Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (
More info?)
there once was a time when the only way to get an infection from an
Email message was to click on something. this is no longer true.
the following came out a year ago on April 15:
"The latest Netsky is squirming across the Internet as an email without
an attachment. Experienced Internet veterans have grown suspicious of
any email with an attachment. It's almost always going to be infected
with a worm or virus. Well, Netsky.v has monkey-wrenched us all with a
way to infect computers via email with no double-click required!
Yep, you heard me right, by using a combination of Windows security
flaws, the creators of Netsky.v figured out how to infect a vulnerable
computer without requiring the computer's owner to double-click on an
attached file. If the computer is vulnerable, and isn't protected by
up-to-date antivirus software, Netsky.v will automatically infect the
victim system. How's that for an eye opener?
Not only does it infect the victim system with its own wormy code, but
it also installs its own mail, web, and ftp servers which it uses to
spread itself to other computers."
quoted from
http://www.hiwaayviruscenter.com/blog/archives/000006.html
now maybe somebody will say, "since MS fixed that flaw, it is no longer
an issue." maybe, if "it" only means that particular mutation of
virus/worm. but the bigger problem (No-click attacks) has just begun,
now that Pandora's box is open.
JW wrote:
> there once was a time when using multiple anti-spyware programs
> protected people from contracting spyware infections. this is no longer
> true. new spyware is being developed so fast, that even the best
> anti-spyware program fails to stop over 1/3 of all spyware. this is
> proven by tests documented at the following web site:
>
http://windowssecrets.com/050127/#story1
>
> there once was a time when the only way you could get a
> virus/worm/Trojan/spyware infection was to intentionally click on
> something. this is no longer true. these days, infectious code is much
> more sophisticated, and can be acquired even by clicking on Nothing.
> these are called "No-click attacks". plenty of sources of information
> can be found by searching Google for "No-click attack".
>
> they can occur not only through E-mail and web browsing, but also
> through IM programs. in fact, the No-click attack vulnerability got so
> bad, that Microsoft has stopped people from signing into MSN Messenger
> until they install the newest upgrade, because you could be attacked
> with an infection using MSN Messenger, even if you clicked on Nothing.
>
> anti-virus programs are of some help, but even with frequent updates,
> they still only recognize infections known up until yesterday. they
> might or might not recognize new infections spreading today, so PCs will
> always be vulnerable to new infections until the anti-virus software
> maker develops the signature, makes it available, and the PC acquires
> it. this can mean a vulnerability of hours or days. therefore, it is
> easy to acquire a newly released virus/worm, without knowing it.
>
> and anti-virus programs fail miserably when it comes to
> detecting/removing Trojans. these Trojans can be easily acquired
> nowadays too, with the sophistication of "No-click" E-mail attachments,
> and your friend's name in the From field. the web site
> www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com states
> "Most folk harbor the belief that they are totally protected from
> malicious trojan horses by their anti-virus scanner. The bad news is
> that many anti-virus scanners give only limited protection against
> trojans. Just how limited can be gauged from the fact that Norton
> Anti-Virus 2004 missed every single trojan in the test data set we used
> in these series of reviews."
>
> of course, your years of knowledge and experience about how to correctly
> tweak every program and router can stop practically all of these
> infections, but 99% of average PC users in the world will never acquire
> (and have no desire to spend time acquiring) the same years of
> knowledge and experience that you have. they truly want to practice
> "safe-hex" and they think they know what it means (do not visit Bangkok
> porn sites), but since they really don't know what "safe hex" means, and
> don't know that they don't know, their only protection is their cheap
> $25 router (which has no firewall), and/or a free software firewall. of
> course, neither one will guarantee 100% security.
>
> but at least these 99% of average PC users in the world have a fighting
> chance with a free software firewall. and yes, they can defeat it
> easily by saying "Yes" to everything, just as easily as they can defeat
> their cheap router by allowing Outbound communication on every port. but
> with a software firewall, at least they get a chance by seeing and
> deciding how to answer a pop-up question. plus, 99% of the time it is
> not a mysteriously complicated question. if ZoneAlarm asks me "Do you
> want XYZ program to access the internet", i would say Yes, if i just now
> launched it. if i did not launch XYZ program, and ZoneAlarm suddenly
> asks me out of no where "Do you want XYZ program to access the
> internet", i would say "What for? i didn't just launch that program.".
>
> yes, there will always be the unclear 1% leading to confusion. but if
> people refuse to ask an expert or search Google, then they deserve the
> consequences of taking that "leap in the dark". a cheap $25 router, on
> the other hand, would never ask the question, because it is either
> totally clueless to this Outbound breach of security, or is easily
> tricked into approving it using the trick documented by the LeakTest
> program at www.grc.com
>
> the best solution is documented at
> www.firewallguide.com which states the following:
> Bottom Line -- If a personal firewall is the sheriff, a posse is needed
> to help the sheriff capture the pests sent out by Internet outlaws like
> spyware, browser hijackers, viruses, Trojan horses, worms, phishing,
> spam and hybrids thereof.
> A layered approach is best to protect your security and privacy:
> * First line of defense -- Choose an Internet service provider
> (ISP), an email service and/or a website hosting service that offers
> online virus, spam and content filters.
> * Second line of defense -- Install a hardware router with a built
> in firewall between your modem and your computer or network.
> * Third line of defense -- Use personal firewall, anti-virus,
> anti-Trojan, anti-spyware, anti-spam, anti-phishing, and privacy
> software on your desktop computer and every computer on your network.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
>
>> Scott M. wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with most of what you say with exception that no outbound
>>> blocking is usually enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> For home/novice users, it usually is, unless they have something else
>> (gateway/firewall appliance blocking all but, say, 80, 443, 110 and 25
>> outbound). These things are inexpensive nowadays. I see no reason not to
>> have one.
>>
>>
>>> As you know, *most/many* home users are
>>> oblivious to what is running on their PCs and *many* have
>>> spyware/adware that they don't even know about. Having no outbound
>>> blocking for *most* people in these circumstances is like leaving the
>>> bank vault open and walking away.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well - I somewhat disagree. First, the spyware got in there somehow -
>> and it
>> didn't just blithely wander in through the guy's cable modem when he
>> wasn't
>> looking, & install itself. And spyware infestation is not going to be
>> stopped by disabling TCP port X Y or Z outbound. Spyware is prevented by
>> safe hex, XP SP2, tightening browser security, running antispyware
>> software
>> (Microsoft's beta, or others). In fact - this is a must, regardless.
>>
>> Re *trojans* (which are more of an issue in the context we're discussing
>> here) yes, one can do the whole internet a favor by not allowing all but
>> needed traffic outbound, it's true - and this is a Good Thing. However,
>> again, the trojan got in somehow and didn't just blithely wander in
>> through
>> the... (see above). And the aforementioned guy needs good antivirus
>> software, kept updated regularly and needs to know how to practice
>> safe hex,
>> as well as running WU regularly. Again, this is a must, regardless.
>>
>> If this guy doesn't get how to deal with the above, you think he's
>> going to
>> know exactly what to do when his local fw software asks him whether he
>> would
>> like to allow svchost.exe to access the Internet? I don't. He'll get
>> frustrated and pick the wrong choice- or he'll simply turn off the
>> annoying
>> thing to avoid being asked.
>>
>>
>>> For this reason, I say the Windows
>>> Firewall is crude at best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it's simple, or if you must insist, I'll allow you your "crude."
>> But it
>> won't be any *less* useful than a third party application with regard to
>> spyware. Spyware comes in and runs - it doesn't then launch attacks to
>> the
>> Internet.
>>
>>> I whole-heartedly agree that a perimeter firewall is a much better
>>> solution. Myself, I use a hardware firewall at my network perimeter
>>> and software firewalls (ZA) on each of my client machines.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep - belt & suspenders, but your clients had better be pretty savvy
>> unless
>> you don't present them with "pick yes or no" messages.
>>
>>>
>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
>>> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:%23$4EM5cIFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> Scott M. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I use ZA with XP Pro SP2 and have had no problems on any of the 6
>>>>> machines I use it with. I would NOT recommend the XP Firewall as
>>>>> the other person suggested. The Windows Firewall is crude at best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd say "simple", rather than "crude". It blocks *all* inbound
>>>> traffic by default....and no outbound, which is often enough.
>>>>
>>>> I personally don't use it myself, but I've found that for the
>>>> majority of home/small biz users, it's very confusing for them to
>>>> continually get popup
>>>> messages asking if they want to allow blah.exe to access the
>>>> Internet. They
>>>> either click No all the time out of (reasonable) paranoia and mess up
>>>> something, or they allow things they shouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer perimeter network firewalls, even for home networks.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:14147609-4F15-47CE-B7EA-C313C8D87FEB@microsoft.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rod P." wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have Windows XP Pro SP2 and I tried to install ZoneAlarm Pro,
>>>>>>> but my computer would not boot, so I am wondering if there is a
>>>>>>> firewall out there
>>>>>>> that is compatible with the SP2 firewall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah. The SP2 firewall. Once you install SP2 and keep it up to
>>>>>> date, you really don't need a third party firewall as long as you
>>>>>> use other measures to
>>>>>> keep viruses, trojans, worms, adware, and spyware from getting on
>>>>>> your system
>>>>>> in the first place -- and you will also be free of all the problems
>>>>>> (did someone mention Zone Alarm?) that people seem to experience
>>>>>> whenever they attempt to install a third party firewall with SP2
>>>>>> (as you can quickly learn
>>>>>> by regularly following these newsgroups).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If, despite all this, you want to use a third party firewall, you
>>>>>> should turn off the Windows firewall. You should have only one
>>>>>> firewall running at
>>>>>> any time on your system. Ditto for antivirus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram