Jetico Personal Firewall freeware asks way to many questions

"Sebastian G." after much thought,came up with this jewel in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.dfncis.de:

The normal user is running an account with write access. You need to get out more. Normal is a setting on my dryer(which doesn't work very well).

Yes but the folks at portable apps make changes to the programs that make them USB friendly.

at which point the adverage user would get that glossy look in their eyes and say what????. Most folks go out to BigStoreUSA,bring the thing home and just plug it in and go.

I justify it by the users that keep their systems free from malware. Immunization does not mess anything up. A multi-layered approach is the best way for the adverage user(who, by the way, runs with rights). Users want to be able to install,change things etc.

Infections are spread around the most by the home user. Most have no idea about group policies,limited user accounts,etc. My concept works out here in the trenches.

Then there's no need to discuss security.

If they decide to ignore the minimum required knowledge to operate their computers properly, it's their problem, not mine. The computer and the way computers operate won't change that soon.

Oh, no we're talking about empty sets...

It clodges the HKLM\\Software\\Classes\\CLSID full of useless entries.

This has nothing to do with multiple layers (an often misused buzzword) or with security at all.

Expect that it doesn't work at all. And I'd even refrain from calling it a concept, because there's no logic behind it.

It's called the DNS Client service in the services list, asshole.

down the machine. This only occurs in W2000/XP/Vista. Windows 98 and ME are not affected.

restart. [more info]

(after a little browsing) by opening the Services Editor again, scroll down to DNS Client and check the "Status" column. It should be blank, if it was needed it would show "Started" in that column. There are several Utilities that can reset the DNS Client for you ... [more info]

I've been using a hosts file to block s*it for years now and don't intend to stop because of what some moronic self-proclaimed "expert" thinks.

John Adams after much thought,came up with this jewel in news:M_3Xi.15339$ snipped-for-privacy@fe01.news.easynews.com:

and there are some other services that should be turned off.

as it should be.......

Its internal name is DnsCache, and it has been well documented that the name "DNS Client service" is highly misleading.

It's really strange that almost any other expert will tell you how flawed this approach is. Beside that, there's no need to block anything, since you have to implement a serious filter at the application anyway.

OK, how flawed? I'm happy with the effect that I SEE my Hosts file has. What harm? I'd seriously like to know.

I know what it does but why would I call it DNS Cache when it reads DNS Client in the services list? That would be just confusing to someone who may be reading this thread and want to implement a hosts file for blocking malicious sites.

Whatever. All I know is that if I have 127.0.0.1

And how does that mess anything up? The registry size has no affect on OS performance under XP and Vista, unlike Win9x.

I already told you that disabling DNS Client Service fixes that.

Updating the HOSTS file requires write access that a normal user

If you use MVPS Hosts file it comes with a .bat file that takes care of that for you. And what's the big deal about logging in to admin account to write to the hosts file and then logging out and back into limited user after? You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

No, you didn't, and it isn't true either.

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

It demands me to provide the admin password to the system, which is something that should be avoided as much as possible. At any rate, I'd never provide for such an absolute idiotic administrative issue.

Because we're discussing its actual functionality?

Which hasn't become any less stupid idea yet. Since almost every website should be considered malicious and especially truly malicious websites will simply bypass the filter (by using randomly generated subdomains), this approach will effectively be nothing else but a self-created DoS condition.

And what about sadofhsajkldhfkjlsagdhfjkghdsaf.drivebuydownloadsite.com? Huh, didn't got that entry?

Aside from that, Drive-by-downloads are a well-known myth, supported by the fools who can't even differ a shell from a webbrowser.

Sure it seems so to you, since you're too incompetent to judge where it fails (and it fails so blatantly).

That's wrong, since it consumes memory and disk resources, as well as it slows down key traversal (which is quite the common thing exactly for the CLSID subkey).

Sebastian G. wrote: [snip]

that, i think, says it all...

Not enough to be concerened about.

Seems like a sarcastic expression of doubt, but of course it's a myth. There's no general way that just by visiting a website malware could be installed. What's needed that this actually works is a vulnerable webbrowser or something that is abused as such, and the trivial solution to this problem is not using a vulnerable webbrowser, thus it's anything but unavoidable. Instead of now throwing away their broken webbrowser or stop abusing a non-webbrowser as such those fools instead created a buzzword to blame their own incompetence on, and this buzzword is "drive-by-downloads".

a) i'm unaware of anyone saying that drive-by-downloads don't depend on the existence of vulnerabilities... as far as i know the dependence on vulnerabilities is a widely accepted attribute of drive-by-downloads... b) the fact that they depend on vulnerabilities and/or the fact that they are avoidable doesn't make them any less real, it just makes them significantly less than a silver bullet for the bad guys... c) things that are real are generally not referred to as myths...

kurt wismer wrote in news:fgrhuq$n71$ snipped-for-privacy@registered.motzarella.org:

You know your wasting your time right? I can't even get the fellow to answer my questions regarding BugHunter, despite the fact he spent a little time assuming what it does or doesn't do and went from there.

The reasons I didn't bother to answer your questions are two-fold:

- You roughly tried to imply that I talked about something that I didn't test, which is something I'd never do.

- For the other things I had already given an answer.

AFAICS things are typically stated like "it just happens naturally".

Aside from the serious need for any actual vulnerability, which is truely hard to find, the avoidability is exactly the point that makes the qualification void. "Drive-by-downloads" are more or less a description of a seemingly natural, unavoidable phenomena to shift off responsibility.

BTW, what exactly differs a "drive-by-download" from a "webbrowser exploit" as we've called it since ever?

Things that aren't like they're categorized aren't real, though. Just like "tracking cookies", "phone home" or "phishing".