So do you lurk around newsgroups in the hope that, despite your obvious knowledge, you can just insult people who ask for advice and feel or look superior, rather than help them. Why would you bother to read these NGs at all, I wonder, if that's the case?
This wasn't intended to be insulting (hint: what's a smiley?). It's not the user's fault if, when being uneducated, is told so much nonsense. His only fault is to stay uneducated.
And the ones which are telling the nonsense are well known. At least for Mr. Gibson one can show up
In every case any serious evalutation would turn out that there's no good reason to run a Personal "Firewall" on Windows 98 SE, as the only valid arguments don't apply there.
Point not taken. I was asking because ZA's logs are utterly useless for any serious diagnostics.
Question: Do you just like to hear what you want to hear? Or what about competent answers, not denying the ZA is a piece of bit-junk?
They're not good for removing viruses.
Removing a trojan horse? You're not serious.
Make some serious suggestings, those are crap. I suggest System Virginity Verifier which is pretty good on detecting a lot of complicated system hooks.
[snipped fullquote]
And I'll tell you right now. I worked with guy at work that had over 60 compromises on his Win 9'x O/S machine due to him and his family's activities on the machine that didn't have a host based packet filter FW or an AV.
Home users like that can use all the help they can get, including running of a PFW. :)
Duane :)
You can't with a free version.
Did you check program part of the log. It should be there.
If it is not(first enable trial for Pro versi> I'm running ZoneAlarm free version.
The reason is that Win98 doesn't involve any security model.
This is no help, this is a harassment of clueless people with technical stuff they don't understand.
I know that a Win 9'x O/S is a root based O/S.
How do you know what this person knows or doesn't know.
You're ridding mighty high up there on that saddle. :)
Duane :)
If you mean MS-DOS with "root", then you're right.
Yours, VB.
they don't understand.
With this logic, then I guess anyone who drives a car should obviously know how to repair it and never seek a mechanic? ... give us a break ...
When anyone presents an initial question in this forum, they're expecting a discussion dialog because they are admitting they need advice - that's all. If it's been asked number of times before, or if there's similiar content resolved elsewhere, then point them to it - just don't assume they're not competent or worst, take the opportunity to flex your "techy" muscle and barrage them with your "techy" lingo. You don't know it all, never will, so get off your high camel.
What the guy meant, and I can see where you could have mis-interpreted it, is that PFWs like Zonealarm harass clueless people with technical stuff they don't understand.
I wouldn't consider myself clueless, but I found ZA's pop-ups to be irritating, non-informative, and largely useless. What are you supposed to do with a warning that oigaegh.exe is trying to access the Internet? How are you supposed to know what program that really is? Is it a virus? Is it a component of a legitimate program? Is it a legitimate program that's been modified by a virus?
I shudder to think of the number of people that have been all freaked out by warnings about svchost.exe, smss.exe, etc. (all legitimate windows networking components) accessing the Net.
The worst part of it is you get the "little boy that cried wolf" syndrome where after a while you just automatically click "Allow" to make the stupid pop-up go away. Who needs it?
No.
I have no problem helping people, but there are those who will not be helped and have a dummy spit when given an answer they do not wish to hear. E.
they don't understand.
Wrong, but he should be able to spot and check for obviously defects. That's why you actually have to learn it to get your driver license (at least in Germany).
That's the biggest problem: I do assume that they're competent and almost always turn out to not be so.
Remember my initial post asking why he's using ZoneAlarm? I expected him to point me to a detailed evaluation and reasoning, but well assuming that he was just totally clueless and trying to interprete some logs that aren't worth a f*ck.
The big point is: Allowing is wrong, because it allows too much. Denying is either, as it breaks functionality. What to do? Pointing them to run any service under a single svchost process? Hell, if they were that competent, they would configure services correctly and care a shit for defective host-based packet filters with useless GUIs.
No one, but do the vendors listen to your opinion?
No, I am talking about it from a programmer's stand point. I don't care if you're coming at it with a program that's using the DOS aspect in the 16 bit environment or a 32 bit Windows environment on Windows 9'x, ME or 3.1 with DOS, it's root based as far as I am concerned and you can do anything you want and not be stopped.
Duane :)
Why did you ask ? Is it because you cannot figure out why anti-virus programs are no good at detecting and removing spyware and Trojans ?
You really shouldn't reveal to such a large audience, that you cannot figure out the answer to this question.
p.s. anti-virus programs are also not designed to detect and remove VBscript, JavaScript, Windows Script, ActiveX code, or other non-virus non-worm code that does not multiply, which result from what you described (what the virus downloads from the internet). This requires other specialized tools.
Volker Birk wrote:
I will concede that numerous anti-virus programs fail to remove many viruses, but there are a few that are consistently and repeatedly tested by numerous testing labs, and have been found to successfully remove
98%-99% of all viruses. You would know that if you spent some time reading technical journals. (I hope you don't embarrass yourself and ask me for the names of some technical journals.)Likewise, Trojan Hunter and Ewido have been repeatedly tested by numerous testing labs, and found to successfully remove over 95% of all Trojans, and are consistently ranked #1 and #2 in test results. Again, you would know that if you kept yourself current on the latest technical developments. However, I will concede that many anti-Trojan programs fail to remove a large percentage of Trojans.
Finally, I like hearing all points of view, and glean many useful ideas from experience contributors here. Emotions (i.e. like and dislike) have nothing to do with the levels of technical effectiveness of hardware and software. Why would anybody pretending to be as smart as you, reveal such high levels of emotional outrage for things related to software or hardware, since they are inherently non-emotional subjects ? After all, we talking about things that can be measured and compared with tools and instruments. We're not talking psychiatry or figure-skating here.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
Sorry, I cannot find an argument in your statement.
Yours, VB.
The remaining 1% make it unreliable.
The remaining 5% make it very unreliable, especially because a Trojan Horse is a much more serious qualification.
This newsgroup is for people discussing firewalls. You won't find any p*rn here so move along.
I dunno about that. I saw a cunt about 30 seconds ago. ;->
E.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.