Firewall with adv security

I do understand very clear how it works and what the
outbound filtering exactly does. There is really no need
to explain anything, may be except of why I'm simply
asking a particular question about the vista firewall
settings but getting almost propagation on why I should
not use the outbound filtering.

Again, I do not expect from the outbound filtering more
than it can do for me. I know what it does and I do
need this function independently on what the others are
thinking about it.

I agree, once you've got something running on your machine,
there is NOTHING (including the outbound filtering) that may
prevent it sending out some data. However the most of software
of that sort (not necessarily malware, just any software that
is trying to pass some data without to let me know) is really
not that smart and tricky to deceive a simple outbound filtering.
Sure there may be some monster malware capable to pass your
firewall, antivirus or whatever. But it is totally a different
song.


Alun Jones wrote:
> "voidcoder" <voidcoder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:unnYTd5KHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Are you against the outbound protection? Just don't use
>> it then. In my opinion disabling it will remove one additional
>> level in your security, being somehow protected is always
>> better than nothing.
>
> That's the purple elephant protector commercial's line - you're "somehow
> protected" against stampeding purple elephants, even if you can't actually
> say how.
>
> Yes, I'm against extra "protection" that adds complexity to something that
> needs to be robust. Robustness in code comes through simplicity - code that
> is too simple to be significantly wrong. Add complexity and, even if you
> disable it, you have added more chance for mistakes.
>
>> Why do you think this feature has been
>> included into windows firewall at all and is there in every
>> third party firewall? It is likely due to some customer demand,
>
> I'm sure it is due to some customer demand. I don't think it's due to any
> sound application of security theory.
>
> After all, if customers demand protection from purple elephants be built
> into their cars, what are you going to do - build a car with purple elephant
> protection built in, or spend a lot of time and effort telling people that
> there's no such thing as a purple elephant?
>
>> I'm sure MS wont spend time coding something for fun without
>> some serious market analysis. Yep, a half of users wont worry
>> about the outbound protection, as well as a good
>> piece wont worry about the firewall at all. Don't understand
>> why I should follow this scenario.
>>
>> Yes, I'm going to buy a third party firewall, among the purple
>> elephant, if it makes sense for me
>
> Your prerogative - but it's not because it will protect you from malware.
>
> Alun.
> ~~~~
>
>

Stop your rather high-horsed lecturing attempts Alun, Jesper & Co – we all
know you are not particularly objective here.

Also, most users here know how outbound filtering works! So, no need to
explain again how the wheel works.

Perhaps try to get this in your heads:

Some people might want more control over outbound filtering simply because
they may want to prevent legitimately installed programs from “dialling home�
or whatever other reasons they might have. God knows, a lot of software
vendors tend to inbuilt such kinder-surprises - and MS is by no means
innocent of such tactics!


"Jeff" wrote:

> well put
>
> Jeff
>
> "Alun Jones" <alun@texis.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23VLPWD2LHHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > "voidcoder" <voidcoder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:unnYTd5KHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Are you against the outbound protection? Just don't use
> >> it then. In my opinion disabling it will remove one additional
> >> level in your security, being somehow protected is always
> >> better than nothing.
> >
> > That's the purple elephant protector commercial's line - you're "somehow
> > protected" against stampeding purple elephants, even if you can't actually
> > say how.
> >
> > Yes, I'm against extra "protection" that adds complexity to something that
> > needs to be robust. Robustness in code comes through simplicity - code
> > that is too simple to be significantly wrong. Add complexity and, even if
> > you disable it, you have added more chance for mistakes.
> >
> >> Why do you think this feature has been
> >> included into windows firewall at all and is there in every
> >> third party firewall? It is likely due to some customer demand,
> >
> > I'm sure it is due to some customer demand. I don't think it's due to any
> > sound application of security theory.
> >
> > After all, if customers demand protection from purple elephants be built
> > into their cars, what are you going to do - build a car with purple
> > elephant protection built in, or spend a lot of time and effort telling
> > people that there's no such thing as a purple elephant?
> >
> >> I'm sure MS wont spend time coding something for fun without
> >> some serious market analysis. Yep, a half of users wont worry
> >> about the outbound protection, as well as a good
> >> piece wont worry about the firewall at all. Don't understand
> >> why I should follow this scenario.
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm going to buy a third party firewall, among the purple
> >> elephant, if it makes sense for me
> >
> > Your prerogative - but it's not because it will protect you from malware.
> >
> > Alun.
> > ~~~~
> >
>
>

akita,
personally objective here actually-have used all manner of firewalls in
xp-and i m actually impressed with MSFT's design;this go round.
Pay for outbound gui's if ya want-not for me;at least in Vista,
In XP, yes-definetly needed a 3rd party app, but I see no need in Vista-so
far,
Preventing certain things from dialing home; is all well and good, however
certain "legit" apps will shut down your pc,
if you deny them outbound in Vista.
Which is what many people are looking at-no doubt.

..
So, no high horse here, do what ya like, no need for me to spend good $$$ on
something not needed

Jeff

"akita" <akita@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:38247FAA-92EA-4FA2-843B-386786A2A03A@microsoft.com...
> Stop your rather high-horsed lecturing attempts Alun, Jesper & Co – we all
> know you are not particularly objective here.
>
> Also, most users here know how outbound filtering works! So, no need to
> explain again how the wheel works.
>
> Perhaps try to get this in your heads:
>
> Some people might want more control over outbound filtering simply because
> they may want to prevent legitimately installed programs from “dialling
> home�
> or whatever other reasons they might have. God knows, a lot of software
> vendors tend to inbuilt such kinder-surprises - and MS is by no means
> innocent of such tactics!
>
>
> "Jeff" wrote:
>
>> well put
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> "Alun Jones" <alun@texis.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:%23VLPWD2LHHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > "voidcoder" <voidcoder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:unnYTd5KHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> Are you against the outbound protection? Just don't use
>> >> it then. In my opinion disabling it will remove one additional
>> >> level in your security, being somehow protected is always
>> >> better than nothing.
>> >
>> > That's the purple elephant protector commercial's line - you're
>> > "somehow
>> > protected" against stampeding purple elephants, even if you can't
>> > actually
>> > say how.
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm against extra "protection" that adds complexity to something
>> > that
>> > needs to be robust. Robustness in code comes through simplicity - code
>> > that is too simple to be significantly wrong. Add complexity and, even
>> > if
>> > you disable it, you have added more chance for mistakes.
>> >
>> >> Why do you think this feature has been
>> >> included into windows firewall at all and is there in every
>> >> third party firewall? It is likely due to some customer demand,
>> >
>> > I'm sure it is due to some customer demand. I don't think it's due to
>> > any
>> > sound application of security theory.
>> >
>> > After all, if customers demand protection from purple elephants be
>> > built
>> > into their cars, what are you going to do - build a car with purple
>> > elephant protection built in, or spend a lot of time and effort telling
>> > people that there's no such thing as a purple elephant?
>> >
>> >> I'm sure MS wont spend time coding something for fun without
>> >> some serious market analysis. Yep, a half of users wont worry
>> >> about the outbound protection, as well as a good
>> >> piece wont worry about the firewall at all. Don't understand
>> >> why I should follow this scenario.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I'm going to buy a third party firewall, among the purple
>> >> elephant, if it makes sense for me
>> >
>> > Your prerogative - but it's not because it will protect you from
>> > malware.
>> >
>> > Alun.
>> > ~~~~
>> >
>>
>>