Guest Dr Alok Modi MD Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 I get this error when I am trying to update windows XP. i have searched on this forum, enterd cmd prompt, entered proxycfg . it says no proxy detected. But yet my update does not work. I have zone alarm fireball installed, it has been working fine so far. I have win XP SP2.
Guest Michael Jennings Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 If you did not suspect the firewall you would have spelled it correctly, so I suggest you activate the Windows firewall via the security center in control panel, uninstall the zone alarm firewall which will cause a reboot, and see if that lets you get updates. If it doesn't, post that it didn't. If it does, either find out what was wrong or get a different firewall. Hint: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sygate "Dr Alok Modi MD" <DrAlokModiMD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F3FD66A3-4D3D-4E34-87EC-C7BFCAF23B61@microsoft.com... > I get this error when I am trying to update windows XP. i have searched on > this forum, enterd cmd prompt, entered proxycfg . it says no proxy > detected. > But yet my update does not work. I have zone alarm fireball installed, it > has > been working fine so far. I have win XP SP2.
Guest Ottmar Freudenberger Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > either find out what was wrong or get a different firewall. Why not the firewall included in Windows already? *No* personal firewall software can block unwanted *outgoing* traffic from the host it's running on reliably/savely (nor is it needed in case you'll inform yourself about the applications you're running on your system or are willing to before installing them). The Windows Firewall coming with Windows XP prevents unwanted *incoming* traffic savely. http://www.pcflank.com/art21.htm is still up to date like http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2169468%7Eroot=security,1%7Emode=flat http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html Bye, Freudi
Guest Michael Jennings Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message news:5kk196F3ur69U1@mid.individual.net... > "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > >> either find out what was wrong or get a different firewall. > > Why not the firewall included in Windows already? > *No* personal firewall software can block unwanted *outgoing* traffic > from the host it's running on reliably/safely (nor is it needed in case > you'll inform yourself about the applications you're running on your > system or are willing to before installing them). The Windows Firewall > coming with Windows XP prevents unwanted *incoming* traffic safely. > http://www.pcflank.com/art21.htm is still up to date like > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2169468%7Eroot=security,1%7Emode=flat > http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html Well, I'll try to explain my feelings about that, Freudi. Before they were snuffed by Symantec, Sygate improved to catch the Too Leaky test and that 5.6 version 2808 is still out there at no charge. It makes me feel better when it blocks outgoing Windows stuff I don't feel like allowing. The Windows firewall will not do that. If Microsoft were incapable of being sneaky and underhanded I would be content to do without the ability to block outbound. It would be better to have an appliance, rather than a broadband router and software firewall, but I'm not quite ready to be so thorough. Maybe I should rethink that. I did tell the OP to turn on the Windows firewall before uninstalling ZA.
Guest Ottmar Freudenberger Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > It makes me feel better when it blocks outgoing Windows stuff I don't > feel like allowing. *Feelings* are anything but secure(ing the system). Bye, Freudi
Guest Michael Jennings Posted September 10, 2007 Posted September 10, 2007 "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message news:5kkddqF42k7sU1@mid.individual.net... > "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > >> It makes me feel better when it blocks outgoing Windows stuff I don't >> feel like allowing. > > *Feelings* are anything but secure(ing the system). What your link http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html recommends is a cheap single purpose dual homed host running BSD and ipf. Darren Reed's Internet Protocol Filter (ipf) is a firewall: http://www.lindloff.com/deipf-howto.txt Is this also your recommendation to home computer users? A clean reinstall of Windows flushes out accumulated crap. I tend to recommend that, and the NAT router samspade suggests for those disinclined to get involved with ipf, his first recommendation http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon/ip-filter.html which is a professional approach requiring time and attention. As to the software firewall, despite the NAT router, there are packets that the Sygate firewall blocks or questions - like those leak tests at http://www.pcflank.com/art21.htm The Windows XP firewall can't pass any of those tests. Perhaps the Vista firewall could if tediously adjusted off default pass all outbound. Default is fine if practices are perfect and Microsoft is trustworthy. Since I am not perfect, and regard the world as being somewhat imperfect, I don't think default pass all outbound is fine.
Guest Ottmar Freudenberger Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > What your link http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html recommends > is a cheap single purpose dual homed host running BSD and ipf. > Darren Reed's Internet Protocol Filter (ipf) is a firewall: > http://www.lindloff.com/deipf-howto.txt > Is this also your recommendation to home computer users? Nope. > A clean reinstall of Windows flushes out accumulated crap. Please specify "accumalted crap". > As to the software firewall, despite the NAT router, there are packets > that the Sygate firewall blocks or questions - And the average user is able to decide whether the packet is unwanted or needed? One again: Malware is able to bypass *any* PFS which is running on the very same host. It's *useless* to try to control *outgoing* traffic whith a Personal Firwall Software. > Since I am not perfect, and regard the world as being somewhat > imperfect, I don't think default pass all outbound is fine. It is. Otherwise you're running unwanted software on your machine. In this case get rid of the software or have a look into the configuration of those and/or contact the vendor. Bye, Freudi
Guest Dr Alok Modi MD Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Do I really need to uninstall zone alarm ? I a ma loyal user of zone alarm for 2 years. Dr Alok Modi MD "Ottmar Freudenberger" wrote: > "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > > > What your link http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html recommends > > is a cheap single purpose dual homed host running BSD and ipf. > > Darren Reed's Internet Protocol Filter (ipf) is a firewall: > > http://www.lindloff.com/deipf-howto.txt > > Is this also your recommendation to home computer users? > > Nope. > > > A clean reinstall of Windows flushes out accumulated crap. > > Please specify "accumalted crap". > > > As to the software firewall, despite the NAT router, there are packets > > that the Sygate firewall blocks or questions - > > And the average user is able to decide whether the packet is unwanted or > needed? One again: Malware is able to bypass *any* PFS which is running > on the very same host. It's *useless* to try to control *outgoing* traffic > whith a Personal Firwall Software. > > > Since I am not perfect, and regard the world as being somewhat > > imperfect, I don't think default pass all outbound is fine. > > It is. Otherwise you're running unwanted software on your machine. In > this case get rid of the software or have a look into the configuration > of those and/or contact the vendor. > > Bye, > Freudi >
Guest Michael Jennings Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message news:5kmfiaF48n0jU1@mid.individual.net... > "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > >> What your link http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html recommends >> is a cheap single purpose dual homed host running BSD and ipf. >> Darren Reed's Internet Protocol Filter (ipf) is a firewall: >> http://www.lindloff.com/deipf-howto.txt >> Is this also your recommendation to home computer users? > > Nope. Well, you've got an on-topic question from Dr Alok Modi MD who wants to know how to get WU working. He seems to not want to follow my suggestion and try uninstalling Zone Alarm. Your advice? >> A clean reinstall of Windows flushes out accumulated crap. > > Please specify "accumulated crap". Just let your imagination run wild - it can't be that bad. >> As to the software firewall, despite the NAT router, there are packets >> that the Sygate firewall blocks or questions - > > And the average user is able to decide whether the packet is unwanted or > needed? One again: Malware is able to bypass *any* PFS which is running > on the very same host. It's *useless* to try to control *outgoing* traffic > with a Personal Firewall Software. Most of that stuff isn't so very clever - it gets caught. If I'm not howling at a sysadmin what is *this?* (I'm not) then I'm not an annoyance due to it. >> Since I am not perfect, and regard the world as being somewhat >> imperfect, I don't think default pass all outbound is fine. > > It is. Otherwise you're running unwanted software on your machine. In > this case get rid of the software or have a look into the configuration > of those and/or contact the vendor. Thanks to you, Freudi, I was able to get rid of WGAN, but before I used your script to uninstall it, the outgoing firewall stopped it from calling home. Being alerted to the presence of unwanted software need not be useless provided (as you demand) effective action is taken to eliminate it.
Guest Ottmar Freudenberger Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 "Dr Alok Modi MD" <DrAlokModiMD@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb: > Do I really need to uninstall zone alarm ? As it's a potential cause for the system preventing updates to be installed correctly, yes, I recommend that. Enable the Windows Firewall instead. Bye, Freudi
Guest Ottmar Freudenberger Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:5kmfiaF48n0jU1@mid.individual.net... >> "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: >>> A clean reinstall of Windows flushes out accumulated crap. >> >> Please specify "accumulated crap". > > Just let your imagination run wild - it can't be that bad. Would you mind answering the question? >>> As to the software firewall, despite the NAT router, there are packets >>> that the Sygate firewall blocks or questions - >> >> And the average user is able to decide whether the packet is unwanted or >> needed? One again: Malware is able to bypass *any* PFS which is running >> on the very same host. It's *useless* to try to control *outgoing* traffic >> with a Personal Firewall Software. > > Most of that stuff isn't so very clever - it gets caught. Nope. What's the sense of an application not preventing anything for sure (but preventing the system from running correct more than once)? Can you trust an apllication which claims to block any outgoing, unwanted traffic but doesn't in case it's really malware which is working around that piece of crap? You're a believer? -> >>> Since I am not perfect, and regard the world as being somewhat >>> imperfect, I don't think default pass all outbound is fine. >> >> It is. Otherwise you're running unwanted software on your machine. In >> this case get rid of the software or have a look into the configuration >> of those and/or contact the vendor. > > Thanks to you, Freudi, I was able to get rid of WGAN, but before I used > your script to uninstall it, the outgoing firewall stopped it from calling > home. And you've won what? Bye, Freudi
Guest Michael Jennings Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message news:5knq8tF4nd3hU1@mid.individual.net... > "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: >> "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message >> news:5kmfiaF48n0jU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Please specify "accumulated crap". >> >> Just let your imagination run wild - it can't be that bad. > > Would you mind answering the question? Something screwed up f-prot's launch - Windows installer yields to an f-prot progress bar. Canceling out a couple times gets me to the AV. The Start Menu is too long. It has been over 6 months since I last formatted the hard drive - time to do it again and rebuild with care. If an unwelcome resident is evading the firewall, the format kills it. >>> And the average user is able to decide whether the packet is unwanted or >>> needed? One again: Malware is able to bypass *any* PFS which is running >>> on the very same host. It's *useless* to try to control *outgoing* >>> traffic >>> with a Personal Firewall Software. >> >> Most of that stuff isn't so very clever - it gets caught. > > Nope. What's the sense of an application not preventing anything for sure > (but preventing the system from running correct more than once)? Can you > trust an application which claims to block any outgoing, unwanted traffic > but doesn't in case it's really malware which is working around that piece > of crap? You're a believer? -> Since of each and every one of the antivirus programs is not able to catch all computer viruses, and also all the antivirus programs interfere with the computer's functioning, and also they all mis-identify threats as well so then why trust any of them? Actually, there was a guy in the Vista group who had secret knowledge that you don't need an AV if you've got Vista, which is also a false premise. I had a high school physics teacher who assured me that the atomic nucleus was held together by the force of gravity. She showed me the formula. I was too ignorant to be able to argue with her, but some reading I'd done assured me she was wrong. I believe that you disapprove of outbound filtering unless it is done perfectly on an external appliance. If it's not worth doing right, then it's not worth doing at all. There is trust or there isn't. Whole hog or not at all. Murky and nuanced are unacceptable conditions. Well, you know that's nice, but not entirely realistic generally. > > And you've won what? The opportunity to lose to Fritz. I set myself up with a nice won position from a Paul Morphy game, make some stupid moves, and my king gets checkmated. They have it programmed to gloat and revile me.
Guest Ottmar Freudenberger Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: > "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:5knq8tF4nd3hU1@mid.individual.net... >> "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: >>> "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message >>> news:5kmfiaF48n0jU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> A clean reinstall of Windows flushes out accumulated crap. >>>> Please specify "accumulated crap". >>> >>> Just let your imagination run wild - it can't be that bad. >> >> Would you mind answering the question? > > Something screwed up f-prot's launch - F-prot is part of Windows? I'm astonished -) > Windows installer yields to an f-prot progress bar. And the vendor's support (sites) says? > The Start Menu is too long. You can sort that one and/or create new folders in which you drag&drop some entries, really. > If an unwelcome resident is evading the firewall, the format kills it. True. >> Nope. What's the sense of an application not preventing anything for sure >> (but preventing the system from running correct more than once)? Can you >> trust an application which claims to block any outgoing, unwanted traffic >> but doesn't in case it's really malware which is working around that piece >> of crap? You're a believer? -> > > Since of each and every one of the antivirus programs is not able to catch > all computer viruses, and also all the antivirus programs interfere with the > computer's functioning, and also they all mis-identify threats as well so > then why trust any of them? I don't, do you? Honestly, I don't have any AV application running perman- ently in the background. In case I download something or open an attachment, I save these ones into a folder first and then start a on demand scan before executing/opening them. You may have fun running http://brain.yubb.de/ trough a translator though ) > I believe that you disapprove of outbound filtering unless it is done > perfectly on an external appliance. If it's not worth doing right, then > it's not worth doing at all. True. A personal firewall software running on the host from which it is configured to block outgoing traffic isn't trustworthy. > Well, you know that's nice, but not entirely realistic generally. Why not? Cause of marketing droids bomarding the average user with a bunch of lies ("100% save")? True but sad. Bye, Freudi
Guest Michael Jennings Posted September 12, 2007 Posted September 12, 2007 "Ottmar Freudenberger" <freudi@gmx.net> wrote in message news:5kp60lF4tnkaU1@mid.individual.net... > "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme@gmail.com> schrieb: >> If an unwelcome resident is evading the firewall, the format kills it. > > True. > >> Since of each and every one of the antivirus programs is not able to >> catch >> all computer viruses, and also all the antivirus programs interfere with >> the >> computer's functioning, and also they all mis-identify threats as well >> so >> then why trust any of them? > I don't, do you? Honestly, I don't have any AV application running perman- > ently in the background. In case I download something or open an > attachment, > I save these ones into a folder first and then start a on demand scan > before > executing/opening them. You may have fun running http://brain.yubb.de/ > through a translator though ) I'm too sloppy not to need an AV monitoring my piggy activities. I admitted that a couple of years ago. Until then I did as you do. F-Prot, which is not a part of Windows, has their monitor shrunk down to half NOD32's size. My guess is that programming in assembler helps while away Icelandic winters. >> I believe that you disapprove of outbound filtering unless it is done >> perfectly on an external appliance. If it's not worth doing right, then >> it's not worth doing at all. > > True. A personal firewall software running on the host from which it > is configured to block outgoing traffic isn't trustworthy. > >> Well, you know that's nice, but not entirely realistic generally. > > Why not? Cause of marketing droids bombarding the average user with a > bunch of lies ("100% safe")? True but sad. That's certainly true of the pitch for Sygate at Major Geeks. http://www.majorgeeks.com/Sygate_Personal_Firewall_Free_d3356.html I see that the choice is between possibly harmless insincerity and honesty. Building a firewall might be more interesting than getting beaten by Fritz.
Recommended Posts