Guest Kayman Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: <snip for brevity> >>>Before Windows XP what were people using? >> >> I don't know but *I* was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application >> and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner :-) > > What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even > mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue? John, John (MVP), as I mentioned in a preceding thread, you can't be very intelligent and your lateral thinking capabilities are vitually not existent! Prior NT these apps were basically regarded essential tools. Don't you you know the meaning of *"incidentally"*? > If third party firewalls are only "so-called firewalls" then the Windows > XP firewall is no different, it too is nothing more than a personal > firewall. The WinXp firewall application is an *integral* part of the OS and deals with inbound protection and therefore does not give you a false sense of security. Best of all, it doesn't implement lots of nonsense like pretending that outbound traffic needs to be monitored. And yes, technically speaking, 'firewall' is really a misnomer. >>> What were they using on NT4 and on Windows 2000? >> >> >> I don't know. > > That doesn't surprise me. Why is that, and what is that supposed to mean? Ah, I recall a statement you made in a previous message: "*We all know* that the Windows firewall is sufficient and good at it's job...". I envy you for having the gift to know thoughts of others. (And my crystal ball ain't working - bummer). >>>Just because XP got a firewall now anything else has suddenly become >>>unfit for use? >> >> >> Well, these are throwaway words; If you were more open-minded' in relation >> to OS's and read (*and* comprehend) through pertinent write-ups (even in >> this thread), than it'd be obvious to you - and no, I am not a techie :) > > I am more open minded than you are! But it seems your comprehension is lacking :-) > I have no quibbles about which > firewall people decide to use, if they want to use the Windows firewall > that is fine, the Windows firewall offers protection for what it was > design to do, there is nothing wrong with it at all. If users want to > use other good firewalls that offer different features that is fine too, Agree, as long it is not a 3rd party software (so-called) firewall! When starting learning to drive a car I wanted to drive on the 'left' side of the road because at the time I thought there was nothing wrong with it all, in fact I thought that driving on the middle of the road is much safer. Boy am I glad that somebody put me straight! > many of these other firewalls are also good and they do everything that > the Windows firewall does plus they give users additional features that > users have asked for. That is fine by me, We are talking about 3rd party software (so-called) firewall applications! The user gets easily blinded by all the hype created by the makers of 3rd party (so-called) firewalls. Now they believe it (your're one of them) and if an opportunity presents itself I will continue posting links with articles saying otherwise in order to create some realistic counterbalance. Heck, even Sunbelt (the makers of Kerio) concede that outbound controll of their software is basically a useless POS. In the end it's the user (not you or I) who'll decide. > I don't care what they use... Nor do I. But *you* should be ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. As a MVP you should set an example and advise novices and the uninformed to the best of your ability and in accordance with your vast and specialized knowledge (isn't that you've got the 'badge' in the first place?)! And all you can say "I don't care". > providing that they use something! (LOL) I refrain from commenting! Except that I sincerely believe that you must have demonstrated some skills prior being awarded with a MVP badge. Would you please stick to these particular skills and refrain from commenting and/or making statements related to Internet Security! (Embarrasing, really). > You on the other hand think that you > should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling > them what to do. Bunk, you don't know what what I am thinking [PERIOD]! I provide links to educational articles provided by well respected authors who are highly regarded and respected in the Internet Security Community; Their credentials are outstanding! I know you disregard the writings of these authors as 'nonsense'. You do recall your statement in a previous post: "I really don't know why you keep spewing this *nonsense* out..." 'Nuff said. > You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses. Call it what you wish. Based on what I know, I am eager providing a counter balance, the accompanied links of my posts speak for themself (if understood). > When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate > them and try to impose your views on them. You tried this before. Providing educational links to the uninformed can hardly be considered 'berating'. You're some kind of a frustrated individual, to say the least! > The fact is that there is > nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there and if > users want to use them it really is none of your business. The fact is there are a lot of things wrong with these Illusion ware! You just don't seem do understand it. I will continue making it my business providing links to educational article, so what are you going to do about it? Users can take heed or ignore these write-ups. Heck, it's a free country and this is usenet. If you feel so strong about it, why don't you join a moderated forum! > You're attempt to discredit all third party firewalls is plainly > misguided, the facts are that many of these other products are also good > products and many are free. Since almost all educational and factual write-ups fail to get commercial support, my effort to provide this material opposing the hype created by the makers of 3rd party software (so-called) firwall is justified and right. Now be honest, which software company do you work for? > The bottom line is that you and others in your camp simply cannot back > that notion that you perpetuate that all third party firewalls are > incapable of protecting users. That is untrue, it is a lie, plain and > simple, there is no other way to put it. The bottom line is that 3rd party (so-called) firewall applications promoting the importance of 'outbound control" are *without exception* snake oil! BTW, aside from your MVP badge, what are your credentials?
Guest Kayman Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:00:03 -0700, Stinger wrote: <snip for brevity> > > And I've yet to see anyone answer the most important question, you include > Kerry.. > "Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the > OS?" > Windows has to be changed to work with the new protocol? So either there > was something wrong with Windows before or after the new protocol was > invoked...which is it? Can't have it both ways. If everything was fine > before the new DNS protocol was invoked, we're right back to my question > above. You don't need to have technical expertise to see when people dance > cokmpletely around a subject folks. This may clarify things: http://securosis.com/2008/07/08/dan-kaminsky-discovers-fundamental-issue-in-dns-massive-multivendor-patch-released/ ....Mr. Kaminsky immediately reported the issue to major authorities, including the United States Computer Emergency Response Team (part of the Department of Homeland Security), and began working on a coordinated fix. Engineers from *major technology vendors* around the world converged on the *Microsoft* campus in March to coordinate their response. All of the vendors began repairing their products and agreed that a synchronized release, on a single day, would minimize the risk that malicious individuals could figure out the vulnerability before all vendors were able to offer secure versions of their products... "Dan Kaminsky was finally successful in getting the security research community to back his claims to the design flaw with DNS." http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/07/11/skepticism-relieved-with-dns-bug/ Happy reading :)
Guest Paul (Bornival) Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Intersting comments. (See details hereunder) "H.S." wrote: > Paul (Bornival) wrote: > > > > I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound > > filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people, not > > linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ? > > > > Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing a > full firewall and is thus marketing and trying to convince its users > that outbound control is unnecessary. I giess this is really true and is what I was suspecting. > > Historically, MS has wanted their OS to be used by dumb average Joe > users and thus tuned its system as such. Consequently, they compromised > on multiuser features, restricted user usage habits and proper computer > terminology. Result: Almost all users believe Windows must be run in > admin mode. They do not gain any basic knowledge about computers which > is commonplace among computer technologists (MS uses its own > nomenclature, as you mentioned, probably based on recommendations by > marketing drones). All this leads to significant ignorance of important > issues related to computer security. Also a very good point. This habit of MS to give other names to things already existing under a well known, common name is really annoying. It goes even from one version of Windows to the next, as seen in Vista for which I lost a lot of time finding things which I knew rom WinXP but eventually got other names... > > But to be fair, these marketing strategies also resulted in the boom of > personal computer. I'am not so sure about that. Marketing people tend to think they (and their recepes) make the market, but they never conduct real stidies to prove that. In the case of Windows, I guess the success stems from two elements: - an open base for software developpers to construct their programs (and this is actually one oint that is being forgotten by MS ... see the problem of ZA and KB951748 that spraked all this discussion) - the rapid incoporation in MS products of the good things from other programs (see Word, that was clearly inferior to other word processing packages, but improved ... now, it also got its sucess because MS made access to Win difficult for other programs when moving from MS-Dos to Windows)... > > Also, the strict control over licenses also played a very important role > in making Linux what it is today: secure, open source and, these days, > with better GUI than Windows in many respects. Had Windows been "open", > maybe there would not have been as much impetus in making Linux distros > so user friendly. I have myself seen that current version of Ubuntu is > much more easier to install than Windows! > > > > > >
Guest Harry Johnston [MVP] Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released V Green wrote: > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. > So it's ZA's problem? Strictly speaking, ZA prevented the update from functioning properly. For the record, according to my best understanding of the technical details of the conflict, even if Microsoft had known about the issue there wasn't anything they could have done about it. Harry.
Guest Harry Johnston [MVP] Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released John John (MVP) wrote: > When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate > them and try to impose your views on them. The fact is that there is > nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there [...] Except that they subvert the functionality of the operating system, increasing the risk of ... well, to choose an example completely at random, losing internet connectivity after applying a security update. :-) It's a trade-off. There is some security benefit - provided the malware in question is carelessly written - but is it worth the costs? On the whole, the computer security industry spends enough on advertising that I don't think it hurts to have the occasional person noisily presenting the other side of the case! Harry.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Kayman wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > >>>>Before Windows XP what were people using? >>> >>>I don't know but *I* was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application >>>and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner :-) >> >>What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even >>mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue? > > > John, John (MVP), as I mentioned in a preceding thread, you can't be very > intelligent and your lateral thinking capabilities are vitually not > existent! Prior NT these apps were basically regarded essential tools. > Don't you you know the meaning of *"incidentally"*? The best you can do now is resort to personal attacks, says a lot about you. The point to be made is that before XP was released third party firewall products were the only alternative to hardware firewalls, many of these third party firewall products were good and many were free. These were trusted applications from trusted companies. Then, overnight, just because Windows XP was released, in the eyes of a zealous few these companies became villains peddling worthless products! A couple of individuals decided to tar and feather a whole ISV group with the same wide brush! That is wrong, absolutely wrong, and the attack on some of those ISVs is completely unwarranted, those ISVs were trusted companies the day before XP hit the market and they were no less trustworthy the day after XP was released. Much of the hype against those ISVs is nothing more than blind zealotry! There is also a developing and troubling trend in this whole debate, one that some people are bent on spreading at all costs, that because software firewalls are not immune to exploits by malware attempting to send data to outside networks, then by simple deduction any and all egress filtering as a security concept is unnecessary. Egress filtering at the perimeter, done by reliable network appliances, is a vital part of network security, without proper egress control your network security is incomplete, ignore egress traffic at your own perils! Maybe you do not value your data, but others do! In a perfect world there would be no pests, no virus, worms, or trojans. No one would try to pry at your private data and malicious attacks against computers would be non existent. Of course we don't live in a perfect world and people are going to continue to get infected with all kinds of pests and some of those pests will attempt to steal private data, the value of egress control has not diminished when Windows XP was released, over the years the need for proper egress filtering has not diminished or vanished, it has increased. John
Guest Paul (Bornival) Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Harry Johnston [MVP]" wrote: > V Green wrote: > > > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. > > So it's ZA's problem? > > Strictly speaking, ZA prevented the update from functioning properly. For the > record, according to my best understanding of the technical details of the > conflict, even if Microsoft had known about the issue there wasn't anything they > could have done about it. > > Harry. > Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you can't understand what is going on).
Guest Harry Johnston [MVP] Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Paul (Bornival) wrote: > Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been > looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you > can't understand what is going on). I believe there is some information on the ZoneAlarm forums, and there's been a fair bit of discussion in microsoft.public.windowsupdate. The quick summary, as I understand it, is that ZoneAlarm couldn't cope with the fact that the update modified some of the system files associated with internet access. It wasn't anything specific about the way they were changed, simply the fact that they had changed. Harry.
Guest Kayman Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote: > "Harry Johnston [MVP]" wrote: > >> V Green wrote: >> >>> ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. >>> So it's ZA's problem? >> >> Strictly speaking, ZA prevented the update from functioning properly. For the >> record, according to my best understanding of the technical details of the >> conflict, even if Microsoft had known about the issue there wasn't anything they >> could have done about it. >> >> Harry. >> > > Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been > looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you > can't understand what is going on). Informative reading: Dan Kaminsky Discovers Fundamental Issue In DNS: Massive Multivendor Patch Released http://securosis.com/2008/07/08/dan-kaminsky-discovers-fundamental-issue-in-dns-massive-multivendor-patch-released/ "Dan Kaminsky was finally successful in getting the security research community to back his claims to the design flaw with DNS." http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/07/11/skepticism-relieved-with-dns-bug/ DNS flaw discoverer says more permanent fixes will be needed Current patch options merely stopgaps; worst attacks likely on the way http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9110284&pageNumber=1 Just a quick note... http://www.doxpara.com/ Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113
Guest Kayman Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:24:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: > Kayman wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: >> >> <snip for brevity> >> >>>>>Before Windows XP what were people using? >>>> >>>>I don't know but *I* was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application >>>>and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner :-) >>> >>>What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even >>>mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue? >> >> >> John, John (MVP), as I mentioned in a preceding thread, you can't be very >> intelligent and your lateral thinking capabilities are vitually not >> existent! Prior NT these apps were basically regarded essential tools. >> Don't you you know the meaning of *"incidentally"*? > > > The best you can do now is resort to personal attacks, says a lot about you. Nonsense, the "attacks" are nothing but observations based on *your* immature and ill informed responses! In any case, you made your own bed! You started this by calling me names (remember?)...I can only assume you were smoking this stuff (i.e. crack & pot). > The point to be made is that before XP was released third party firewall > products were the only alternative to hardware firewalls, many of these > third party firewall products were good and many were free. Yes, as I had mentioned many times previously - *Prior NT*! > These were trusted applications from trusted companies. I wouldn't go that far, but admittedly some of these software were suitable for platforms prior NT. (Which company did you say you are representing?) > Then, overnight, just > because Windows XP was released, in the eyes of a zealous few these > companies became villains peddling worthless products! A couple of > individuals decided to tar and feather a whole ISV group with the same > wide brush! That is wrong, absolutely wrong, and the attack on some of > those ISVs is completely unwarranted, those ISVs were trusted companies > the day before XP hit the market and they were no less trustworthy the > day after XP was released. Much of the hype against those ISVs is > nothing more than blind zealotry! You rant is (again) embarrassing. And *YES*, with the introduction of XP these 3rd party personal (so-called) firewalls became superfluous [PERIOD]! The makers of these Illusion Ware recognized this very quickly. The dollar almighty is their foremost motivation, not users' security..hence the hype! (by which you're blinded with). > There is also a developing and troubling trend in this whole debate, one > that some people are bent on spreading at all costs, that because > software firewalls are not immune to exploits by malware attempting to > send data to outside networks, then by simple deduction any and all > egress filtering as a security concept is unnecessary. Egress filtering > at the perimeter, done by reliable network appliances, is a vital part > of network security, without proper egress control your network security > is incomplete, ignore egress traffic at your own perils! Fact: Outbound control on an XP platform as a security measure against malware is still utter nonsense. The windows platform was designed with usability in mind providing all kinds of possibilities for e.g. inter-process communication. This together with the very high probability that the user is running with unrestricted rights makes it impossible to prevent malware allowed to run and determined to by-pass any outbound "control" (which, of course modern malware is) from doing so. It's simply too unreliable to qualify as a security measure. Fact: Malware must be stopped at the front door and *NOT* allowed to run believing that its behavior can be somehow "controlled". In a multi-purpose OS like windows with all programs running with unrestricted rights, if program A can control program B, what prevents program B from controlling program A (or C which A has already granted permission for that matter)? (thx RK) > Maybe you do not value your data, but others do! There you go *again*, another "crystal ball" statement! You don't know *my* values! And you're really talking about *YOU*, now don't you? > In a perfect world there would be > no pests, no virus, worms, or trojans. No one would try to pry at your > private data and malicious attacks against computers would be non > existent. Of course we don't live in a perfect world and people are > going to continue to get infected with all kinds of pests and some of > those pests will attempt to steal private data, the value of egress > control has not diminished when Windows XP was released, over the years > the need for proper egress filtering has not diminished or vanished, it > has increased. Fact: The only reasonable way to deal with malware is to prevent it from being run in the first place. That's what AV software or Windows' System Restriction Policies are doing. And what 3rd party Personal (so-called) Firewalls fail to do! John John (MVP), would you please educate and inform yourself by studying publications not associated with any COMMERCIAL influence. Additionally, the authors of these publications can be contacted....why don't you bite the bullet and do so? It'll brighten your horizon and you could pass on your newly acquired knowledge to this and other newsgroups. You may wish to utilize this: Configuring NT-services much more secure. http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
Guest Root Kit Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:24:26 -0300, "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: >The point to be made is that before XP was released third party firewall >products were the only alternative to hardware firewalls That's not entirely true. You are missing the obvious (and in fact most secure) alternative of shutting down the unneeded network services (which should of course have been the windows default setting). I used to run a W2K machine with a direct Internet connection without any inbound "protection" at all and without problems for several years. And to be honest, still today I wouldn't loose any sleep over operating a hardened W2K client machine directly on the net. >These were trusted applications from trusted companies. I guess that's an opinion open for debate. >Then, overnight, just because Windows XP was released, in the eyes of a >zealous few these companies became villains peddling worthless products! That's also not true. They were highly criticized among specialists already before that. It's just hard to get through the marketing noise. >A couple of individuals decided to tar and feather a whole ISV group with the same >wide brush! That is wrong, absolutely wrong, and the attack on some of >those ISVs is completely unwarranted, those ISVs were trusted companies >the day before XP hit the market and they were no less trustworthy the >day after XP was released. Much of the hype against those ISVs is >nothing more than blind zealotry! I think it's absolutely fair that some people stand up against the obvious hype and in cases utter nonsense that the marketing departments of these companies were and are still using to fool less knowledgeable users into buying their products. I find it a bit worrying that an MVP does not have the technical insight to see through the smoke. I've asked this before without getting any responses: Why are there no web pages with listings of personal firewall software available for Linux? Well, don't bother. I already know the answer. Please understand that I'm not in any way trying to "defend" MS. I fully recognize that windows has it's serious security flaws. But when claiming that it can be made more secure by adding further highly questionable code to it, one has stepped away from technical sense and into emotional reasoning - often backed by non-applicable analogies. >There is also a developing and troubling trend in this whole debate, one >that some people are bent on spreading at all costs, that because >software firewalls are not immune to exploits by malware attempting to >send data to outside networks, then by simple deduction any and all >egress filtering as a security concept is unnecessary. Who is that? - I for sure have not been spreading that thought. >Egress filtering at the perimeter, done by reliable network appliances, is a vital part >of network security, Agreed.
Guest Root Kit Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:41:27 +0700, Kayman <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote: >> The point to be made is that before XP was released third party firewall >> products were the only alternative to hardware firewalls, many of these >> third party firewall products were good and many were free. > >Yes, as I had mentioned many times previously - *Prior NT*! In fact even the windows 9x platform usually didn't need any packet filtering. You'd just have to unbind any network service from your network interface that you didn't want.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Kayman wrote: > Fact: > The only reasonable way to deal with malware is to prevent it from being > run in the first place. That's what AV software or Windows' System > Restriction Policies are doing. And what 3rd party Personal (so-called) > Firewalls fail to do! > > John John (MVP), would you please educate and inform yourself by studying > publications not associated with any COMMERCIAL influence. Additionally, > the authors of these publications can be contacted....why don't you bite > the bullet and do so? It'll brighten your horizon and you could pass on > your newly acquired knowledge to this and other newsgroups. Only a fool would claim that proper egress control has no place in network security. Even the experts at Microsoft advise users to protect their data with egress control. You, of course, also know better than the folks at Microsoft. John
Guest Root Kit Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:14:31 -0300, "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: >Only a fool would claim that proper egress control has no place in >network security. Even the experts at Microsoft advise users to protect >their data with egress control. Beside of the fact that "Only a fool would claim..." marks the beginning of a non-argument - who are you addressing here? I don't recall anyone making the claim you're stating.
Guest Kayman Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:14:31 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: > Kayman wrote: > >> Fact: >> The only reasonable way to deal with malware is to prevent it from being >> run in the first place. That's what AV software or Windows' System >> Restriction Policies are doing. And what 3rd party Personal (so-called) >> Firewalls fail to do! >> >> John John (MVP), would you please educate and inform yourself by studying >> publications not associated with any COMMERCIAL influence. Additionally, >> the authors of these publications can be contacted....why don't you bite >> the bullet and do so? It'll brighten your horizon and you could pass on >> your newly acquired knowledge to this and other newsgroups. > > Only a fool... You just can't help yourself, can you. Name calling does not hide your immaturity. > ...would claim that proper egress control has no place in network security. Where precisely did I claim that? > Even the experts at Microsoft advise users to protect their data with > egress control. Which 3rd party personal (so-called) firewall is MSFT recommending? Where are links, URL's, publications? > You, of course, also know better than the folks at Microsoft. Your assumption is nothing but an assumption (you've got to replace that crystal ball). And who in particular from MSFT are you referring to? I'd be genuinely interested to read their write-ups. If you're referring to the authors already mentioned in this thread, please point me to their publication(s) which state that 3rd party personal (so-called) firewall is an effective tool for controlling egress traffic. It seems you either totally not understanding my point or deliberately evading the issue! MSFT knows exactly well that outbound application protection is an illusion, which is why they don't offer such a (phony-baloney) thing. Unlike you, they understand the nature of their operating system, and are even honest enough to admit that outbound control is way too unreliable. Even commercial enterprises like Sunbelt, makers of Kerio and Steve Gibson of Gibson Research Corporation have finally conceded this fact! Now don't change directions here and twist this straightforward post into a convoluted psychedelic drivel. John John (MVP), WHERE IS THE BEEF? SHOW US THE MONEY! PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Guest Paul (Bornival) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Kayman" wrote: > > Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been > > looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you > > can't understand what is going on). > > Informative reading: > > Dan Kaminsky Discovers Fundamental Issue In DNS: ... Thank you. But I have actually read all those documents. What I was interested in was to understand the technical (ral) reason for the incompatibility of ZA with KB951748.
Guest Paul (Bornival) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Harry Johnston [MVP]" wrote: > Paul (Bornival) wrote: > > > Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been > > looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you > > can't understand what is going on). > > I believe there is some information on the ZoneAlarm forums, and there's been a > fair bit of discussion in microsoft.public.windowsupdate. > > The quick summary, as I understand it, is that ZoneAlarm couldn't cope with the > fact that the update modified some of the system files associated with internet > access. It wasn't anything specific about the way they were changed, simply the > fact that they had changed. > > Harry. Thank you for your reply. I checked these forums but could not find specific information. Do you know which files were modified and why ZA could not cope with them ?
Guest John John (MVP) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Kayman wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:14:31 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote: > > >>Kayman wrote: >> >> >>>Fact: >>>The only reasonable way to deal with malware is to prevent it from being >>>run in the first place. That's what AV software or Windows' System >>>Restriction Policies are doing. And what 3rd party Personal (so-called) >>>Firewalls fail to do! >>> >>>John John (MVP), would you please educate and inform yourself by studying >>>publications not associated with any COMMERCIAL influence. Additionally, >>>the authors of these publications can be contacted....why don't you bite >>>the bullet and do so? It'll brighten your horizon and you could pass on >>>your newly acquired knowledge to this and other newsgroups. >> >>Only a fool... > > > You just can't help yourself, can you. > Name calling does not hide your immaturity. > > >>...would claim that proper egress control has no place in network security. > > > Where precisely did I claim that? > > >>Even the experts at Microsoft advise users to protect their data with >>egress control. > > > Which 3rd party personal (so-called) firewall is MSFT recommending? > Where are links, URL's, publications? > > >>You, of course, also know better than the folks at Microsoft. > > > Your assumption is nothing but an assumption (you've got to replace that > crystal ball). And who in particular from MSFT are you referring to? I'd be > genuinely interested to read their write-ups. If you're referring to the > authors already mentioned in this thread, please point me to their > publication(s) which state that 3rd party personal (so-called) firewall is > an effective tool for controlling egress traffic. > It seems you either totally not understanding my point or deliberately > evading the issue! > MSFT knows exactly well that outbound application protection is an > illusion, which is why they don't offer such a (phony-baloney) thing. > Unlike you, they understand the nature of their operating system, and are > even honest enough to admit that outbound control is way too unreliable. > Even commercial enterprises like Sunbelt, makers of Kerio and Steve Gibson > of Gibson Research Corporation have finally conceded this fact! > Now don't change directions here and twist this straightforward post into a > convoluted psychedelic drivel. > John John (MVP), WHERE IS THE BEEF? SHOW US THE MONEY! PUT UP OR SHUT UP! You constantly shift the discussion from the value of proper egress filtering to software firewalls, even though I have said right from the start that egress filtering at the firewall can be foiled and that users should consider better methods. So get it in your thick skull, egress filtering at a perimeter appliance is a sound security measure, even the folks at Microsoft will tell you this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa302431.aspx Now maybe you should read what is says there and get a grip on yourself, you don't know all that there is to know about network security and data protection! Quite frankly you should not be one to speak of drivel, you spew enough of it yourself! If you are really too stupid to recognize the purpose and usefulness of egress traffic control then you are indeed lacking in the basics of network and data security! John
Guest Harry Johnston [MVP] Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released John John (MVP) wrote: > You constantly shift the discussion from the value of proper egress > filtering to software firewalls, even though I have said right from the > start that egress filtering at the firewall can be foiled and that users > should consider better methods. So get it in your thick skull, egress > filtering at a perimeter appliance is a sound security measure, [...] As far as I recall, nobody in this thread has ever said otherwise. The discussion is about software firewalls, after all! Harry.
Guest Harry Johnston [MVP] Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Paul (Bornival) wrote: > Thank you for your reply. I checked these forums but could not find > specific information. Do you know which files were modified and why ZA could > not cope with them ? The Microsoft KB article describes the files that the update replaces: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951748 <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951748> I haven't confirmed this myself, but my understanding is that ZA assumed that the changes were due to malware infection and refused to use the files. Harry.
Guest Paul (Bornival) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released nOh, thank you. Any idea why ZA assumed those changes were due to malware infection. I like to know the details sice, after all, software is not "magic" but somethig made by a human (and therefore, intelligible by another human) to be used by a machine (and not the opposite). Paul. "Harry Johnston [MVP]" wrote: > Paul (Bornival) wrote: > > > Thank you for your reply. I checked these forums but could not find > > specific information. Do you know which files were modified and why ZA could > > not cope with them ? > > The Microsoft KB article describes the files that the update replaces: > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951748 > > <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951748> > > I haven't confirmed this myself, but my understanding is that ZA assumed that > the changes were due to malware infection and refused to use the files. > > Harry. >
Guest Root Kit Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:10:00 +1200, "Harry Johnston [MVP]" <harry@scms.waikato.ac.nz> wrote: >I haven't confirmed this myself, but my understanding is that ZA assumed that >the changes were due to malware infection and refused to use the files. Firewalls should just deal with network traffic. The fact that ZA has to resort to HIPS technology speaks volumes about what business they got themselves into.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Harry Johnston [MVP] wrote: > John John (MVP) wrote: > >> You constantly shift the discussion from the value of proper egress >> filtering to software firewalls, even though I have said right from >> the start that egress filtering at the firewall can be foiled and that >> users should consider better methods. So get it in your thick skull, >> egress filtering at a perimeter appliance is a sound security measure, >> [...] > > > As far as I recall, nobody in this thread has ever said otherwise. The > discussion is about software firewalls, after all! > > Harry. Read Kayman's posts, specifically: John said: >>There is also a developing and troubling trend in this whole debate, one >>> that some people are bent on spreading at all costs, that because >>> software firewalls are not immune to exploits by malware attempting to >>> send data to outside networks, then by simple deduction any and all >>> egress filtering as a security concept is unnecessary. Egress filtering >>> at the perimeter, done by reliable network appliances, is a vital part >>> of network security, without proper egress control your network security >>> is incomplete, ignore egress traffic at your own perils! Kayman said: > Fact: > Outbound control on an XP platform as a security measure against malware is > still utter nonsense. > The windows platform was designed with usability in mind providing all > kinds of possibilities for e.g. inter-process communication. This > together with the very high probability that the user is running with > unrestricted rights makes it impossible to prevent malware allowed to > run and determined to by-pass any outbound "control" (which, of course > modern malware is) from doing so. It's simply too unreliable to > qualify as a security measure. Does that not say that "any" outbound control (egress control) is "utter nonsense that is too unreliable to qualify as a security measure"? The comment was made in direct reply to my statement that egress filtering at the perimeter was a vital part of network security, how else can you interpret Kayman's reply? John
Guest Kayman Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:22:07 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote: > "Kayman" wrote: > >>> Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been >>> looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you >>> can't understand what is going on). >> >> Informative reading: >> >> Dan Kaminsky Discovers Fundamental Issue In DNS: ... > > Thank you. But I have actually read all those documents. What I was > interested in was to understand the technical (ral) reason for the > incompatibility of ZA with KB951748. Don't know (can't locate) any technical reasons re incompatiblity. My guess is that ZA just did not realize the impact KB951748 would have to their software. For the ZA users, this actually would be an interesting question to ask in their forum.
Guest Anthony Buckland Posted July 22, 2008 Posted July 22, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote in message news:e1JqD046IHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:22:07 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote: > ... > Don't know (can't locate) any technical reasons re incompatiblity. My > guess > is that ZA just did not realize the impact KB951748 would have to their > software. For the ZA users, this actually would be an interesting question > to ask in their forum. Believe me, it's been all over the ZoneAlarm forum. The first thing you see now when you enter the forum is a G R E A T B I G W A R N I N G about the situation and its fix.
![Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]](https://extremetechsupport.com/uploads/set_resources_1/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png)
Recommended Posts