- Thread starter
- #121
J
John John (MVP)
Kayman wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote:
>
>
>>Conversation in entirety:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8/b3486be8412ee2af?lnk=st&q=#b3486be8412ee2af
>>
>>
>>
>><reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software per se.
> Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the introduction of NT.
> Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles about this subject
> extensively. It's an important security subject and the message is not easy
> to convey, especially if one is blinded by the hype created by the makers
> of 3rd party software.
Before Windows XP what were people using? What were they using on NT4
and on Windows 2000? Just because XP got a firewall now anything else
has suddenly become unfit for use? Geez, I guess next the hype will be
that anything but One Care will be no good.
John
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:39:08 -0500, Shenan Stanley wrote:
>
>
>>Conversation in entirety:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8/b3486be8412ee2af?lnk=st&q=#b3486be8412ee2af
>>
>>
>>
>><reference to the inbound/outbound argument parts only>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Well, I don't think the discussion is about a particular software per se.
> Rather the requirement of 'outbound control' after the introduction of NT.
> Jesper M. Johansson wrote educational articles about this subject
> extensively. It's an important security subject and the message is not easy
> to convey, especially if one is blinded by the hype created by the makers
> of 3rd party software.
Before Windows XP what were people using? What were they using on NT4
and on Windows 2000? Just because XP got a firewall now anything else
has suddenly become unfit for use? Geez, I guess next the hype will be
that anything but One Care will be no good.
John
