Re: antivirus discussion

Cotty wrote: > On 28/6/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >>I have a firewall in my base station that masks the internal network > >>from external view without permission, John. Nothing gets to my > >>system from the outside without my knowing it. > > > Godders, can yo

Re: antivirus discussion

On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:09, Adam Maas wrote: > Cotty wrote: >> On 28/6/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >>> I have a firewall in my base station that masks the internal network >>> from external view without permission, John. Nothing gets to my >>> system from the outside without

Re: antivirus discussion

Cotty wrote: > On 28/6/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> I have a firewall in my base station that masks the internal network >>from external view without permission, John. Nothing gets to my >> system from the outside without my knowing it. > > Godders, can you recommend

Re: antivirus discussion

On 28/6/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have a firewall in my base station that masks the internal network >from external view without permission, John. Nothing gets to my >system from the outside without my knowing it. Godders, can you recommend a good web site where a t

Re: antivirus discussion

On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:08 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > Less of a pain than having some internet trash taking over your system > and using it as an open relay. I have a firewall in my base station that masks the internal network from external view without permission, John. Nothing gets to my syst

Re: antivirus discussion

From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > On Jun 27, 2007, at 12:40 PM, John Francis wrote: > >>> How does your software discriminate between an authorized connection >>> to a new destination initiated from inside the firewall and an >>> "unrecognised" connection? What are the criteria it uses as a >>> distinction

Re: antivirus discussion

From: Mark Roberts > Peter Lacus wrote: > >> >Mac users need not apply (yet). >> > > As far as legitimate software leaking personal information *out*, Mac > users indeed should apply! The specific case that started this > discussion probably wasn't doing so (though there's no way for me

Re: antivirus discussion

On 6/28/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I think "I'm not paranoid, I just like To Know" is destined for the > 2007 quotes file ;-) Then there's the standard line for computer security specialists: " I know I'm paranoid, but I'm worried about whether I'm paranoid enough. -- S

Re: antivirus discussion

On 27/6/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: >And I think "I'm not paranoid, I just like To Know" is destined for the >2007 quotes file ;-) Mark! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com

Re: antivirus discussion

Cotty wrote: >I use Little Snitch. I'm not paranoid, I just like To Know :-) > > Wise man. And I think "I'm not paranoid, I just like To Know" is destined for the 2007 quotes file ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://

Re: antivirus discussion

On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Cotty wrote: > On 27/6/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> As far as legitimate software leaking personal information *out*, Mac >> users indeed should apply! The specific case that started this >> discussion probably wasn't doing so (though there's no

Re: antivirus discussion

Mark, >>Mac users need not apply (yet). > > > As far as legitimate software leaking personal information *out*, Mac > users indeed should apply! The specific case that started this > discussion probably wasn't doing so (though there's no way for me to > tell) but anything on your computer, M

Re: antivirus discussion

On 27/6/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: >As far as legitimate software leaking personal information *out*, Mac >users indeed should apply! The specific case that started this >discussion probably wasn't doing so (though there's no way for me to >tell) but anything on your compute

Re: antivirus discussion

Peter Lacus wrote: >Mac users need not apply (yet). As far as legitimate software leaking personal information *out*, Mac users indeed should apply! The specific case that started this discussion probably wasn't doing so (though there's no way for me to tell) but anything on your computer, Ma

Re: antivirus discussion

On Jun 27, 2007, at 12:40 PM, John Francis wrote: >> How does your software discriminate between an authorized connection >> to a new destination initiated from inside the firewall and an >> "unrecognised" connection? What are the criteria it uses as a >> distinction? > > There are rules; some co

Re: antivirus discussion

On Jun 27, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Peter Lacus wrote: > ... Mac users need not apply ... I'm very happy I need not apply. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: antivirus discussion

Godfrey, >>Generally this is tracked on a per-program basis. The first time a >>program initiates an outbound connection you are asked to authorize >>it, afterwards the Firewall software remembers what has been >>authorized. Some firewall packages offer a third 'one time' >>authorization o