Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Zone Alarm

Last response: in Networking
Share
May 8, 2004 1:21:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Hi - I have been unable to work out why when viewing e-mails [html] that
ZoneAlarm removes the ads pics within the e-mail. It replaces the images
with a word like "image" or words to that effect. I've ensure my "Ad
Blocking" is set to OFF.

Hope to hear from others on advice, TIA.

More about : zone alarm

Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 8, 2004 1:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, Indie mused:
|
| Hi - I have been unable to work out why when viewing e-mails [html] that
| ZoneAlarm removes the ads pics within the e-mail. It replaces the images
| with a word like "image" or words to that effect. I've ensure my "Ad
| Blocking" is set to OFF.

What mail client are you using to read email? Privacy Controls should
only affect browsers, but you might want to check your Program Options tab,
and see if you have Privacy enabled for anything else (i.e. your mail
client).

Though, it should be pointed out that HTML in email can be used to
deliver viruses to your computer. Also, spammers will embed HTTP links to
very small picture files (that you cannot see) which access a web site where
your IP and email address will be recorded as valid. So, best advice is to
turn off the HTML in email completely. If your mail client doesn't allow
you to do this, then get a new mail client.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 14, 2004 9:54:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailŠPäM.com> squirted these
wordjisms deep inside the bumtube of the newstwat in
news:gCOmc.37942$IG1.2110205@attbi_s04:

> Taking a moment's reflection, Indie mused:
>|
>| Hi - I have been unable to work out why when viewing e-mails [html]
>| that ZoneAlarm removes the ads pics within the e-mail. It replaces
>| the images with a word like "image" or words to that effect. I've
>| ensure my "Ad Blocking" is set to OFF.
>
> What mail client are you using to read email? Privacy Controls
> should
> only affect browsers, but you might want to check your Program Options
> tab, and see if you have Privacy enabled for anything else (i.e. your
> mail client).
>
> Though, it should be pointed out that HTML in email can be used to
> deliver viruses to your computer. Also, spammers will embed HTTP
> links to very small picture files (that you cannot see) which access a
> web site where your IP and email address will be recorded as valid.
> So, best advice is to turn off the HTML in email completely. If your
> mail client doesn't allow you to do this, then get a new mail client.
>
>
>
>


Good advice.

However, as regards your statement that "Privacy Controls should
only affect browsers", as I understand things, this is not completely
correct.

Some mail clients, including Outlook Express, (and I think Outlook) use
Internet Explorer's html rendering components, and use that browser's
security zones. And although things have been tightened up for XP SP2 to
eliminate some vulnerabilities in this particular area, the
vulnerabilities still exist in XP even with SP1 applied, to some extent
or other, depending on what patches have been applied.

For this reason and others related to personal preference, I use Mozilla
Thunderbird for mail and Opera for browsing, rather than OE/IE. They are
much safer, in my opinion.


--
*********************************
* David Qunt
* (remove '200' from email address to reply by email)
* ******************************************************
Related resources
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 14, 2004 10:06:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

David Qunt schrieb:

> That said, I would still say that generally speaking, Moz Thunderbird and
> Opera are much safer than OE/IE, mainly for the reasons you cite. For a
> virus writer, finding new vulnerabilities in Mozilla/Opera will 'earn' them
> far less kudos than finding vulnerabilities in OE/IE, for the simple reason
> that they will affect less people.
>

>>The only thing that makes things "much safer" is you and what you do
>>with your computer...
>>
> I agree wholeheartedly with this remark.
>
> However, what you do with yor computer (or computers if you are a sysadmin)
> should include protecting yourself as far as possible from the risks you
> are likely to encounter - which to me means properly configuring and
> patching your client and server OS in line with how vulnerable they are
> likely to be, employing a firewall (be it hardware or software), and having
> decent AV, anti-trojan, and anti-spyware measures in place. If these are
> maintained (or administered in a corporate environment) regularly and well,
> the likely result will be trouble-free computing.

Well, I guess I should put it this way: "much safer" depends on the
person who says it. If you know what you are doing you are probably
right. You can say "much safer" if you know security. For example, for
you the AV is a normally just a fallback/backup solution. Even with AV
it probably won't come to your mind to just open an attachment you don't
know about. So I would assume that you hardly ever hear from your
AV-software.

However, tell someone who does not know about security that with AV his
computer is much safer now. For him, it may be not much safer because
now he drops his guards and thinks he can open any attachment because if
it was a virus his AV would tell him. So if something that is supposed
to make things "much safer" actually lead to people getting careless you
will gain nothing in the end. Sooner or later you will have the newest
most clever virus in you Inbox that the AV doesn't know about, yet...
(It is kind of like people who think they can speed with their car
because it is so much safer with all the anti-blocking brakes, airbags,
etc...)

Gerald
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 15, 2004 3:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> squirted these wordjisms deep inside the
bumtube of the newstwat in news:xU7pc.32592$hY.408@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

> David Qunt schrieb:
>
>> That said, I would still say that generally speaking, Moz Thunderbird
>> and Opera are much safer than OE/IE, mainly for the reasons you cite.
>> For a virus writer, finding new vulnerabilities in Mozilla/Opera will
>> 'earn' them far less kudos than finding vulnerabilities in OE/IE, for
>> the simple reason that they will affect less people.
>>
>
>>>The only thing that makes things "much safer" is you and what you do
>>>with your computer...
>>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly with this remark.
>>
>> However, what you do with yor computer (or computers if you are a
>> sysadmin) should include protecting yourself as far as possible from
>> the risks you are likely to encounter - which to me means properly
>> configuring and patching your client and server OS in line with how
>> vulnerable they are likely to be, employing a firewall (be it
>> hardware or software), and having decent AV, anti-trojan, and
>> anti-spyware measures in place. If these are maintained (or
>> administered in a corporate environment) regularly and well, the
>> likely result will be trouble-free computing.
>
> Well, I guess I should put it this way: "much safer" depends on the
> person who says it. If you know what you are doing you are probably
> right. You can say "much safer" if you know security. For example, for
> you the AV is a normally just a fallback/backup solution. Even with AV
> it probably won't come to your mind to just open an attachment you
> don't know about. So I would assume that you hardly ever hear from
> your AV-software.
>

That's true. It's configured to check for new signature files every half
hour.


> However, tell someone who does not know about security that with AV
> his computer is much safer now. For him, it may be not much safer
> because now he drops his guards and thinks he can open any attachment
> because if it was a virus his AV would tell him. So if something that
> is supposed to make things "much safer" actually lead to people
> getting careless you
> will gain nothing in the end. Sooner or later you will have the
> newest
> most clever virus in you Inbox that the AV doesn't know about, yet...
> (It is kind of like people who think they can speed with their car
> because it is so much safer with all the anti-blocking brakes,
> airbags, etc...)
>
> Gerald

That's all true.

We have wandered into the territory of human involvement now, in the
sense that it matters not if you have the best defences in the world if
you don't keep them up to date. I agree that a naive user may be lulled
into a false sense of security after simply installing some AV software.

But the fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of a user,
naive or otherwise, to keep his or her machine secure, by updating AV
software etc. With the current round of worms and other threats doing the
rounds, the security of others can be affected. So any consequences of
failing to secure a machine would be the fault of the naive user
concerned. It's only when those airbags you mention fail to inflate and
he smashes into a brick wall chin first that the penny will drop, and by
then it's too late.............


--
*********************************
* David Qunt
* (remove '200' from email address to reply by email)
* ******************************************************
May 15, 2004 5:13:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

the weird thing is that I'm using Outlook and IE6 [external mail] and it was
fine at one stage.

thx for replying tho mchicaoidh

"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
news:gCOmc.37942$IG1.2110205@attbi_s04...
> Taking a moment's reflection, Indie mused:
> |
> | Hi - I have been unable to work out why when viewing e-mails [html] that
> | ZoneAlarm removes the ads pics within the e-mail. It replaces the
images
> | with a word like "image" or words to that effect. I've ensure my "Ad
> | Blocking" is set to OFF.
>
> What mail client are you using to read email? Privacy Controls should
> only affect browsers, but you might want to check your Program Options
tab,
> and see if you have Privacy enabled for anything else (i.e. your mail
> client).
>
> Though, it should be pointed out that HTML in email can be used to
> deliver viruses to your computer. Also, spammers will embed HTTP links to
> very small picture files (that you cannot see) which access a web site
where
> your IP and email address will be recorded as valid. So, best advice is
to
> turn off the HTML in email completely. If your mail client doesn't allow
> you to do this, then get a new mail client.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 15, 2004 9:49:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, David Qunt mused:
|
| However, as regards your statement that "Privacy Controls should
| only affect browsers", as I understand things, this is not completely
| correct.

You are probably correct. Frankly, I got tired of messing with ZA Pro's
Privacy "features" all the time, and decided to go with ZA Plus (back when
ZA was offering a free switch-over from Pro to Plus). But, if the IE engine
is used, the Privacy Controls would have an effect.

| For this reason and others related to personal preference, I use Mozilla
| Thunderbird for mail and Opera for browsing, rather than OE/IE.

I use Thunderbird as well. Lovely program. ;-)
!