FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

[Kayman]

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)
>> <PaulBornival@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> (I did so after seeing my unprotected WinXP computers so easily
>>>attacked ...).
>>
>> This is nonsense. An "unprotected" XP (SP2+) is not easily attacked.
>> Pre SP2, all you needed to do was turn the FW on, or even better -
>> shut down unnecessary network services, which MS unfortunately has a
>> bad habit of having running by default.
>
> The sucessfull attacks on WinXP computers I was were before the introduction
> of SP2. This was completely and effectively avoided after installing ZA.
> 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...). Note that turning off WinXP
> network services was not possible (or largely unpractical) given our needs of
> communication between computers.

Educational reading (not only for Vista users).

Managing the Windows Vista Firewall
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510323.aspx

 

[CharlieG]

ZoneAlarm

Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on the
computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT. Without internet
connection I can't download any patches in any order. The ZoneAlarm fixes
don't work to reconnect to the internet.

This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't have the
KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble. Uninstalling
ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:

> [Crossposted to Windows Update, WinXP General, IE General, Security,
> Security Home Users newsgroups]
>
> Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem
> http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html
> (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008)
>
> NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability addressed by
> KB951748 *is* a big deal! See
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html
>
> Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls?
> http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php
> --
> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
>
>

 

[H.S.]

Root Kit wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:01:59 -0400, "H.S."
> <hs.samREMOVEMEix@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hence the rule that one should not be logged in with administrative
>> rights for day to day usage of Windows unless doing computer maintenance
>> tasks. Your reasoning above just proves that this makes perfect sense.
>> The users who are logged in with admin privileges and not *extremely*
>> careful about their browsing habits get what they ask for when their
>> computer is hosed due to malware.
>
> I'd like to clarify that there are tricks that still work perfectly
> well for a malware running with restricted rights. It just rules out
> some of the options.

Using a computer with admin rights by an average Joe user is, well, not
a smart thing to do (being very polite here).

If an OS demands that its users run as admins all the time, the OS is
poorly designed.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Re: ZoneAlarm

CharlieG wrote:
> Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on
> the computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT.
> Without internet connection I can't download any patches in any
> order. The ZoneAlarm fixes don't work to reconnect to the internet.
>
> This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't
> have the KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble.
> Uninstalling ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.

If you do not have the Microsoft patch (KB951748 ) installed nor do you have
Zone Alarm installed and you still cannot connect to the Internet - your
problem is certainly different and probably unrelated other than by
coincidental timing...?

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

 

[ANONYMOUS]

Re: ZoneAlarm

CharlieG wrote:

>Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on the
>computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT. Without internet
>connection I can't download any patches in any order. The ZoneAlarm fixes
>don't work to reconnect to the internet.
>
>This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't have the
>KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble. Uninstalling
>ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
Get rid of ZoneAlarm completely because you don't need it for two reasons:

1) MS has already given you a free software based FIREWALL

2) If you are using a broadband to connect to the net, then you must be
using a modem or a router which already has its own, harware based,
FIREWALL

Now you don't need another firewall for the sake of it being given away
for free. There is no such thing as free lunch. What they have given
you is a software that is not capable of cohabiting with MS OS. You
have to decide whether you want to use another OS which works with
ZONEALARM or you simply stay with MS OS. The choice is yours.

Hope this helps.

 

[Ron Badour]

Re: ZoneAlarm

Hi Charlie,

It appears there may be varying degrees of the connection problem since some
people (me included) could get internet access merely by changing the
settings on ZA and thus could download the fix which totally cured the
problem.

--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"CharlieG" <CharlieG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5BBF7DB9-ADE2-4836-9B3D-B33DFE04F39C@microsoft.com...
> Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on the
> computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT. Without internet
> connection I can't download any patches in any order. The ZoneAlarm fixes
> don't work to reconnect to the internet.
>
> This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't have
> the
> KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble. Uninstalling
> ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.
>
>
>
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:
>
>> [Crossposted to Windows Update, WinXP General, IE General, Security,
>> Security Home Users newsgroups]
>>
>> Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem
>> http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html
>> (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008)
>>
>> NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability addressed
>> by
>> KB951748 *is* a big deal! See
>> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html
>>
>> Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls?
>> http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php
>> --
>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
>> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
>> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
>>
>>

 

[Stinger]

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.

Meanwhile users of the Windows operating system suffer because of a decision
made by Microsoft to make this a update. Anyone else think they (MS) knew
this was going to happen besides myself?

Meanwhile, I sure do have a lot of new work on computers these days thanks
to this little gem.

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:

> So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party application,
> not the other way around?
>
> Get real.
>
>
> xxexbushpig wrote:
> > Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), but
> > it
> > wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the KB951748
> > update that screwed up millions of people!
>
>

 

[CharlieG]

Re: ZoneAlarm

I think you are right. I have been able to disable ZoneAlarm on two
machines and when I uninstalled 748 internet connection was restored. But on
a third machine I don't have 748 installed, but I do have 749 and even
UNINSTALLING ZoneAlarm I am still not able to get internet reestablished.
There were 5 MS updates installed at the same time on this machine:

0749, 1698, 823-v3, 760 1376-v2, and 0762 Should I uninstall ALL of those?
If I should try one at a time what is the order of the ones to be removed?

In response to another post here if two computers go out at the same time it
might be coincidence, but if both of those have a software problem and both
have the same software installed that is creating the problem ..........


Thanks

"Ron Badour" wrote:

> Hi Charlie,
>
> It appears there may be varying degrees of the connection problem since some
> people (me included) could get internet access merely by changing the
> settings on ZA and thus could download the fix which totally cured the
> problem.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Ron Badour
> MS MVP
> Windows Desktop Experience
>
>
> "CharlieG" <CharlieG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5BBF7DB9-ADE2-4836-9B3D-B33DFE04F39C@microsoft.com...
> > Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on the
> > computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT. Without internet
> > connection I can't download any patches in any order. The ZoneAlarm fixes
> > don't work to reconnect to the internet.
> >
> > This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't have
> > the
> > KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble. Uninstalling
> > ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> [Crossposted to Windows Update, WinXP General, IE General, Security,
> >> Security Home Users newsgroups]
> >>
> >> Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem
> >> http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html
> >> (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008)
> >>
> >> NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability addressed
> >> by
> >> KB951748 *is* a big deal! See
> >> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html
> >>
> >> Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls?
> >> http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php
> >> --
> >> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> >> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
> >> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
> >> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Re: ZoneAlarm

CharlieG wrote:
> Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on
> the computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT.
> Without internet connection I can't download any patches in any
> order. The ZoneAlarm fixes don't work to reconnect to the internet.
>
> This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't
> have the KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble.
> Uninstalling ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.

Ron Badour wrote:
> It appears there may be varying degrees of the connection problem
> since some people (me included) could get internet access merely by
> changing the settings on ZA and thus could download the fix which
> totally cured the problem.

CharlieG wrote:
> I think you are right. I have been able to disable ZoneAlarm on two
> machines and when I uninstalled 748 internet connection was
> restored. But on a third machine I don't have 748 installed, but I
> do have 749 and even UNINSTALLING ZoneAlarm I am still not able to
> get internet reestablished. There were 5 MS updates installed at
> the same time on this machine:
>
> 0749, 1698, 823-v3, 760 1376-v2, and 0762 Should I uninstall ALL of
> those? If I should try one at a time what is the order of the ones
> to be removed?
>
> In response to another post here if two computers go out at the
> same time it might be coincidence, but if both of those have a
> software problem and both have the same software installed that is
> creating the problem ..........

However - you inferred only a single machine in your original posting. You
made no explicit mention of multiple machines in your case. I pretty much
would ignore coincidence if two computers get the same changes and both have
the same problem. Especially if I can test a third system without the
changes and everything is fine.

Yes - general troubleshooting always seem to start the same way...

1) List things that changed between 'things working as expected' and 'things
not working as expected'.
2) Remove the changes and revert to pre-change state.

** If the problem disappears - continue this line of troubleshooting...
** If the problem does not disappear - either you missed a change or the
removal did not complete OR the problem is unrelated to the changes.

3) Perform the changes you just undid one at a time - checking for the
problem you are trying to resolve after each trial. (In the case of a
computer - reboot a couple of times to ensure the change is complete.)
* Do not rush into it - perform ONE change at a time and reboot - be
consistent and diligent.

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

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: ZoneAlarm

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:26:11 -0700, CharlieG
<CharlieG@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on the
> computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT. Without internet
> connection I can't download any patches in any order.


You can fix that easily in any of three ways:

1. Lower the settings in ZA temporarily (not a great idea, in my view,
but it works. I prefer the other choices)

2. Turn off ZA temporarily (long enough to download the new version)
and use the Windows firewall instead.

3. Download the new version of ZA on a friend's computer and bring it
to yours on a CD.



> The ZoneAlarm fixes
> don't work to reconnect to the internet.
>
> This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't have the
> KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble. Uninstalling
> ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.
>
>
>
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:
>
> > [Crossposted to Windows Update, WinXP General, IE General, Security,
> > Security Home Users newsgroups]
> >
> > Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem
> > http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html
> > (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008)
> >
> > NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability addressed by
> > KB951748 *is* a big deal! See
> > http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html
> >
> > Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls?
> > http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php
> > --
> > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
> > MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
> > AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
> > DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
> >
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[CharlieG]

Re: ZoneAlarm

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.




"Shenan Stanley" wrote:

> CharlieG wrote:
> > Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on
> > the computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT.
> > Without internet connection I can't download any patches in any
> > order. The ZoneAlarm fixes don't work to reconnect to the internet.
> >
> > This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't
> > have the KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble.
> > Uninstalling ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.
>
> Ron Badour wrote:
> > It appears there may be varying degrees of the connection problem
> > since some people (me included) could get internet access merely by
> > changing the settings on ZA and thus could download the fix which
> > totally cured the problem.
>
> CharlieG wrote:
> > I think you are right. I have been able to disable ZoneAlarm on two
> > machines and when I uninstalled 748 internet connection was
> > restored. But on a third machine I don't have 748 installed, but I
> > do have 749 and even UNINSTALLING ZoneAlarm I am still not able to
> > get internet reestablished. There were 5 MS updates installed at
> > the same time on this machine:
> >
> > 0749, 1698, 823-v3, 760 1376-v2, and 0762 Should I uninstall ALL of
> > those? If I should try one at a time what is the order of the ones
> > to be removed?
> >
> > In response to another post here if two computers go out at the
> > same time it might be coincidence, but if both of those have a
> > software problem and both have the same software installed that is
> > creating the problem ..........
>
> However - you inferred only a single machine in your original posting. You
> made no explicit mention of multiple machines in your case. I pretty much
> would ignore coincidence if two computers get the same changes and both have
> the same problem. Especially if I can test a third system without the
> changes and everything is fine.
>
> Yes - general troubleshooting always seem to start the same way...
>
> 1) List things that changed between 'things working as expected' and 'things
> not working as expected'.
> 2) Remove the changes and revert to pre-change state.
>
> ** If the problem disappears - continue this line of troubleshooting...
> ** If the problem does not disappear - either you missed a change or the
> removal did not complete OR the problem is unrelated to the changes.
>
> 3) Perform the changes you just undid one at a time - checking for the
> problem you are trying to resolve after each trial. (In the case of a
> computer - reboot a couple of times to ensure the change is complete.)
> * Do not rush into it - perform ONE change at a time and reboot - be
> consistent and diligent.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>
>

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Re: ZoneAlarm

CharlieG wrote:
> Do these people not understand that we have NO internet access on
> the computers affected. The FIRST PROBLEM is to FIX THAT.
> Without internet connection I can't download any patches in any
> order. The ZoneAlarm fixes don't work to reconnect to the internet.
>
> This problem seems to affect MORE than they are admitting. I don't
> have the KB951748 update installed and I'm still having trouble.
> Uninstalling ZoneAlarm doesn't solve the problem either.

Ron Badour wrote:
> It appears there may be varying degrees of the connection problem
> since some people (me included) could get internet access merely by
> changing the settings on ZA and thus could download the fix which
> totally cured the problem.

CharlieG wrote:
> I think you are right. I have been able to disable ZoneAlarm on two
> machines and when I uninstalled 748 internet connection was
> restored. But on a third machine I don't have 748 installed, but I
> do have 749 and even UNINSTALLING ZoneAlarm I am still not able to
> get internet reestablished. There were 5 MS updates installed at
> the same time on this machine:
>
> 0749, 1698, 823-v3, 760 1376-v2, and 0762 Should I uninstall ALL of
> those? If I should try one at a time what is the order of the ones
> to be removed?
>
> In response to another post here if two computers go out at the
> same time it might be coincidence, but if both of those have a
> software problem and both have the same software installed that is
> creating the problem ..........

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> However - you inferred only a single machine in your original
> posting. You made no explicit mention of multiple machines in your
> case. I pretty much would ignore coincidence if two computers get
> the same changes and both have the same problem. Especially if I
> can test a third system without the changes and everything is fine.
>
> Yes - general troubleshooting always seem to start the same way...
>
> 1) List things that changed between 'things working as expected'
> and 'things not working as expected'.
> 2) Remove the changes and revert to pre-change state.
>
> ** If the problem disappears - continue this line of
> troubleshooting...
> ** If the problem does not disappear - either you missed a change
> or the removal did not complete OR the problem is unrelated to the
> changes.
>
> 3) Perform the changes you just undid one at a time - checking for
> the problem you are trying to resolve after each trial. (In the
> case of a computer - reboot a couple of times to ensure the change
> is complete.) * Do not rush into it - perform ONE change at a time
> and reboot - be consistent and diligent.

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.

So Zone Alarm is *uninstalled* and all the patches released/installed this
month are uninstalled on this Windows XP (Professional, Home, Media Center,
Tablet PC or x64?) with Service Pack (2 or 3?) machine and you are not
getting any network traffic?

Tried...?

Start button --> RUN --> type in...

CMD /K NETSH FIREWALL RESET

--> Click on OK.

Also...

Start button --> RUN --> type in...

NETSH DIAG GUI

--> Click on OK. --> Scan your system.

You may also want to uninstall your network card hardware device driver and
reboot (allowing it to reinstall.)

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

 

[Root Kit]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:01:35 -0400, "H.S."
<hs.samREMOVEMEix@google.com> wrote:

>Root Kit wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:01:59 -0400, "H.S."
>> <hs.samREMOVEMEix@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hence the rule that one should not be logged in with administrative
>>> rights for day to day usage of Windows unless doing computer maintenance
>>> tasks. Your reasoning above just proves that this makes perfect sense.
>>> The users who are logged in with admin privileges and not *extremely*
>>> careful about their browsing habits get what they ask for when their
>>> computer is hosed due to malware.
>>
>> I'd like to clarify that there are tricks that still work perfectly
>> well for a malware running with restricted rights. It just rules out
>> some of the options.
>
>Using a computer with admin rights by an average Joe user is, well, not
>a smart thing to do (being very polite here).

Agreed.

>If an OS demands that its users run as admins all the time, the OS is
>poorly designed.

Indeed. Windows doesn't demand that. Anyway, due to the installation
defaults prior to Vista, many *programs* are badly designed - assuming
the user has admin rights.

 

[Kayman]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:15:02 -0700, 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.
>
> Meanwhile users of the Windows operating system suffer because of a decision
> made by Microsoft to make this a update. Anyone else think they (MS) knew
> this was going to happen besides myself?
>

You're very poorly informed. Can't you read threads in its entirety or do
you have a problem relating to comprehension abilities? It seems you're
just another pisser.

 

[Kayman]

Re: ZoneAlarm

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:13:01 -0700, 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.

For a complete removal try this:
http://zonealarm.donhoover.net/uninstall.html

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

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-challenge/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...

 

[Stinger]

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-challenge/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...
>
>

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Stinger" <Stinger@discussions.microsoft.com> 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:

<snip for brevity>
>
> 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: /2008/07/11/skepticism-relieved-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-challenge/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...