Babylon + Outpost + IE = problem!

Sincere condolences.

And no only with Babylon. Outpost installs system services, which open windows. This is a security breach, and will make your PC more insecure then with just using the Windows-Firewall.

So you should have no problem, because of course you should not use Internet Exploder at all.

Because of the reasons above.

Yours, VB.

I'm sorry but I have not understood well. You tell me Outpost is not a good firewall at all? If I like to use Babylon have I to replace anothe firewall? Can you explain better, please?

Have I to replace IE with Firefox? Firefox is beginning too much famous and fin a little time it will be unsafe. :)

Thanks for your news.

IE is rife with serious, rapid compromises in almsot any given time frame. Firefox is indeed a likely future target but, lacking deep OS tie-ins, likely a much more difficult one. Which do you choose?

Example -- you *can't* replace IE with firefox. Becaue you can't get rid of IE. You can just try your best to avoid using it. If you wanted to replace Firefox, you could uninstall it.

-Russ.

Yes.

Just use the Windows-Firewall.

Replace it with whatever you want:

You can. Two possibilities:

- define 127.0.0.1:9 as proxy in IE

- remove access to %Systemroot%\\SYSTEM32\\MSHTML.DLL

Yours, VB.

Every guy tell Windows-Firewall is a bad firewall. I have just replaced it with Outpost. Did I make an error?

They're wrong. You will not find one single technical argument for this.

Yes.

Yours, VB.

Can you tell me why I have made an error? I know Windoes firewall works only in one way instead Outpost works in both way.

You were tricked by advertizing. Don't worry, many people are.

And the second way does not work.

Yours, VB.

Aren't there other OS hooks and connectivities that (ab)use IE in Windows?

-Russ.

Yes, there are. The first possibility is good for them, though. Usually, one defines exceptions for Windows-Update and localhost. This should work for most of the purposes.

Yours, VB.

You will be right but I think there are some firewall better than Windows firewall. I'm sorry I am inexperienced but I think Syagete is a very good firewal, surely better than Windows firewall. I need to install a very reliable firewall because I take many viruses, spyware, worms every day. I use NOD32 AV and I get in touch with many peoples around the world, Africa, Asia, South America, etc. I use web sites, chatline, ICQ, Messenger, Newsgroups and many other software and I have to be calm. I have used Windows firewall.for much time but I think it has not protected my PC enough. Do you think Windows firewall is sufficient or it is better another firewall like Sygate? thanks for some info.

As I wrote in already:

I'm listing here problems, b0rken concepts and security breaches of such "Personal Firewalls" now for a while:

- installing system services which open windows, for example Sygate and Outpost, which is a security breach

- opening useless popups, which usually are leading into wrong decisions from home users, and at best are abused by malware like the AutoClicker shows us

- giving a "good feeling" to home users, where they better shouldn't have one by lying to them "we defended you from an ICMP attack from 127.0.0.1!"

- adding extra code to an already complex system, and by that increasing the code base for possible exploits (as the Witty-worm showed)

- implementing counter-productive and completely incompetent concepts like "filtering out PINs" et.al., as for example Zone Alarm and Symantec Norton do

- making PCs vulnerable to extra DoS attacks like the SelfDoS attack, i.e. Outpost, Sygate, Zone Alarm and Symantec Norton do so

- making PCs slow and nearly unusable as a side effect of this bloatware, like Symantec Norton does

... (to be continued ;-)

And what can be reported about good things, one gets by installing a "Personal Firewall"?

At best: "if one knows much about IT and networking, one could use them sensibly, if one does not want to use better tools".

Very convincing ;-)

Yours, VB.

I do agree that you've limited most use of IE in a useful way.

My point with removing ie vs removing firefox, is that firefox is a "normal" peice of software that installs and uninstalls, whereas IE is this ugly thing that that is integrated into the OS. (witness the exploder/netscape fight in the courts a while back)

-Russ.

A last question, please. Do you know Kaspersky Anti-Haker?

I did not test it yet. But it does not sound very good; from

| When an attack occurs a notification is immediately sent to the user.

| When an event occurs which is not described in the pre-defined rules, | the user has the option to create and add a new rule to the list of | security rules. As a result, users are free to tailor a security profile | to meet their specific needs.

| Total invisibility | SmartStealth technology protects you by making your PC 'invisible'. When | your computer is in 'Stealth' mode, no one can detect your computer in a | network since all network activity is prohibited, unless explicitly | permitted by rules which you, the user, define. You are free to surf the | Internet unseen. You are even protected against DoS attacks.

| System requirements: Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 (5.5 SP2 recommended)

Unbelievable dumb.

Yours, VB.

Thanks to another poster, "J". Please read the links below.