View Single Post
  #6  
Old March 16th 10, 12:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
Shane[_14_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 17
Default ping Mike and Noel

Mike,

Been a while!

As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't
required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted
IE can
be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable.


Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final releases. I
wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now out of the same kind
of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux distro from time to time
(though I think I have really learnt my lesson this time around and never
will again!). I won't be running Win7 until I get a new PC (correction:
*build* a new PC) as I don't think it is worth splashing out on more RAM,
especially as I already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore
next time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days,
think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at the top
who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it means a lot more
here than just shelling out for the exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little
(albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7
still, Mike.

As for running Opera
due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low
opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of
further promoting their product by using it.


No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu fanbois,
blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I could launch into my
analysis of the implications of their Apple-like blinkered, philistine
pig-ignorance and enjoy myself greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated
out of late. Opera seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered
to compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by (and
uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source of the
implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be Secunia - and having
been running the PSI on various installations for quite some time now can
confirm that it regularly gives false positives (just on my preferred
software) and continues to flag vulnerable earlier versions even after they
have been updated, to the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I
did. And if memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps
there's an unconscious bias there.

Interestingly, to myself at
least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser
vulnerability
but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that
I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many
exploits tend to use poisoned ads.


Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that, suddenly I see
ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a little - the colour
scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't know why they bother including
them. You'd think it was meant for Windows 95 in that respect!).


As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending
out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your
PC
all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a
backup
or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got
installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very
well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS
since those
who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant
access or egress to all requests from the firewall.


Hopefully I'd be aware of
the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up
its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters
copies of my back details.


In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol' anecdote
of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I installed ZoneAlarm and
PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a request to let tsadbot access the
net. I denied it and googled tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware,
bought it (with the lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and
recommended it far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or -
probably - worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than
nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a backdoor or
installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit would be is the promotion
of security awareness that would reduce the likelihood of the compromise
happening at all.

I remember back in Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my workshop,
open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids had any appreciation
of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came nosing around, most behaving
like they tend to, finding there was nothing there they cared about and
wandering off after a minute or two looking for something to smash. But one
kid was interested and knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are
still *some* out there. Probably always will be.

Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning home that
are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that users won't likely
find out about without the 3rd party firewall. There are enough of them in
Windows alone!

It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this
increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people should be
encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is sending details
about their sessions back to some company in it for the money. It is far
more realistic than to ask them to read the EULAs anyway.

Shane

Mike M wrote:
Shane wrote:

The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all
the others talking about it having done so:


I wonder why? Surely the filters aren't taking exception to the
number of link in your post. Let's see what happens if I try sending it.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en#


Shane,

I wondered what had happened and why you didn't follow up. Reading
as I do The Register and being a Be user I had already read most of the
links
you mention.As I think I mentioned the vast majority of the reported
problems were to do with default passwords and the like but also include,
as
you highlight, underlying problems in the router firmware/os, primarily
Linux. As to the Home Hub problem, that's the price for using BT and being
suckered in by their ads. I'm still wondering who's going to pay tax on
the
various BT Phon and BT Openzone wi-fi connections I'm now seeing popping
up
based on users Home Hub installations. At anything up to £100/year I
can't
see BT voluntarily giving the Govt more cash and I doubt there's a single
user who will do so, so this could be another of their ideas destined to
be
dropped in the near future.

As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't
required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs if wanted
IE can
be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable. As for running Opera
due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I have a low
opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them the satisfaction of
further promoting their product by using it. Interestingly, to myself at
least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser
vulnerability
but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit and that
I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file since many
exploits tend to use poisoned ads.

As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending
out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is on your
PC
all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored from a
backup
or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got
installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows it very
well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the firewall in the OS
since those
who are most likely to need it are the very same that will probably grant
access or egress to all requests from the firewall. Hopefully I'd be
aware of
the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to call up
its friends, send them invites to come and play and send its masters
copies of my back details.

Cheers,

Mike


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4921 (20100306) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com