Hello DG,
DRS Takes a matter of seconds to install a dropper on any system.
DRS Come back on-line with the same IP or stay on-line long enough
DRS and the hacker is on your dime, time and system.
While a good topic, it's OT for TBUDL, it's been CC'd to TBOT.
moderator
Note: This moderator's
Hello Jonathan,
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:00:34 -0500 GMT (14/09/2003, 07:00 +0700 GMT),
Jonathan Angliss wrote:
CT I can tell you that it doesn't make a jot of difference how they
CT connect
Assuming they click on a mail attachment, this is independent of
dial-up or LAN connection. I agree with
Hi Vishal,
You don't stay online very long: This is the primary reason
DSL/Cable users are at risk. If you're online for a long time you
become a much more attractive target.
You couldn't be more wrong, Vishal.
I provide support and training for home-based PC users, 95% of whom are
on
Hi Clive
Saturday, September 13, 2003, 3:12:55 AM, you wrote:
CT Hi Vishal,
You don't stay online very long: This is the primary reason
DSL/Cable users are at risk. If you're online for a long time you
become a much more attractive target.
CT You couldn't be more wrong, Vishal.
Not at
Hello Vishal,
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:34:56 -0400 GMT (13/09/2003, 15:34 +0700 GMT),
Vishal wrote:
Not at all. My point above was that the elevated risk to broadband users, as
compared to dialup, comes from the increased time and static IP address that
make them more attractive targets. That
* Thomas Fernandez writes:
The IP address is crucial for entering a computer.
A dial-up user, who isn't online very long and gets dynamic IP
adresses, is therefore less interesting.
You could see it just the other way: dial-up users are people with a
poorly configured
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, Thomas Fernandez wrote...
I agree with this. The IP address is crucial for entering a
computer. A dial-up user, who isn't online very long and gets
dynamic IP adresses, is therefore less interesting. I now think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Saturday, September 13, 2003
7:54:38 PM (GMT -05:00)
RE: Dial-Up, TB and Firewalls
Greetings Carsten,
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, 3:45:58 PM, you wrote:
I now think this was
Carsten's point when he
Carsten,
Sunday, September 14, 2003, 12:45:58 AM, you wrote:
CT * Thomas Fernandez writes:
CT You could see it just the other way: dial-up users are people with a
CT poorly configured OS', many of them don't even know what a Service
CT Pack or Security Update is.
Some of us are stuck with
* malexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just a point I wanted to make as I've seen one or two comments where
people have said with The Bat, and with dial-up, they don't need a
firewall.
How do you define »firewall«? I assume you mean host based packet
filters. Just a point I wanted to make
12-Sep-2003 20:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You forgot to explain *how* someone »grabs a port and does some
damage«. I use a notebook and dial-up connections to the
internet. Please tell my why *I* need a software like Outpost to be
safe.
Blaster/LovSan tells you.
--
Best regards,
Hello Alexander,
Friday, September 12, 2003, 8:44:17 PM, you wrote:
A 12-Sep-2003 20:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You forgot to explain *how* someone »grabs a port and does some
damage«. I use a notebook and dial-up connections to the
internet. Please tell my why *I* need a software like
Hi malexander
Thursday, September 11, 2003, 10:58:32 PM, you wrote:
m Hi
m Just a point I wanted to make as I've seen one or two comments where
m people have said with The Bat, and with dial-up, they don't need a
m firewall.
I made a comment to that effect..that if these firewall problems went
Hi
Just a point I wanted to make as I've seen one or two comments where
people have said with The Bat, and with dial-up, they don't need a
firewall.
Sorry, but you're leaving yourself open if you don't use at least a
software firewall, even with a dial-up. I have dial-up ISDN, and
anyone who
* Victor B. Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Carsten,
[ personal firewalls ]
Who attacks your PC and how?
I can easily attack your pc starting at this very moment...
Please attack me, Victor. Try it as hard as you can. And please
explain us how a personal firewall could prevent me
Hallo Carsten,
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:47:24 +0100GMT (19-1-03, 17:47 +0100GMT, where
I live), you wrote:
CT Victor, no, no and no. I am not influencing anyone. I am asking
CT you again: please describe a case in which a personal firewall
CT protects you from being hacked.
It might be more a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Roelof Otten [RO] wrote:'
RO It might be more a legal issue than something else. In the Netherlands
RO it's not illegal to hack somebody's computer when he hasn't taken any
RO precautions. That's about the
Hi, Sudip. On 7/22/02 at 8:18 p.m. you wrote:
I used ZA but after it started screwing things in TB!, I removed it.
After much searching and many trials, I've come to settle on Agnitum
Outpost Pro Firewall. Have no problem with it so far. There's also a
freeware version available.
Do you know
AS She didn't comment about Outpost however
Well, it works perfectly for me. I think BlackICE is also nice, but it
was missing few features, namely ad active content blocking, that
Outpost has. For full listing of Outpost's feature and to compare it
with other firewalls, follow the Agnitum
Hi Sudip, Avram,
I use Zone Alarm Pro (as fas as I know the latest version) and do
_not_ have any problems that I am aware of. My OS is Windows XP
Professional and I am using McAfee Total Virus Defence with it (also
without _any_ problems).
What I do remember (you are also referring to that) is
Hello Erik,
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:51:11 +0200 (MEST) GMT (31/07/02, 16:51 +0700 GMT),
Erik Janssen wrote:
EJ What I do remember (you are also referring to that) is some renaming
EJ of attachments (the file extentions). When I disabled the Mail-Safe
EJ settings everything worked fine at my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, Thomas F. wrote...
Pardon me for being ignorant, but was does this Mail-Safe function
in ZA do? What I can figure from the list, it changes attachment
names, so that they cannot be opened any more. May make sense for
Hello Thomas,
TF Pardon me for being ignorant, but was does this Mail-Safe function in
TF ZA do? What I can figure from the list, it changes attachment names,
TF so that they cannot be opened any more. May make sense for OE/OL
TF users, but then, how do *they* open attachments at all?
TF Is it
When using ZA, disabling Mail-Safe is essential to avoid the renaming of
executable attachments. I have never had a problem renaming them
so I could run an AV scan and then open them.
Elaine
Hello Erik
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, you wrote
What I do remember (you are also referring to
It is a optional feature of ZA and does not have to be used. It
changes the file extension to an easily-identified ZA file
extension and the attachment can be renamed and opened. Simply
unchecking the option eliminates the feature.
Elaine
Hello Thomas
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, you wrote
a feature that is
supposed to automatically detect any and all attachments to an e-mail,
whether apparent or not, in order for ZA to work for Bat users? Isn't that
a pain? What about other firewalls? What do they do with attachments?
Isn't disabling the feature defeating the purpose
, whether
apparent or not, in order for ZA to work for Bat users? Isn't that a pain?
What about other firewalls? What do they do with attachments? Isn't disabling
the feature defeating the purpose of the firewall?
Current Ver: 1.61
FAQ
Hi Avram,
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:50:28 -0500 GMT (Aug 01, 03:35 my local time),
you [AS] wrote
AS Isn't disabling the feature defeating the purpose of the firewall?
If you have an AV package with up to date definition and its set up to
scan incoming mail, this feature is absolutely redundant.
Hello Erik,
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:54:59 +0200 (MEST) GMT (01/08/02, 03:54 +0700 GMT),
Erik Janssen wrote:
TF Is it the job of this firewall to make attachments useless?
EJ According to the help-file of ZA it should do the following:
EJ (sorry for the gigantic message!)
We might have to move
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thomas F. [TF] wrote:
TF We might have to move this to TBOT soon. But thanks for the info.
.
TF (Has ZoneLabs been bought by Microsoft, or why do they write such a
TF nonsense?)
moderator
Hello Thomas
Thank you for your email dated Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 6:13:34 AM, in which you wrote:
TF Sygate decided that all ports are in order.
Only if *you* decide they are. The advanced settings let you choose. The
default setting is 'all' ports.
TF Calling home? Why? What info is being
versions. I've used both without any system
problems and have been a participated in their user groups.
and added at 08:01 PM:
Most software firewalls today monitor both incoming and outgoing connections.
Kerio Personal Firewall
Sygate Personal Firewall
BlackICE Defender (v3.x )
Outpost Personal
Monday, July 29, 2002, 12:01:25 PM, you wrote:
On the subject of firewalls, I'm using the Wingate (v4.x)
firewall (which doesn't interfere with TB), but I have no
clue how reliable it is.
Anybody know? I don't know any way to test it, other than
Steve Gibsons port prober, which says it's cool
Hello Lynn,
Monday, July 29, 2002, 9:01:43 PM, you wrote:
LT Monday, July 29, 2002, 12:01:25 PM, you wrote:
LT On the subject of firewalls, I'm using the Wingate (v4.x)
LT firewall (which doesn't interfere with TB), but I have no
LT clue how reliable it is.
LT Anybody know? I don't know any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Avram_Sacks [AS] wrote:
AS Zone Alarm and Black Ice are the only firewalls that have been
AS recommended on a law office technology list I participate in.
AS Assuming ZA is out and th
On Monday, July 29, 2002, 3:08:07 PM, Allie C Martin wrote:
Kerio Personal Firewall is the most configurable, but the one with
the greatest demand on the user in terms of knowledge.
To me, this statement makes it sound like it requires a lot. It didn't
seem like much work to me. Just have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dwight A Corrin [DAC] wrote:
DAC To me, this statement makes it sound like it requires a lot. It
DAC didn't seem like much work to me. Just have to tick a box which
DAC says make a rule, then say
Replying to your message of Monday, July 29, 2002, 2:08:07 PM:
On another, another note...I use BBIagent's (www.bbiagent.net) firewall
which runs off of a floppy on a gateway machine. It uses iptables and is
quite configurable provided you know a little bit about firewalls.
--
Pete
On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 21:45, Pete Milne wrote:
On another, another note...I use BBIagent's (www.bbiagent.net) firewall
which runs off of a floppy on a gateway machine. It uses iptables and is
quite configurable provided you know a little bit about firewalls.
And a general understanding
Hello Avram,
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:01:25 -0500 GMT (30/07/02, 02:01 +0700 GMT),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Acc Zone Alarm and Black Ice are the only firewalls that have been recommended on a
Acc law office technology list I participate in.
Why are the lawyers not recommending the otehrs? Were
29 July 2002, 21:01, you wrote:
LT Anybody know? I don't know any way to test it, other than
LT Steve Gibsons port prober, which says it's cool ...
PCflank has a range of tests at http://www.pcflank.com
--
Clive Taylor
Current Ver:
Hello Clive,
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:25:06 +0100 GMT (30/07/02, 12:25 +0700 GMT),
Clive Taylor wrote:
LT Anybody know? I don't know any way to test it, other than
LT Steve Gibsons port prober, which says it's cool ...
Tested my firewall on Norton, which says I am fine. (GRC keeps saying
the
On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, Douglas Hinds wrote:
I use the atGuard firewall and have been getting a high number of
inbound TCP network communications to http port 80, with no
application being identified as the source.
'Tis a worm, my friend, doing it's best to bring the Internet to it's
43 matches
Mail list logo
