Kids bypassing firewall via web proxy sites

That's funny, I run Symantec Corporate Edition 10.0 for Workstations and Servers on around 1500 units, and it works fine, never causes any problems, low on system resource demands, updates every 4 hours, central management or standalone etc....

AdAware and SBS&D and David Limpan's utility are about all one needs to clean a machine most days...

Certainly.

No argument at all with that. Good practice for anybody who's computer is networked.

This goes back to a comment I made to VB a couple months ago.. the only way to 100% secure your computer from every threat is to not have your computer connected to a network, ever. :) But that's a bit extreme. lol

But yes, adding 3rd party software creates additional access points to your system. But my belief is that properly configured software (from Windows all the way to your AV program and your router/firewall) makes it less likely that you will accidentally compromise your system.

Let's face it... if a true hacker REALLY wants to get into your system, he will get into your system, regardless of your security.

Ther IS no such thing as an invulnerable computer, unless you count a computer that is turned off.

That's all any software "firewall" is. Windows Firewall is no exception.

When did I ever say to use Adaware, McAfee or Symantec for filtering? Those are desktop apps, no content filtering apps. E.

I will not argue on this topic any more. This only can be decided by you and the other morons, who are the second greatest threat SMTP is facing after the Spammers themselves.

VB.

And I didn't relate them to filtering. They're crap on scanning for malware. Spybot S&D could at least be not so crappy, but I'm not sure about it.

That's not extreme, but really a good measure for systems which don't need any connection. Dedicated workstations, a separate department, ...

As I already stated, about any Personal Firewall and many virus scanners do make you vulnerable in first place. One must be really careful.

Seriously? No! If you know your system, he'll have it harder to find any weaknesses than for yourself and if you're really determined, then he'll have to be kind of superior. So far, many systems are pretty realiable if configured correctly so only random errors (programming errors if software, hardware errors) could be a real threat.

Invulnerable regarding a specific attack class.

Wrong. A good host-based packet filter can help against accidental misconfiguration, some bogus network traffic and some DoS conditions. It can also serve as a second line of defense. If it doesn't make you vulnerable to new attacks, as ZA does.

Resorting to name calling? Ok we'll consider this argument won as you have obviously conceded.

... from a security PoV. However, I doubt he'll ever understand that.

cu

We don't claim it doesn't work. We claim (and proved) it doesn't work reliably. Which is why it shouldn't be considered a security measure. Plus, the same effects usually can be achieved by other means without running additional software.

cu

When you setup an email server with guess-able aliases and not running any server side anti spam.

I administer couple of them, thanks for your concern.

No, not the relay. The recipient email address, or the "victim" as you referred to it.

Who said anything about not generating bounces? I suggest you read carefully.

I filter all the "There was a virus in your message" bounces.

Any emails sent to postmaster, abuse, ....etc generally known/guess-able/required addresses have a Challenge/Response mechanism enabled on them, and all email servers that I administer have strong anti-spam/security/RBL filtering installed and enabled.

I hate Challenge/Response systems, but there is no way of getting a legitimate message at the postmaster, abuse, and other valid addresses without such implementation, on a popular and busy servers like the ones that I am responsible for. A person sending a complaint, is expecting a response, therefore a Challenge/Response usage is justified in this case, nowhere else it can be used without adding major annoyance.

Because the addresses are checked.

He or she doesn't. They are as clueless as it can be. It is all automated through the software.

I think you need to look at the mass mail software available today. Some of them even come with software to find out open relays.

Well said.

It's not YOUR mailserver that is the problem, it's all the others out there sending traffic back to you.

But obviously you don't understand that, so EOD.

Juergen Nieveler

No doubt about that. But still I receive spam mails that contain no body, or are full of variables instead of the spam terms that should have been filled in.

Besides, "good" spamming software costs money (just like good lists of email adresses) - and a lot of spammers simply substitute quality with quantity to save that money.

Juergen Nieveler

I have seen filtering work reliably. If you have a better way then please share it. E.

I seriously doubt that, since it has been proven that it *cannot* work reliably.

Don't install malware in the first place.

cu