anti virus

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:01:19 +0100, John Barnett MVP wrote:
Slightly OT, but your signature compels me to inquire about your advice
concerning ZA.

Re:
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org/lifesavers.htm
In particular: Zone Alarm

"Perhaps one of the best know of the firewall software. Of course, Windows
XP does contain it's own firewall but, unfortunately, it is not too user
friendly."

Please elaborate on the user "unfriendly" WinXP firewall application.

"Therefore Zone Alarm is a better bet."

Please provide technical reasons to support this statement.

"It is highly recommended and comes in a free version as well as a pay
version. The pay version has more 'qualities' but, for general use, the
free version is well worth having."

I can't believe this coming from an associate expert (MVP)! Did you ever
come across Jesper M. Johansson and/or Steve Riley of MSFT? What were you
thinking? Though your association with ZA may be the driving factor for
this. If the tie-up has ceased you may wish to do some research and
consequently review your recommendation in order to provide real value
advice for the average homeuser in relation to Internet Security in
particular the usage of PFW's.
BTW, even *commercially dependent* "expert" gurus such as Steve Gibson of
Gibson's Research Corporation and (Ask) Leo Notenboom are now opposing your
view as is the head of software engineers of Sunbelt (makers of the Kerio
PFW).

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:29:56 -0500, Paul Montgomery wrote:
Yes, the Gibson saga is well known! The point I am trying to make is that
he (Steve Gibson of Gibsons Research Corp.) is still dependent on
advertisement (Commercial Sponsors) and selling his products.
An avenue of income no more I'd suppose.

Firewall LeakTesting.
Excerpts:
Leo Laporte: "So the leaktest is kind of pointless."
Steve Gibson: "Well,yes,...
Leo: "So are you saying that there's no point in doing a leaktest anymore?"
Steve: "Well, it's why I have not taken the trouble to update mine, because
you..."
Leo: "You can't test enough".
Steve: "Well, yeah.
Leo: "Right. Very interesting stuff. I guess that - my sense is, if you
can't test for leaks, a software-based firewall is kind of essentially
worthless."

On August 07, 2007, the software engineers/programmers of Sunbelt Software
(the makers of Sunbelt Personal Firewall) have raised reservations about
the usefulness of outbound protection provided by personal firewalls (PFW)
in cases where malware has already executed and describe it as a
questionable basis on which to build a *security* assessment.

Also, a pointed response from Jesper M. Johansson PhD to (denigrating)
statements about how the WindowsXP firewall does not provide outbound
filtering (May 01, 2006).

[quote]
Any outbound host-based firewall filtering in WindowsXP is really just
meaningless as a *security*...]
[unquote]

--and--

in TechNet Magazine (June 2008).

[quote]
....outbound filtering will stop the worm from infecting other systems or
will stop the attacker from communicating out. This is *not* true.
[unquote]

Jesper M. Johansson PhD
Senior Security Strategist in the Security Technology Unit at MSFT and is a
Software Architect working on security software and is a contributing
editor to TechNet Magazine. He holds a PhD in Management Information
Systems, has more than 20 years experience in security, and is a Microsoft
MVP in Enterprise Security.
Jesper's Blog
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/default.aspx

And finally, a rational appraisal by Steve Riley concerning *security*
related 3rd party software applications (August 06, 2008).

[quote]
In general, it's a bad idea to use third-party "replacements" for critical
parts of the operating system. While I'll never claim that our software is
bug-free, I feel pretty certain that some shady no-charge download that
tries to replace or improve on some aspect of the security subsystem hasn't
gone through any kind of testing like we do: the SDL, automated fuzz and
penetration testing, and threat modeling.
My advice: *stay away from stuff like this.*
[unquote]

Steve Riley in a Senior Security Strategist with Microsoft
steve.riley@xxxxxx
http://blogs.technet.com/steriley
http://www.protectyourwindowsnetwork.com

There are many more statements like this floating around from esteemed
internet security experts as are various publications in relation to 3rd
party PFW's. Unfortunately these articles/publications don't reach the
average homeuser easily as they're not commercially sponsored.
But then again, there's always Google :-)
BTW, Jesper and Steve sometimes hang out here and other MS ng's.

]Hi Kayman, Thanks for the info.



Karl Levinson's reply at the bottom of this link you supplied makes sense to me

At Least This Snake Oil Is Free - Jesper's Blog

"... As you point out near the end of the post, outbound host-based firewall filtering is NOT worthless.... Such filtering is not 100% effective, but neither are antivirus or firewalls or most every other countermeasure. Such filtering 1) raises the bar that malware must surpass and 2) offers an opportunity for the OS to detect and alert when the firewall is modified or bypassed in certain ways, even if it cannot prevent it. "


SIW2

Thank you SIW2; I'm glad you liked it.

--

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurferguide.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..


"SIW2" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:212e0d2ae500d4f5d23db500b3b1eff7@xxxxxx-gateway.com...

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:04:23 -0500, SIW2 wrote:
Now compare the hype on websites from the makers of 3rd party software
PFW's such as ZA, Sunbelt etc., analyze the content and compare what Jesper
has written. Then re-examine what KL said.

Educational Reading:
Managing the Windows Vista Firewall
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc510323.aspx

"Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil.
http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html

PFW Criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona...all#Criticisms

Hi,

I understand the point you are making entirely. But plenty of people out there i.e. tens of millions - just get a cheap laptop ond go online largely so they can find silly videos and poke each other.

Not likely they would be able to find this link, let alone implement it

Security: Managing the Windows Vista Firewall

Seems to me that what John Barnett and the PCWorld writers and many other knowledgeable folk are doing -is taking a real world approach - they are suggesting things most people will actually use.


SIW2

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:05:38 -0500, SIW2 wrote:
I only echo the point Internet Security experts are making (I am *not* one
of them, though I have a pretty good analytical mind)!
And *your* point is? Are you saying that (uneducated) users who don't
practice Safe-Hex and accessing questionable websites will be safed by
horribly broken and badly coded software such as the ZA PFW?
HINT: No bloody software on this Planet will protect the OS when browsing
irresponsible - education is the key! That's where the makers of these
Phony-Baloney take advantage of the ignorant users!
Precisely, you are right here (though I disagree with the implementation)!
It is unfortunate that most experts really aren't being paid to address the
audience this information needs to reach home users. Alas the articles
authored by these esteemed are are not as widely distributed as the hype
created by the makers of 3rd party PSW's.
Ignorance is never an excuse nor is it a defensible position!
Seems to me that you're pretty naïve.
Fact is that these knowledgeable folk have or have had an affiliation
(commercial agreement) with one or more software manufacturer. Their
writings are biased, driven by the (advertisement) dollar almighty! They
are being paid (or have been paid) by companies whose revenues depend on
those outbound-traffic monitoring firewalls!
Because marketing trumps security. Users pay attention to ads and are
blinded by all the hype!

Now, since you're claiming to comprehend the issue, research it more
diligently as advertisement driven and sponsored publications should be
taken with a ton of salt, and spread the word! You do yourself and fellow
homeusers a great service!
Remember, knowledge serves of no purpose if you can't comprehend.

Good luck :-)

"Seems to me that you're pretty naïve.
Fact is that these knowledgeable folk have or have had an affiliation
(commercial agreement) with one or more software manufacturer. Their
writings are biased, driven by the (advertisement) dollar almighty! They
are being paid (or have been paid) by companies whose revenues depend on
those outbound-traffic monitoring firewalls!"

I'm sorry Kayman but I take offence at your implication in the above
statement. I cannot answer for other authors, but my writing is not 'biased'
in any way shape or form. It is 'not' driven by advertising and I am 'not'
paid by any company to advertise/endorse their products. The recommendations
made on my website are 'my' recommendations based on software I have used.
Neither Microsoft, Zone Alarm, or any other software developing company has
any influence over what I recommend or, for that matter, my opinion in any
review I write regarding the software. I certainly 'don't' allow software
companies to 'pull my strings' neither do I have to explain to people why
and for what reason I have recommended a particular product!

--

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurferguide.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..


"Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OEGWXnIEJHA.4492@xxxxxx

Understanding your point is not the same as agreeing with it. Your point being
that you have decided on a position which you seem to wish to pursue with fervour.

SIW2

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:52:53 +0100, John Barnett MVP wrote:
Well John, I consider myself as a reasonable poster and since you have
added to your signature three websites you'd expect receiving criticism
and/or comments in relation to the content of these sites. I chose only one
(1) item which is your recommendation to install ZA as a preference to the
in-build version of the NT operating systems.

Yes, though I didn't mention your name specifically, I suggested that your
comment on one of your websites is biased and driven by commercial motives;
Admittedly, I could have been using a more diplomatically tone...offending
you personally was and is not my intention!
You have step-back and try to see it from the aspect of a (fairly informed)
reader. I know for a fact that nowadays it is very common receiving
kick-backs in any shape or form for favorable reporting of commercial
products. It is also a fact that most of the computer magazines rely on
advertisement as they couldn't survive with out it. For example, if an
editor of a magazine would report unfavorably of a certain product and
still expect receiving advertisement revenue from the same manufacturer
would just be too unrealistic. One can easily conclude they have an agenda
set.
You shouldn't take offense as I am sure that you as a journalist are aware
of this (besides journos supposed to have a 'thick skin').
Now, since you're flatly refuse to give *technical security* reasons as to
why ZA is a better bet and the xp version is user unfriendly my original
suggestion seems to me not too far stretched.

[quote]
....testing software for Microsoft and a few other software manufacture's
such as Zone Labs...
[unquote]

[quote]
Zone Alarm
..... Windows XP does contain it's own firewall but, unfortunately, it is
not too user friendly. Therefore Zone Alarm is a better bet. It is highly
recommended and comes in a free version as well as a pay version. The pay
version has more 'qualities' but, for general use, the free version is well
worth having.
[unquote]

I would think that most of the MVP's are familiar with the writings
authored by Jesper M. Johansson PhD and/or Steve Riley. If you haven't read
their highly educational publications in relation to software firewalls
than you may wish to consider doing so. Both Jesper and Steve sometimes
hang out in microsoft.public.security.virus and/or
microsoft.public.windows.vista.security ng's; They are also reachable by
e-mail.