Re: System Restore Keeping Only One Restore Point

On Sun, 25 May 2008 10:52:07 -0300, Vincent wrote:

<snipped to reduce excessive quoting>
<snipped make believe security expert drivel>

I feel honored... but I am not a security expert and never claimed to be
one, though I think of myself as reasonable 'informed'.

If you think that my post was meant as a ringing endorsement of third
party firewalls and their marketing hype you misunderstood what I said.

You're quite right, I haven't read you response very thoroughly - mea
culpa. Nevertheless, I trust you enjoyed reading the quoted text.

I think that 75% or more of the third party firewalls out there are
nothing more than junk being marketed and sold with rather dubious
claims.

Given the old adage that 75% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot,
I dare to say that the 75% is a conservative estimate.

If you think that my post was meant to say that the Windows
firewall isn't a good firewall you also misunderstood my view of the
Windows firewall, the Windows firewall does what it was designed to do
very well.

It does it even better when closing a variety of ports etc.

Third party software vendors who make claims that the
Windows firewall is insecure are engaging in deceptive marketing, I do
not dispute this and I agree with you that these companies are engaging
in shoddy practices.

Yes, user don't realize that 3rd party firewalls are rendered virtually
useless after the introduction of the NT system (to the disgust of the
makers of these 'Phony-Baloney Ware' aka 'Illusion Ware'). Which btw also
applies to (so-called) Registry Cleaners (yuck).

On the other hand, would you fail and discredit all anti-virus programs
because viruses or other malware foiled them? Why not? Anti-virus
software programs are foiled and fail every day of the week,

It happens mostly when the (quality) software isn't updated to its most
current definitions/signatures.

why do you not froth at the mouth and tell users to stop using these
programs?

Hold your horses and don't jump to conclusions which appears to be your
preferred way communicating. I wouldn't discredit AV apps entirely, they
have their place and are not as deceptive as the makers of 3rd party
software fw's. But (after removing the [beer] froth from my mouth) I have
indeed communicated on numerous occasions to this and other groups that one
can safely operate without AV app (so much for your research). As usual, I
provided pertinent links (authored by *experts*) in relation to this
subject and effective alternatives; This kind of advice is expectedly not
very well received; It is perceived as too 'outlandish' by the
inexperienced user, which is quite understandable (even users much more
experienced than I am have their reservations to do without AV app). Heck,
you just have to look at responses when suggesting that 3rd party fw apps
are of no beneficial use and are incapable of functioning usefully.... It
boils down that *Marketing* does a great job and is very effective! The
user gets blinded by all the hype! Unfortunately, not many are interested
reading publications/websites opposing what marketers instill to the
public.

No one ever said that firewalls cannot be foiled, that is not the point,
nothing is fail proof and that includes Microsoft products!

We're living in an imperfect world...say no more.

What you
and others fail to understand is that outbound filtering can foil "some"
malware and as such it can alert users of potential problems, a firewall
that monitors outbound traffic can be another tool in the fight against
pests, get off your high horse with your claims that firewalls can be
foiled, we all know that and no one disputes this,...

Who is *we*? And which company product/company you are representing?

...your argument is nothing but a red herring!

What is that supposed to mean?
(Stepping down from my high horse). I understand pretty well how things
work without claiming to be an expert knowing the innards of an OS. (Common
sense plays a significant part which unfortunately is not so common
anymore, so it seems,) oh well.

Door locks don't stop all home intrusions,yet few homeowners would do
without them!

Closing ports is *impressively* more effective than you think.

If you say that firewalls are 0% effective at outbound monitoring you are
wrong...

Don't put *your* words in my mouth, I've never claimed this, re-read my
post, carefully! But be that as it may, who cares, the game is lost anyway
[PERIOD]

...and you are no security expert!

Never claimed to be one, never stated such! (You repeated baseless
assertions are boring!)

If you say that egress traffic is a non issue you truly lack in basic
security concepts!

Now, getting back on my high horse; My security concept *is* working, I
know so because I do as I say! And how would you know what security concept
I have in place anyway?

But, as I said earlier, that is not the point, the point is that
customers have asked Microsoft for a method, via the firewall or by
other means, of detecting and controlling egress traffic be it malware
related or not. Not all customers want all of their applications to be
allowed to send data outside,...

There is nothing wrong for *trusted* applications sending data outside. Why
would anybody in his right mind download/install a 'chancy' application?
How would the user know if the apps is risky? Education! But suggesting
this raises resentment (you don't have to look far in this thread).

some customers want to control outbound traffic, they want to know what
is sending data outside and that is not an outrageous demand!

I don't speak for MSFT. You and other readers have the choice to ignore my
suggestions. Some will others won't, c'est la vie. So save your energy
Vincent...'nuff said.

It is none of yours, or Microsoft's business to
be telling customers that they don't need to monitor or control egress
traffic, be it malware related or not!

See above comment. Nobody is telling anything to anybody. You appear to
have a challenging comprehension issue on your hands coupled with
disturbing opinionated tendencies.

If Microsoft doesn't want to supply such a tool that is fine, customers
will look to others for solutions,

Wouldn't expect anything different in a free and open society!

stop berating customers just because they make a simple
request for a useful tool to help them with their computing needs!

I couldn't give a flying fart how *you* or anybody else for that matter
perceive my posts. This is usenet, get it?

You or Microsoft and others who rant about firewall hypes have not
supplied any easy useful solutions to the egress filtering request.
Instead, anytime that a Microsoft customer has asked for a way to
control egress traffic what you and Microsoft have done is automatically
froth at the mouth and engage in a tirade about third party firewalls
and the fact that they are not 100% fail safe! No one disputes this and
no one has asked or insisted for a 100% fail proof solution, if they did
they wouldn't run any Microsoft products because not a single Microsoft
product has a 100% mark! Some customers want to control egress traffic
for reasons that are completely unrelated to malware, they have a need
for egress traffic control, what business of yours is it to tell them
that they shouldn't be concerned with egress traffic?

Customers have made a simple request, it isn't for you or Microsoft to
dictate to customers what they should or should not want to do with
their computers. If you cannot supply any useful solutions to that
simple demand STFU and stop telling customers what they should want or
not want. I repeat once again, anyone who claims that people should not
concern themselves with egress traffic and that it should be allowed to
go on unchecked is no security expert!

You're repeating yourself... you're not ranting, are you?

Have a great day :)
--
Security is a process not a product.
(Bruce Schneier)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: System Restore Keeping Only One Restore Point
    ... impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually ... firewall isn't a good firewall you also misunderstood my view of the ... customers have asked Microsoft for a method, ... Not all customers want all of their applications to be ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: January 15 is Personal Firewall Day, help the cause
    ... In a world that only security mattered, ... that last point is a major reason for running any firewall. ... Does this mean that Microsoft doesn't need ... > Apache virtually owns the market with more than 60%. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Security and the User experience
    ... Why should we trust Verisign, ... Microsoft should be placed square in the resource funding for starting this ... Trimming the firewall down or pumping it up is still ... having to deal with security. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • RE: Microsoft Cant Win.
    ... Subject: Microsoft Can't Win. ... vulnerabilities in anything ... ... an application-level firewall can also help protect the ... > reading through the email (security related mailing lists mostly) when I ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • Re: How to Maintain an IIS Server?
    ... >>> I looked at the Microsoft Security Website. ... >> before a firewall and antivirus have been installed]. ... >> new patches that are missing, ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)