If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the
others talking about it having done so: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
....probably, as you suggested, the number of links (and what to) hit a sore
spot on MS's posterior. Interesting that nowhere on The Register in those links was Belkin mentioned (that I saw, anyhow) - which is what I use, and tend to recommend. This could either because nobody's looked, or nobody's found (or that Belkin don't custom-build for ISP's). Linksys is of course now part of the all-hallowed Cisco... maybe they're not so perfect after all? I've never liked the way that BT set up their routers - and I don't like the policy that too many ISP's have of sending a router that can be effectively hacked into from their servers, supposedly for updates, but potentially also for many other things including customer support - which is why I try and get people to buy and use their own routers. -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk "Shane" wrote in message ... The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the others talking about it having done so: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
Noel,
I just started reading the latest of those articles I linked to, again, and realised it involves the "Belkin N1 Vision Wireless"! I expect to be ditching Be this year when the contract is up, in part due to the awful routers they supply (and that they don't even give them to you, and if you lose or bin them - I suppose the former can happen, while the latter ought to - they claim they'll charge you £100 for the POS). I would like to resume using my Dynamode - which I've not yet heard of being compromised (and I like the configurability). The Texas Instruments chip is incompatible with Be. Or rather, their wotcha-ma-thing-ummy-doo-dah. My memory is not what it was! iirc. Whoever I'm Posting As Today Noel Paton wrote: ...probably, as you suggested, the number of links (and what to) hit a sore spot on MS's posterior. Interesting that nowhere on The Register in those links was Belkin mentioned (that I saw, anyhow) - which is what I use, and tend to recommend. This could either because nobody's looked, or nobody's found (or that Belkin don't custom-build for ISP's). Linksys is of course now part of the all-hallowed Cisco... maybe they're not so perfect after all? I've never liked the way that BT set up their routers - and I don't like the policy that too many ISP's have of sending a router that can be effectively hacked into from their servers, supposedly for updates, but potentially also for many other things including customer support - which is why I try and get people to buy and use their own routers. Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk "Shane" wrote in message ... The post that has failed to reach my OE three times now, despite all the others talking about it having done so: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...ba1dcf0?hl=en# |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
Shane,
That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. What is important though if you intend soaking your Be connection for all it is worth is getting a router using a Broadcom chipset rather than say Conexant as the Broadcom better matches the DSLAMs used by Be for their Be/O2 network. I'm currently using a Netgear DGN2000 and prior to that an eBay sourced DG834PN which subsequently died. I've also an older DG834Gv2 as my reserve. The Netgear's are good because there is alternative firmware available including DGTeam which makes them pretty tweakable. Be's SpeedTouch 585v7 (I think) is still in its box ready to be returned whenever I decide to move on to another ISP. May I strongly recommend that when you return your router you get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office as there are too many stories of Be routers going missing when returned. The return address is also Freepost. Mike Shane wrote: Noel, I just started reading the latest of those articles I linked to, again, and realised it involves the "Belkin N1 Vision Wireless"! I expect to be ditching Be this year when the contract is up, in part due to the awful routers they supply (and that they don't even give them to you, and if you lose or bin them - I suppose the former can happen, while the latter ought to - they claim they'll charge you £100 for the POS). I would like to resume using my Dynamode - which I've not yet heard of being compromised (and I like the configurability). The Texas Instruments chip is incompatible with Be. Or rather, their wotcha-ma-thing-ummy-doo-dah. My memory is not what it was! iirc. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem
they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. My position here is that other ISPs give you the router for more-or-less the same deal and Be come over as cheaper without making clear that you *don't* get a free router. Perhaps ISPs are increasingly loaning the router - so iow they appear to be putting prices up by stealth. So I'll have to shop around more than before. I also dislike the fact the BeValue service I'm on has come down almost half price - with a 40G limit (which I've never approached even in my heaviest internet use). I don't like having to continue paying almost twice as much. Okay that is because it is a contract. Likewise I'll be going elsewhere when the contract ends. Unless they refund the difference. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. It did seem to be the Be DNS servers. When I switched to OpenDNS it was ok for a while. But now it is just like before. I have to cycle the router off and on again. And they are not lending it to me, they are renting it to me, aren't they. I'm paying for the insert expletive here. You're paying for yours. Maybe it is less of a concern for you in the smoke with that vastly greater speed. I don't suppose it would bother me quite so much. Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, though options are limited out here. I don't care too much for the 3G alternatives. Virgin is far from satisfactory of course. We'll see. I don't want to stay in this country any longer anyway. Shane Mike M wrote: Shane, That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. What is important though if you intend soaking your Be connection for all it is worth is getting a router using a Broadcom chipset rather than say Conexant as the Broadcom better matches the DSLAMs used by Be for their Be/O2 network. I'm currently using a Netgear DGN2000 and prior to that an eBay sourced DG834PN which subsequently died. I've also an older DG834Gv2 as my reserve. The Netgear's are good because there is alternative firmware available including DGTeam which makes them pretty tweakable. Be's SpeedTouch 585v7 (I think) is still in its box ready to be returned whenever I decide to move on to another ISP. May I strongly recommend that when you return your router you get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office as there are too many stories of Be routers going missing when returned. The return address is also Freepost. Mike Shane wrote: Noel, I just started reading the latest of those articles I linked to, again, and realised it involves the "Belkin N1 Vision Wireless"! I expect to be ditching Be this year when the contract is up, in part due to the awful routers they supply (and that they don't even give them to you, and if you lose or bin them - I suppose the former can happen, while the latter ought to - they claim they'll charge you £100 for the POS). I would like to resume using my Dynamode - which I've not yet heard of being compromised (and I like the configurability). The Texas Instruments chip is incompatible with Be. Or rather, their wotcha-ma-thing-ummy-doo-dah. My memory is not what it was! iirc. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4921 (20100306) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
Shane,
You can only use one router/modem at a time on a single line so I can't see the problem about being asked to return a router/modem when you change supplier since the new supplier will provide another. That is assuming you aren't factoring in the second hand eBay value of the modem when deciding which ISP to use. :-) As for Be having introduced a new cheaper limited service, albeit with the same or similar name to your current service, have you tried ringing Be and asking to move to the cheaper service? You might be pleasantly surprised although it might involve starting a new 12 month contract. Alternatively, if you use an O2 mobile, consider moving to O2 - Be don't hold users to contracts for Be - O2 transfers. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. This has nothing to do with the DNS servers you use and remember that no-one is forcing you to use the Be DNS servers just as they aren't forcing you to use one of their modems. Have you checked whether the problem is due to a modem misconfiguration? Some adsl modems have a box that needs to be checked to stop them from dropping the connection when there is no traffic. Have you raised a ticket about this and if so, what did support have to say? Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, That makes a lot of sense as you could then put the £11-12/month line rental towards the alternatives although I suspect that going "all mobile" for both voice and broadband is currently more expensive for all but the lightest of users. Mike BTW did you get my e-mail re N? Shane wrote: That's simply crazy, dumping a decent ISP because of the router/modem they loan you for free. It's not as if they are forcing you to use their router. My position here is that other ISPs give you the router for more-or-less the same deal and Be come over as cheaper without making clear that you *don't* get a free router. Perhaps ISPs are increasingly loaning the router - so iow they appear to be putting prices up by stealth. So I'll have to shop around more than before. I also dislike the fact the BeValue service I'm on has come down almost half price - with a 40G limit (which I've never approached even in my heaviest internet use). I don't like having to continue paying almost twice as much. Okay that is because it is a contract. Likewise I'll be going elsewhere when the contract ends. Unless they refund the difference. And I'm sick to death of the connection being dropped if not using it for an hour or two. It did seem to be the Be DNS servers. When I switched to OpenDNS it was ok for a while. But now it is just like before. I have to cycle the router off and on again. And they are not lending it to me, they are renting it to me, aren't they. I'm paying for the insert expletive here. You're paying for yours. Maybe it is less of a concern for you in the smoke with that vastly greater speed. I don't suppose it would bother me quite so much. Meanwhile I really want to ditch BT altogether, i.e. stop paying for the landline, though options are limited out here. I don't care too much for the 3G alternatives. Virgin is far from satisfactory of course. We'll see. I don't want to stay in this country any longer anyway. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
I am a
little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. -- Mike Shane wrote: 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ping Mike and Noel
I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) - the IE9
preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it. I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there. Shane Mike M wrote: I am a little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike. I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something different again, it works and there are a number of features that I like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes, and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop (which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it, You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on 1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if I'm going to be doing that. 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Noel and Mike. | Ben B | Software & Applications | 6 | November 6th 05 12:54 AM |
Security Settings/ActiveX Controls - PING Noel or Mike M | Jan Il | General | 47 | July 20th 05 06:07 AM |
PING - Mart, Noel, Alan (and Mike) | Job | Software & Applications | 10 | February 7th 05 12:21 AM |
Noel, Mike, Silj, Others : Please Help !! | Arindam | General | 2 | October 28th 04 12:25 AM |
Mike M, Noel Paton, War17 | wahine39 | General | 0 | July 4th 04 12:40 AM |