nina7FaneqlU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> Are you stating that applications can not create exceptions in the
>>> windows firewall?
>>
>> Applications can do that in exactly two cases:
>>
>> a) UPnP is enabled and allowed to make changes to the firewall.
>> b) The application is run with admin privileges.
>
> So, we're back to where Windows firewall is a open path in-bound
> concerning malware and most all other firewall solutions at least have
> a hope of blocking the malware from creating an exception or at least
> warning the user about it as/before it's done.

No. Read again.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4nir70Fah1knU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> So, we're back to where Windows firewall is a open path in-bound
>>> concerning malware and most all other firewall solutions at least
>>> have a hope of blocking the malware from creating an exception or at
>>> least warning the user about it as/before it's done.
>>
>> No. Read again.
>
> Both cases are the typical default on a Windows computer installed by
> non-technical & non-security types.

Then the reasonable measure is to change this, NOT to install additional
software.

> The response stands.

The response is pointless. In a case where an application is run with
admin privileges all bets are off and you'll depend on sheer luck
whether any other software will or won't catch anything malicious this
software may attempt. So if you like to base your security concepts on
luck: be my guest. I don't, and I won't recommend doing so to anyone.
Especially not on a security newsgroup.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4nkj72FarffiU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <4nir70Fah1knU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
>>> says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> So, we're back to where Windows firewall is a open path in-bound
>>>>> concerning malware and most all other firewall solutions at least
>>>>> have a hope of blocking the malware from creating an exception or
>>>>> at least warning the user about it as/before it's done.
>>>>
>>>> No. Read again.
>>>
>>> Both cases are the typical default on a Windows computer installed
>>> by non-technical & non-security types.
>>
>> Then the reasonable measure is to change this, NOT to install
>> additional software.
>
> No, the entire point was, on a default installation, is there anything
> that protects a user better than the Windows Firewall.

Of course there is. Not using an account with admin privileges for
day-to-day work for instance.

> You won't get users to change their settings, to change that they use
> an Administrator account, etc... At least not for most of them. So, it
> stands, can ZoneAlarm and other products protect a user more than
> Windows Firewall can?

No.

Besides, if you can get them to install %SOFTWARE%, why do you believe
you couldn't get them to use restricted accounts?

>>> The response stands.
>>
>> The response is pointless. In a case where an application is run with
>> admin privileges all bets are off and you'll depend on sheer luck
>> whether any other software will or won't catch anything malicious
>> this software may attempt. So if you like to base your security
>> concepts on luck: be my guest. I don't, and I won't recommend doing
>> so to anyone. Especially not on a security newsgroup.
>
> In almost 30 years of using computers, designing networks, having
> customers use my designs, I've only had one case were a customer was
> compromised, and the firewall alerted me to it - it was a laptop while
> outside of the company and their home network.

So you were lucky. Big whoop.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4nlbsvFakbroU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> No, the entire point was, on a default installation, is there
>>> anything that protects a user better than the Windows Firewall.
>>
>> Of course there is. Not using an account with admin privileges for
>> day-to-day work for instance.
>
> I understand that, but, unless you've been asleep for the last 10
> years, most every home user running Windows is running as a local
> admin, not to mention all the small businesses that are also running
> as either a domain admin or a local admin on a workstation.

Which is exactly what needs to be changed.

>>> You won't get users to change their settings, to change that they
>>> use an Administrator account, etc... At least not for most of them.
>>> So, it stands, can ZoneAlarm and other products protect a user more
>>> than Windows Firewall can?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Besides, if you can get them to install %SOFTWARE%, why do you
>> believe you couldn't get them to use restricted accounts?
>
> Because they will have problems running applications as limited users
> - QuickBooks, POGO games, some reporting tools, many online FPS
> games...

You DID notice the boatloads of people popping up here and elsewhere
having problems caused by running personal firewalls, didn't you?

> The simple fact is that as long as Microsoft installs with users as
> admins, with the inability to run common apps unless an administrator
> level account, etc... users are going to be exposed to all sorts of
> threats.

Most applications can be run as normal user nowadays. Most applications
that can't can be configured to run as normal user by minor changes to
file or registry ACLs. All you need to do is create a freakin' normal
user-account.

> Windows Firewall COULD have been a proper firewall, blocking
> in/outbound PORTS, ignoring applications, and providing a real-time
> interface to show traffic, but, as it is, it fails to protect user at
> anything other than a very basic level, and is less protection than
> most of the major PFW solutions on the market.

*sigh*

One more time: as long as an application is run by an admin user there
is NO way ANY software (not the Windows Firewall and not any personal
firewall) could enforce control over that application.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4nlm6uFb324jU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <4nlbsvFakbroU1@individual.net>, usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net
>>> says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> No, the entire point was, on a default installation, is there
>>>>> anything that protects a user better than the Windows Firewall.
>>>>
>>>> Of course there is. Not using an account with admin privileges for
>>>> day-to-day work for instance.
>>>
>>> I understand that, but, unless you've been asleep for the last 10
>>> years, most every home user running Windows is running as a local
>>> admin, not to mention all the small businesses that are also running
>>> as either a domain admin or a local admin on a workstation.
>>
>> Which is exactly what needs to be changed.
>
> Um, did you miss that it's been this way for almost as long as
> Microsoft has been around. Not one of their version of any OS they've
> produced as defaulted to protected mode.

And this is a reason NOT to change anything about it, because ...?

>>>>> You won't get users to change their settings, to change that they
>>>>> use an Administrator account, etc... At least not for most of
>>>>> them. So, it stands, can ZoneAlarm and other products protect a
>>>>> user more than Windows Firewall can?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, if you can get them to install %SOFTWARE%, why do you
>>>> believe you couldn't get them to use restricted accounts?
>>>
>>> Because they will have problems running applications as limited
>>> users - QuickBooks, POGO games, some reporting tools, many online
>>> FPS games...
>>
>> You DID notice the boatloads of people popping up here and elsewhere
>> having problems caused by running personal firewalls, didn't you?
>
> Sure, I see it all the time. I've also seen people run with PFW
> solutions, for years at a time, without ANY problems with any of their
> applications.

Just like I have seen people work with reduced privileges for years
without problems. So you do agree then that running into problems at
times is neither an argument against running with normal user rights nor
is it an argument for using personal firewalls.

[...]
> So, answer that question, without any conditional crap, running as an
> Administrator, in a default installation of Windows XP, with Windows
> Firewall on one computer, ZoneAlarm on a second computer, which one is
> more likely to be compromised first if you do the same things on both
> computers?

Because of that "running as an administrator"-part they're equally
likely to get compromised. I already have said that above. You even
quoted that part.

Anyway, you'll obviously rather target the symptoms by adding more
layers of software (and complexity) than fix the underlying problem, so
we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net says...
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> No, the entire point was, on a default installation, is there
>>>>>>> anything that protects a user better than the Windows Firewall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there is. Not using an account with admin privileges
>>>>>> for day-to-day work for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that, but, unless you've been asleep for the last 10
>>>>> years, most every home user running Windows is running as a local
>>>>> admin, not to mention all the small businesses that are also
>>>>> running as either a domain admin or a local admin on a
>>>>> workstation.
>>>>
>>>> Which is exactly what needs to be changed.
>>>
>>> Um, did you miss that it's been this way for almost as long as
>>> Microsoft has been around. Not one of their version of any OS
>>> they've produced as defaulted to protected mode.
>>
>> And this is a reason NOT to change anything about it, because ...?
>
> Did I say it was not a reason to change it - are you unable to read?
> Understand this, "The default installation leaves users as an
> Administrator, that is the default, that is the reason we have as many
> compromised machines, until MS changes that, we need to find a way to
> protect users running as Administrators."

*sigh*

There is no way to protect a machine from its admin other than not
having him be the admin.

>>>>>>> You won't get users to change their settings, to change that
>>>>>>> they use an Administrator account, etc... At least not for most
>>>>>>> of them. So, it stands, can ZoneAlarm and other products protect
>>>>>>> a user more than Windows Firewall can?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, if you can get them to install %SOFTWARE%, why do you
>>>>>> believe you couldn't get them to use restricted accounts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they will have problems running applications as limited
>>>>> users - QuickBooks, POGO games, some reporting tools, many online
>>>>> FPS games...
>>>>
>>>> You DID notice the boatloads of people popping up here and
>>>> elsewhere having problems caused by running personal firewalls,
>>>> didn't you?
>>>
>>> Sure, I see it all the time. I've also seen people run with PFW
>>> solutions, for years at a time, without ANY problems with any of
>>> their applications.
>>
>> Just like I have seen people work with reduced privileges for years
>> without problems. So you do agree then that running into problems at
>> times is neither an argument against running with normal user rights
>> nor is it an argument for using personal firewalls.
>
> Account level was never a part of this discussion, you brought it into
> this.

Yes, I did, because it's a prerequisite for any reliable measure against
malware. As long as an application is running with admin privileges you
can only hope for it not having disabled your measures in the first
place. Meaning that all of your measures are based on luck, whether
you'd like to admit that or not.

> I'm talking about the merit of Windows Firewall on a DEFAULT
> WINDOWS XP BOX vs some other major firewall product.

So instead of comparing one security measure to another security measure
you're trying to compare a default Windows XP to a non-default Windows
XP. The latter is like comparing apples to coconuts. Of course you can
make that comparison, however, it'll be entirely pointless.

> So, as the default is to run (as it's been in every version of
> Windows) as an Administrator, the account type is a non-issue and
> should be left at Administrator for this discussion - this way we
> cover most typical users.

Contrary to your belief the account type is the main issue at hand here.

>> [...]
>>> So, answer that question, without any conditional crap, running as
>>> an Administrator, in a default installation of Windows XP, with
>>> Windows Firewall on one computer, ZoneAlarm on a second computer,
>>> which one is more likely to be compromised first if you do the same
>>> things on both computers?
>>
>> Because of that "running as an administrator"-part they're equally
>> likely to get compromised. I already have said that above. You even
>> quoted that part.
>>
>> Anyway, you'll obviously rather target the symptoms by adding more
>> layers of software (and complexity) than fix the underlying problem,
>> so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
>
> The underlying problem is this:
>
> Most users don't have a clue, don't know the difference between Admin
> and User level accounts.
>
> For most users, a box on a shelf that claims to protect them is a
> solution they can understand enough to install and most of those
> products also give the simple user a chance to learn.
>
> There are no products which IMPROVE the flaws in Windows Firewall, no
> products in a box that move a users account from a Admin level to a
> User level and then make all the adjustments to allow them to run
> properly as a limited user.
>
> There are products which work better than Windows Firewall and provide
> the user with some level of hope, although not entirely perfect, they
> are much better than Windows Firewall.
>
> Since we can't target the users, as there have been newspaper
> articles, websites, infomercials, friends, etc... telling people that
> they need to secure their machines and how to do it, and they still
> remain ignorant, by choice, of any of this. Those same people will see
> a product on the shelf of the local computer shop and purchase/install
> it, and have more protection and information than the Windows Firewall
> provides.

As long as they're running with admin privileges: no, they won't. And as
for your "level of hope": this is comp.security.firewalls, not
comp.security.hope. Security measures need to be reliable instead of
being based on something like hope or luck.

> Yes, I don't like either path they take, but, ask yourself this: If
> you could not change the account type, could not get the user to
> secure their machine with changes to permissions, what would you do? I
> would tell them to install ZAP or other product as WF is worthless in
> most cases.

I would tell them to do whatever they think they have to and not bother
me with it ever again. I will never recommend snake-oil.

> Now, forget everything else and look at just this part:
>
> If you are running as a Administrator on a default Windows box, is
> Windows Firewall going to provide AS MUCH protection as ZAP or another
> major player? Don't say if, well, only, under, ONLY ANSWER YES OR NO.

*sigh*

Are you retarded or what? I already gave you the answer twice, and I'm
not going to repeat it a third time. Read it up. It's even quoted in
this posting.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Leythos wrote:
> I guess that explains it - you see the issue as something that you
> can't handle without requiring everyone to change their computers.

So do you. Or what else would you call requiring everyone to install
addional software on their computers? The point is not whether or not a
change is required. A change IS required in any case. The point is that
the change I'm suggesting will work reliably, whereas the change you're
suggesting won't.

> While I don't care if they change, as I know it's not going to happen
> unless MS Forces it to happen, I know enough to see that Windows XP
> Firewall offers less total protection than does many of the third
> party apps under the same settings.

Unfortunately you don't seem to know enough to understand how unreliable
(and thus pointless) this "total protection" is.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier

Re: Outpost firewall prob when shutting down PC (XP SP2)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)