Re: Firewall Software Recommendations? - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Re: Firewall Software Recommendations? - Firewalls ; On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" wrote: > > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if > > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

  1. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
    > > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
    > > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
    > > the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
    > > group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
    > > Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".

    >
    > While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
    > Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if someone
    > does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
    > good thing. To just bitch at the op who should have provided it, still
    > leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a bitch.


    Where exactly is the bitching if you tell someone that he can find the
    information easily with google or wikipedia? I agree with bitching if
    it was not easy to find with google. But if you find several extensive
    explanations of something using the verbatim topic in question
    ("shatter attack") within the first 10 hits of google and if the first
    hit is an extensive wikipedia article on the topic I don't see the
    bitching. You just enter the "shatter attack" and it is right there.
    You can even press the "I feel lucky" button of google and it takes
    you directly there.

    So I agree with you it would be some bitching if it would take
    multiple attempts to find the best search words and then some
    extensive reading because some of the hits are misleading. But in this
    case like in many similar cases I don't see the bitching if the
    information really pops up just by entering what you are looking for.
    Enter it in google and you'll find it immediately. Enter it in
    wikipedia and you'll find it immediately. That is too easy and I don't
    see the problem pointing someone into the same direction.

    Gerald

  2. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:55:24 -0600, Gerald Vogt wrote:

    > On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
    >> > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
    >> > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
    >> > the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
    >> > group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
    >> > Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".

    >>
    >> While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
    >> Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if
    >> someone
    >> does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
    >> good thing. To just bitch at the op who should have provided it, still
    >> leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a bitch.

    >
    > Where exactly is the bitching if you tell someone that he can find the
    > information easily with google or wikipedia? I agree with bitching if
    > it was not easy to find with google. But if you find several extensive
    > explanations of something using the verbatim topic in question
    > ("shatter attack") within the first 10 hits of google and if the first
    > hit is an extensive wikipedia article on the topic I don't see the
    > bitching. You just enter the "shatter attack" and it is right there.
    > You can even press the "I feel lucky" button of google and it takes
    > you directly there.
    >
    > So I agree with you it would be some bitching if it would take
    > multiple attempts to find the best search words and then some
    > extensive reading because some of the hits are misleading. But in this
    > case like in many similar cases I don't see the bitching if the
    > information really pops up just by entering what you are looking for.
    > Enter it in google and you'll find it immediately. Enter it in
    > wikipedia and you'll find it immediately. That is too easy and I don't
    > see the problem pointing someone into the same direction.
    >
    > Gerald


    OK, but I wanted to know too. Can't you bitch at him and also provide the
    info since you are already posting. I had to look it up...so I posted what
    I found so others wouldn't have to look it up. I wonder how many others
    looked it up when it could have been simply read in the thread.

    It took me just seconds, granted, but I'll just bet some were glad I
    posted it.

    Now don't yell at me....I'll cry!

    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware Website http://bearware.info

  3. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Feb 17, 10:13 am, "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
    > OK, but I wanted to know too. Can't you bitch at him and also provide the
    > info since you are already posting. I had to look it up...so I posted what
    > I found so others wouldn't have to look it up. I wonder how many others
    > looked it up when it could have been simply read in the thread.


    Exactly that is the problem. Why do you post something which others
    could easily look up themselves. If you use the internet, it is
    important to learn how to use search engines and how to find relevant
    information. It saves all a lot of time and usenet bandwidth if
    everybody would be willing to learn that. If you are unwilling to
    spend the few seconds it takes to find the information you should not
    be helped. Just like those people who are absolutely unwilling to
    check something in the manual although their problem is easily found
    in the index and/or table of contents.

    And kind of just like the people who immediately complain if someone
    tells them something about netiquette or rules of usenet posting,
    quoting, etc. Being new to something does not exempt you to learn. You
    don't have to know everything but it is expected that you are willing
    to learn. But you won't know if noone tells you. But telling someone
    only gets complains back that someone could not know because he's new.
    For some people it is only a lame excuse not to play by any rules
    expecting others to serve them... That is my opinion.

    Just like your full quotes. You simply leave the full quoted text in
    your post and write your answer at the bottom. I find that annoying.
    It is not usenet etiquette. If you refer to something you write it to
    the text lines to which you refer. Everything else, you delete. It is
    useless. Now full quotes are pretty much fully useless. You don't
    refer to anything in particular but to the whole article, even to my
    signature.It is annoying because for instance I don't see what you
    write in the preview view of the article. I have to scroll down only
    to see if it is anything important to be answered or not. For longer
    full quotes it gets harder as you have to scroll carefully through the
    full quote to see whether there are some comments in between (like it
    should be) or not. After you scroll through it only to find nothing,
    you wonder what that should be for. All the time, the full original
    text is just a simple click away in any threaded view of the
    newsgroup. Thus, if I want to read the full text again, I can just
    read the original.

    It is a little tiny bit faster for you not to remove unnecessary lines
    from the full quote. The effort for the reader is higher because he
    does not know what you were thinking or reading or whether there are
    some comments or not. Thus, you save yourself a few seconds at
    somebody else's expense. And not everybody has broadband to download
    all the superfluous full quotes. That's annoying. That's my opinion.
    But it is not uncommon. But it is usenet etiquette not to full quote.

    Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
    some complaints back?? ;-)))

    Gerald

  4. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    Straight Talk wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:37:27 -0500, louise
    > wrote:
    >


    > - I do a shields up check on a regular basis
    >
    > Many do. But regarding ShieldsUp - except for the limited ability to
    > quickly check if a packet filter of some kind is in place either on
    > your own machine or somewhere upstream, it's a useless, hyped up
    > promotion tool.


    Is there a better tool to check for open ports?
    >
    >> run Nod32 and SuperAntiSpyware along with Spybot on a
    >> periodic basis.

    >
    > Due to the nature of modern malware, scanning is unreliable. What do
    > you do to actually prevent bad stuff from getting in in the first
    > place?
    >

    Use Firefox with NoScript

    Practice Safe Hex

    Use Thunderbird for all my email accounts except for one
    where I use Outlook as a PIM and therefore, I do use Outlook
    for that one account. I'm quite careful and run a good spam
    filter as well as NOD32 which checks the email before it get
    there. I'm willing to live with this much risk for the
    value of the PIM.

    Check with Secunia on a regular basis.

    Turn off as many Microsoft "services" as possible and when I
    want to update, I do it manually and selectively.

    Louise



  5. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0600, Gerald Vogt wrote:

    > Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
    > some complaints back?? ;-)))


    Er, would you repeat that?

    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware Website http://bearware.info

  6. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Feb 17, 9:29 pm, "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0600, Gerald Vogt wrote:
    > > Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
    > > some complaints back?? ;-)))

    >
    > Er, would you repeat that?


    I knew it. ;-)))

    Gerald

  7. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:16:41 -0600, Gerald Vogt wrote:

    > On Feb 17, 9:29 pm, "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
    >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0600, Gerald Vogt
    >> wrote:
    >> > Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
    >> > some complaints back?? ;-)))

    >>
    >> Er, would you repeat that?

    >
    > I knew it. ;-)))
    >
    > Gerald


    I don't know why everyone feels the need to /educate/ anyone who simply
    posts to this ng. Especially over the means they use to post. If you must,
    a simple: I'm not sure if you are aware that there are better more fun
    tools to use to post to Usenet...are you interested?

    Anything but a slam!

    --
    Bear Bottoms
    Freeware Website http://bearware.info

  8. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:51:48 -0500, louise
    wrote:

    >Is there a better tool to check for open ports?


    A good place to start is to understand what is running on the device
    itself.

    Assuming that you are directly connected to the Internet (has a public
    IP address), the netstat command comes to mind. You can also download
    and use a program like CurrPorts or TCPview - it's a little easier to
    use.

    To look for open ports, a scanner like SU would have to scan all
    65.000+ ports in various ways and would still not be able to deliver a
    trustworthy result. The mentioned programs simply list them for you.
    Of course you will have to take the time to learn how to understand
    the information displayed.

    This method won't tell you whether connection to the ports found are
    blocked by a packet filter, though. You'll have to check your packet
    filter also. But again, if you don't need a service the preferred
    option from a security standpoint is to not run it at all - instead of
    just filtering it.

    If you insist on scanning from the Internet a service like this one
    comes to mind: http://www.linux-sec.net/Audit/nmap.test.gwif.html

  9. Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

    On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:06:37 -0800, Gerald Vogt wrote:

    > On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G.
    >> wrote:
    >> > shatter attacks

    >>
    >> It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
    >> programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows
    >> operating systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions
    >> between processes in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a
    >> design flaw in Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code
    >> could be injected into any other running application or service in the
    >> same session, that makes use of a message loop. This could result in a
    >> privilege escalation exploit.

    >
    > If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are not
    > a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of Timbuktu, you
    > would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it up, copy it,
    > and give it to the person in question? You would not just wonder whether
    > that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether that person thought
    > you were a librarian and paid for that job? You would not tell that
    > person that it should check a encyclopedia?? Astonishing... ;-)
    >
    > Gerald


    Actually I might. I also think the purpose of read news is the exchange
    of information... It seems this topic touches a nerve. I do agree that
    Wickipedia is a good place to have questions like "What is a shatter
    attack answered..." I still think it always pays to be helpful.

    Ed

    Ed

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3