FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

[Kerry Brown]

"Stinger" wrote in message
news:B7A45133-F148-4507-85CB-> Bottom line, this update is important since
it was a gapping hole in Windows
> for quite some time. Great that Windows decided to do something about it.
> Bad it renders tried and true helper 3rd party software that has been used
> for years by the general public trying its best to close that huge hole in
> Windows (with what is considered "overkill) and at the same time
> consumers
> are unable to even get on the internet without a single word of caution
> from
> the makers of the operating system. Ironically, they left it up to the
> geeks
> of the world to figure it out. Nice from a company that assumes it's the
> industry leader.


You should do a bit of research before you post. The gaping hole was in the
way DNS worked. It was not Windows specific. Almost every OS was affected.
In fact almost everything that interacted with DNS in any way was affected.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526

Take a look at some of the affected products.

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day. I don't think
at the end of the debate either of us would change their mind. You think
they're great. I think they're mostly hype and snake oil. There is no
debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched and
it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows.
The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party application
couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files says
a lot about how well it's programmed. It wasn't any changes in the files
that broke your software. It was just the fact that the files changed that
broke it. If an application can't deal with the fact that an OS may update
itself it's not an application I would want on my computer.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

 

[Kayman]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:09:00 -0700, Stinger wrote:


>
> BTW Kayman, I read all threads before wasting my bandwidth on a reply. In
> fact I do quite a bit more than just read THIS forum for research before as
> well. Suggest you do the same.

Where did my post did not match up with your research? Gimme a hint,
please!

> Bottom line, this update is important since it was a gapping hole in Windows
> for quite some time.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/...ved-with-dns-bu

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

What Kerry said.

Stinger wrote:
> Interesting reply!
>
> Admitting a 3rd party firewall actually does more than Windows version,
> but
> in the same breath implying it's overkill. That's akin to saying Windows
> built a sufficient firewall and anything that doesn't do exactly the same
> thing as it (being the industry leader it likes to hangs it hat on) you
> simply dismiss as irrelevant.
>
> Again, quite an arrogant stance. Perhaps there's a good reason why quite
> a
> few of these thrid party firewalls have that added outgoing feature.
> Perhaps they are taking the inductry lead by going above and beyond what
> Microsoft deems as sufficient. Perhaps Microsoft in it's drive to
> actually
> be THE inductry leader should design both an incoming and outgoing
> firewall
> so the general public that uses it's product is better served?
>
> BTW Kayman, I read all threads before wasting my bandwidth on a reply.
> In
> fact I do quite a bit more than just read THIS forum for research before
> as
> well. Suggest you do the same. PA Bear, if providing a link is supposed
> to
> hammer home a point, do I really need to post other links that contradict
> yours to make my point? There are plenty others available than the same
> one
> you've been providing in this and other threads.
>
> Bottom line, this update is important since it was a gapping hole in
> Windows
> for quite some time. Great that Windows decided to do something about it.
> Bad it renders tried and true helper 3rd party software that has been used
> for years by the general public trying its best to close that huge hole in
> Windows (with what is considered "overkill) and at the same time
> consumers
> are unable to even get on the internet without a single word of caution
> from
> the makers of the operating system. Ironically, they left it up to the
> geeks of the world to figure it out. Nice from a company that assumes
> it's
> the industry leader.
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Apples & oranges. It's common knowledge that the Windows Firewall (in
>> WinXP) is a one-way (incoming) firewall.
>>
>> Does the average SOHO user need an outgoing firewall? Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> But since you brought up reviews of "better products," take a look at
>> http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-...nge/results.php. Your
>> opinion of ZA may not be the same after you do so.
>>
>>
>> Stinger wrote:
>>> No offense PA Bear, but that's a pretty arrogate attitude if that 3rd
>>> party
>>> application is reviewed by the IT industry time and time again as a much
>>> better product than Windows version of a firewall...

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Re: ZoneAlarm

Start a free Windows Update support incident request:
https://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?gprid=6527

Support for Windows Update:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/wusupport

For home users, no-charge support is available by calling 1-866-PCSAFETY in
the United States and in Canada or by contacting your local Microsoft
subsidiary. There is no-charge for support calls that are associated with
security updates. When you call, clearly state that your problem is related
to a Security Update and cite the update's KB number (e.g., KB951748).

For enterprise customers, support for security updates is available through
your usual support contacts.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
AumHa VSOP & Admin DTS-L.net

CharlieG wrote:
> I see how you could reach that assumption. I was afraid that this would
> be
> the answer.
>
> Another poster seems concerned about me turning off ZoneAlarm. But on
> this
> FINAL machine with problems I uninstalled ZoneAlarm completely so that is
> NOT a consideration.

 

[Paul (Bornival)]

Hi,

"Root Kit" wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:04:54 -0700, Paul (Bornival)
> wrote:
>
> >I'll give a simple example where outbound control would have prevented what
> >was nearly a disaster.
>
> Would have? - So it was a disaster?
>
> >One of our computer was inadvertently infected by a
> >malware that used the Outlook address book of the user and start sending
> >e-mails to all addressees...
>
> The key issue here is:
>
> How did this malware get in? - and why was it allowed to run in the
> first place? Because that part is security related. The rest is just
> damage control based on blind luck.

Well, as you know, it came stupidly by someone "from outside" sending an
infected e-mail before our university firewall had been updated to catch it.
I agree that this was a fault, but history is full of fortresses that should
never had been caught but eventually were, sometimes by very simple tricks.
So, prtection from otside is good, but what do you do when the ennemy is
inside ...

>
> > If ZA would have been installed, this would not
> >have happened because it can be configured to block the sending of mass
> >e-mails.
>
> Sure. Unfortunately, it can be configured to do a lot of nonsense.

I'ma not sure about that. You can, of course, also make a lot of non-sense
with many programs including ZA, but I did not see too much problems here if
you are a bit careful. Conversely, the WinXP SP2 firewall is not so easy to
master... (mainly because MS likes, as in many other cases, uses names
different from what other people use to design well known porcessse, which is
a wel known marketing trick, but this is another isssue with MS).
>
> >Outbound protection may not catch everythig and is not perfect, but
> >why not using it if you can ?
>
> For the same reason you don't constantly wear a helmet just in case
> someone drops something from an aero plane.

See my comment above. For sure, the helmet is not the best thing, and this
is why policemen also have rifles (which I do not like, but ...).

>
> Outbound protection (host based) is not for free. It comes at a cost
> which can be hard for layman to asses. The added system complexity of
> installing a bunch of potentially vulnerable code of questionable
> quality and functionality and the cons that follow from that, must be
> weighed against the possible pros.

Can you be more specific in this. How much more resources are really needed
to set up outbound protection in addition to inbound. What is the payload in
terms of CPU and memory usage ? To be clear, I do not see much difference
during operation between computers with and without ZA. The difference is
defiitely in the booting time, but once this is over, no real difference at
least for me.


> You make a computer secure by removing unnecessary stuff and fixing
> what is broken - not by adding further potentially vulnerable code to
> an already insecure code base.

Again, not usre about that. If we were to follow you, the only solution is
to stop using Windows at all and moving to Linux or Apple... The problem
with Windows is that its design was indeed quite open (which eventually
explains its success) but also a bit irresponsible...


>

 

[Paul (Bornival)]

"Root Kit" wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:07:46 -0700, Paul (Bornival)
> wrote:
>
> >The sucessfull attacks on WinXP computers I was were before the introduction
> >of SP2. This was completely and effectively avoided after installing ZA.
>
> True - but could easily have been avoided by shutting down unnecessary
> services, adding a simple packet filter or activating the build-in
> one.

- shutting down servies is nice ... but the trouble is that the MS
documentatin is so poor that you never know what you really do when you shut
down a service ... untill someone comes and complain that things do not work
any longer as they did before... Then you realize that you better not shut
down any service ... (I could luch longer about that, but, believe me, ther
are so many softwares that capitalize on existing "default" Windows services
that you think twice before shutting one down...).

- packet filters are nice, but are you going to implement them on 30
computers with different requirements ...

- the build-in firewall was so well hidden that I only discovered its
existence by accident, and it was not very esay to master... I guess MS never
advertised it because they knew how weak and inefficient it was. If what I
say is not true, why did not advertise it ?


>
> >When SP2 was introduced, I compared ZA with the SP2 firewall, and found that
> >ZA was eventually easier to adjust to our needs. This is why I remained
> >faithfl to ZA (and I'm not the only one...).
>
> I wonder what your needs are.

Oh simple... a workgroup with 30 computers in peer-to-peer configuration and
in a very open environment (each computer ahs a PUBLIC IP address - do not
ask me why, this is so - but each needs to be reachable from outside by me
and a few other authorized persons... no domain as we had no one to be its
administrator and if the domain server fails, evryting fails ...). Seems
crasy, but since we got ZA on all machines, we simply have no more any
problem ...

> >Note that turning off WinXP network services was not possible (or largely
> >unpractical) given our needs of communication between computers.
>
> How do you expect ZA to protect services you need to make available?

Well, did YOU really tested ZA ?

>

 

[Paul (Bornival)]

"Kayman" wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:07:46 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote:
>
> > "Root Kit" wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:03:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival)
> >> wrote:
> >>> (I did so after seeing my unprotected WinXP computers so easily
> >>>attacked ...).
>
> Educational reading (not only for Vista users).
>
> Managing the Windows Vista Firewall
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510323.aspx

I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound
filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people, not
linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ?

>

 

[Kerry Brown]

I don't think very many people that understand security think outbound
filtering is not a useful thing to do. Many people that understand how
computers work think that relying on a software firewall to stop something
that is running on the same computer and has the same or higher privileges
as the firewall isn't a good thing or even possible. Outbound filtering is
very useful for some situations. Outbound filtering to stop malware where
the filtering and the malware are on the same computer is a fool's game. For
security outbound filtering is best done by something that is not running on
the computer to be filtered. For other reasons, like blocking p2p traffic or
messenger traffic (i.e. non-malicious traffic) outbound filtering via
software on the computer works but I still prefer to do this elsewhere.
Filtering like this means you are trying to restrict the user from doing
something. Using software on the computer the computer to restrict the user
is also a fool's errand. Anyone who has physical access to the computer and
a little bit of knowledge can bypass it.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/



"Paul (Bornival)" wrote in message
news:BC8524D9-8E8D-4B87-8BEA-6C371426A975@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Kayman" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:07:46 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote:
>>
>> > "Root Kit" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:03:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> (I did so after seeing my unprotected WinXP computers so easily
>> >>>attacked ...).
>>
>> Educational reading (not only for Vista users).
>>
>> Managing the Windows Vista Firewall
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510323.aspx
>
> I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound
> filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people, not
> linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ?
>
>>

 

[H.S.]

Paul (Bornival) wrote:
>
> I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound
> filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people, not
> linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ?
>

Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing a
full firewall and is thus marketing and trying to convince its users
that outbound control is unnecessary.

Historically, MS has wanted their OS to be used by dumb average Joe
users and thus tuned its system as such. Consequently, they compromised
on multiuser features, restricted user usage habits and proper computer
terminology. Result: Almost all users believe Windows must be run in
admin mode. They do not gain any basic knowledge about computers which
is commonplace among computer technologists (MS uses its own
nomenclature, as you mentioned, probably based on recommendations by
marketing drones). All this leads to significant ignorance of important
issues related to computer security.

But to be fair, these marketing strategies also resulted in the boom of
personal computer.

Also, the strict control over licenses also played a very important role
in making Linux what it is today: secure, open source and, these days,
with better GUI than Windows in many respects. Had Windows been "open",
maybe there would not have been as much impetus in making Linux distros
so user friendly. I have myself seen that current version of Ubuntu is
much more easier to install than Windows!

 

[H.S.]

Kerry Brown wrote:
> I don't think very many people that understand security think outbound
> filtering is not a useful thing to do. Many people that understand how
> computers work think that relying on a software firewall to stop
> something that is running on the same computer and has the same or
> higher privileges as the firewall isn't a good thing or even possible.
> Outbound filtering is very useful for some situations. Outbound

Here is another one: I do not like that every time I open an MS
application (Word, Excel, Windows ... ), it tries to talk to Microsoft.
My firewall warns me about it and I deny it.

Now, I have no idea why the application is trying to phone home. Why
should it? The only reason I would accept is if it is trying to find
updates. Well, in that case, I would rather do that myself, thank you
very much. Online help? No, don't need it. Any other reasons? Sorry, now
you are invading my privacy.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

H.S. wrote:
> Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing a
> full firewall and is thus marketing and trying to convince its users
> that outbound control is unnecessary.

No one here works for or represents MS, including MVPs.

The Windows Firewall is inbound/outbound.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

H.S. wrote:
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> I don't think very many people that understand security think outbound
>> filtering is not a useful thing to do. Many people that understand how
>> computers work think that relying on a software firewall to stop
>> something that is running on the same computer and has the same or
>> higher privileges as the firewall isn't a good thing or even possible.
>> Outbound filtering is very useful for some situations. Outbound
>
> Here is another one: I do not like that every time I open an MS
> application (Word, Excel, Windows ... ), it tries to talk to Microsoft.
> My firewall warns me about it and I deny it.

Office Help is now online, d00d. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[H.S.]

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>> Here is another one: I do not like that every time I open an MS
>> application (Word, Excel, Windows ... ), it tries to talk to Microsoft.
>> My firewall warns me about it and I deny it.
>
> Office Help is now online, d00d. Wake up and smell the coffee.


Did you even read the rest of my post? Why are you snipping the relevant
parts?

 

[H.S.]

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:

>
> The Windows Firewall is inbound/outbound.

On XP Pro? Didn't think so.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Conversation in entirety:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.p...3486be8412ee2af





This is one of those debates like *nix vs. Windows vs. OS X.

Nothing is proven on any side, examples abound (some truthful and realistic
from the single instance, some not so much) and nothing but emotions and
egos get exposed.

Personal experience and outside articles are quoted a lot. Some good for
that single instance in time, others pulled from myth and legend and still
others might actually hold up over scrutiny (the latter is often over-looked
in the debate and glossed over at every turn by those opposed to the topic.)

Ideas like "outbound only catches the stuff you already have and who says
the application in question did not just change your outbound rules as you
installed it so you still don't know you have it?" and "I like to know when
something attempts to 'call home'" seem to cover most of the arguments.
(Sound like "Windows has more security holes than other OSes" and "Macs just
don't get viruses"...? Yeah - same type of arguments. heh)

In the end - both are right, both are wrong. It's a personal preference.
It's a way of computing, a mind-set, a need. I know many people who have
ran many different OSes for many many years without a single instance of
infection/infestation and they run no antivirus software and no antispyware
software. They continuously (when someone finds out) get questions like
"how do you know you actually don't have a virus or spyware/adware if you
don't run anythign to prevent/check for it?"

In the end - I just go by the idea that making things more complicated is
seldom the proper course of action... Simplistic solutions are usually the
most effective and the most eloquent.

So which way do _I_ lean? Doesn't matter.

Each person has their own reasoning behind whatever it is they do. I have
used many different solutions (I do like to try things - see what I can
learn and find) - and I do offer advice on the ones I tried that seemingly
did their jobs without _over-complicating_ my life just to keep it working.
However - I know that will be different for each person, and I cannot say
which is less complicated for any one of them. Advice: Try each solution
*if* this whole topic has any importance to you.

All anyone here can offer is that someone practice some common sense. The
world is dangerous - your computer gives you options the rest of the world
does not (I cannot backup my car so that when I get in a wreck, I just
reload for near instant recovery) - use them. Protect yourself when you can
(Equate each of these to something on your computer: lock your doors to make
it harder for intruders to get in while you are there *or* away, wear a coat
when it is cold, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes, put on sunscreen to
protect your skin, brush your teeth to prevent cavities, pick up 'your
room', take out the garbage, cover your face when you cough/sneeze, store
copies of important documents(life insurance, will, deeds, etc) far away
from the originals, etc.)

I know someone could pull one (or more) argument for one side or the other
out of those - I could do it right now. heh

The point - if the solution for everyone was obvious and one-sided - there
would be no discussion. Being that each person is unique with differing
experiences and external facts that help support their own experiences - the
discussion is never-ending. Not one person here can definitively win their
argument (even if you get rid of every actual 'crazy argument' -- although
who decides that is yet another debate. hah)

Interesting that a discussion about a particular patch that exasperated a
problem in a particular piece of software could spawn a conversation along
these lines... And the subject line stays the same through out. Amazing
really.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[Kerry Brown]

That is the only reason I can think of to use outbound filtering running on
the computer. Personally I'm not that paranoid about programs I install
phoning home. In most cases I prefer that they do. Specifically in
Microsoft's case I let it send the reports about how the program is working
on my computer. These reports are anonymous and used to improve the product
and fix bugs. For me that's a good thing. I do understand that some people
don't think about this in the same way. In most cases this reporting can be
turned off from within the program but it is often buried in an out of the
way place. If this is your concern then by all means install a 3rd party
firewall and use it to block this type of traffic. The whole point of my
posts is not related to this. The point I'm trying to make is that one
application cannot be relied on to block malicious outbound traffic from
another application on the same computer. The traffic you want to block is
not malicious or trying to hide in any way.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/




"H.S." wrote in message
news:e0JpJEF6IHA.4852@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> I don't think very many people that understand security think outbound
>> filtering is not a useful thing to do. Many people that understand how
>> computers work think that relying on a software firewall to stop
>> something that is running on the same computer and has the same or higher
>> privileges as the firewall isn't a good thing or even possible. Outbound
>> filtering is very useful for some situations. Outbound
>
> Here is another one: I do not like that every time I open an MS
> application (Word, Excel, Windows ... ), it tries to talk to Microsoft. My
> firewall warns me about it and I deny it.
>
> Now, I have no idea why the application is trying to phone home. Why
> should it? The only reason I would accept is if it is trying to find
> updates. Well, in that case, I would rather do that myself, thank you very
> much. Online help? No, don't need it. Any other reasons? Sorry, now you
> are invading my privacy.
>
>

 

[Kayman]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:07:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote:



> - shutting down servies is nice ... but the trouble is that the MS
> documentatin is so poor that you never know what you really do when you shut
> down a service ... untill someone comes and complain that things do not work
> any longer as they did before... Then you realize that you better not shut
> down any service ... (I could luch longer about that, but, believe me, ther
> are so many softwares that capitalize on existing "default" Windows services
> that you think twice before shutting one down...).

Disable any unnecessary and potentially dangerous Services
Configure and adjust Services to suit your computing needs
Windows XP Service Pack 3 Service Configurations
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

(This can be a tedious exercise but will bear fruits later on!).

 

[Kayman]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:25:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote:

> "Kayman" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:07:46 -0700, Paul (Bornival) wrote:
>>
>>> "Root Kit" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:03:01 -0700, Paul (Bornival)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> (I did so after seeing my unprotected WinXP computers so easily
>>>>>attacked ...).
>>
>> Educational reading (not only for Vista users).
>>
>> Managing the Windows Vista Firewall
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510323.aspx
>
> I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound
> filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people, not
> linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ?
>
>>

You are wrong! Keep on lurking and you'll see why

 

[Leonard Grey]

"Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing
a full firewall..."

Sheesh, they got into enough trouble for bundling a web browser and a
media player. Now you want them to bundle a firewall?

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

H.S. wrote:
> Paul (Bornival) wrote:
>>
>> I am amazed by how strongly people linked to MS state that outbound
>> filtering is unecessary or even countreproductive. Yet, other people,
>> not linked to MS, think otherwise. Why is it so ?
>>
>
> Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing a
> full firewall and is thus marketing and trying to convince its users
> that outbound control is unnecessary.
>
> Historically, MS has wanted their OS to be used by dumb average Joe
> users and thus tuned its system as such. Consequently, they compromised
> on multiuser features, restricted user usage habits and proper computer
> terminology. Result: Almost all users believe Windows must be run in
> admin mode. They do not gain any basic knowledge about computers which
> is commonplace among computer technologists (MS uses its own
> nomenclature, as you mentioned, probably based on recommendations by
> marketing drones). All this leads to significant ignorance of important
> issues related to computer security.
>
> But to be fair, these marketing strategies also resulted in the boom of
> personal computer.
>
> Also, the strict control over licenses also played a very important role
> in making Linux what it is today: secure, open source and, these days,
> with better GUI than Windows in many respects. Had Windows been "open",
> maybe there would not have been as much impetus in making Linux distros
> so user friendly. I have myself seen that current version of Ubuntu is
> much more easier to install than Windows!
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Kayman]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:06:50 -0400, H.S. wrote:

> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> I don't think very many people that understand security think outbound
>> filtering is not a useful thing to do. Many people that understand how
>> computers work think that relying on a software firewall to stop
>> something that is running on the same computer and has the same or
>> higher privileges as the firewall isn't a good thing or even possible.
>> Outbound filtering is very useful for some situations. Outbound
>
> Here is another one: I do not like that every time I open an MS
> application (Word, Excel, Windows ... ), it tries to talk to Microsoft.
> My firewall warns me about it and I deny it.
>
> Now, I have no idea why the application is trying to phone home. Why
> should it? The only reason I would accept is if it is trying to find
> updates. Well, in that case, I would rather do that myself, thank you
> very much. Online help? No, don't need it. Any other reasons? Sorry, now
> you are invading my privacy.

The situation is very simple If you don't trust an application then don't
install it in the first place!
Read EULA prior installing software and if deemed to be 'trustworthy' find
out reasons as to why it is phoning home. If you still don't like it
disable this function.