Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ZDnet on XP SP2 known compatibility issues...

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 4:26:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

.....well, at least my Unreal Tournament demos don't show any
problems......yet :

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...


Stew
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 11:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> ....well, at least my Unreal Tournament demos don't show any
> problems......yet :
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...
>
>
> Stew

Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away with
releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully refer to
as "shonky".

If I were cynical I'd probably be asking how much Billy Gates has bunged
various Senators across the pond to prevent litigation.

Remind me again, how many actual patches/fixes do SP1 and SP2 apply to the
original released "oh you will activate this product within 30 days because
it's so good" version of Windows XP?
August 16, 2004 11:20:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"The Social Outcast" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:fO7Uc.1422$qK6.17325173@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...

> Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away with
> releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully refer to
> as "shonky".

Did you read the ZDNet and KB articles? Is there some case of
SP2 breaking a program when it shouldn't? It looks like Security
Alerts might be annoying for those of us who run local servers, but
other than that I'm not sure what in that KB article is worthy of
criticism. Please enlighten me.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 11:20:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:59:15 -0400, Ted wrote:

>> Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away with
>> releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully refer to
>> as "shonky".
>
> Did you read the ZDNet and KB articles? Is there some case of
> SP2 breaking a program when it shouldn't? It looks like Security
> Alerts might be annoying for those of us who run local servers, but
> other than that I'm not sure what in that KB article is worthy of
> criticism. Please enlighten me.

I think you have to read those articles with a bias against MS and Windows.

Dave
Running SP2 for almost a week now with no problems at all on both the
desktop and laptop.
--
We are the US military. Your asses will be kicked. Resistance is futile.

US Army Signal Corps!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email!
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 1:39:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The article reports compatibility issues. Just as previous service packs
for previous versions of Windows have broken poorly written programs. Some
people just like to bash Microsoft. Ignore them and they will go away!


"Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:41212017$0$5919$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
> "The Social Outcast" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:fO7Uc.1422$qK6.17325173@news-text.cableinet.net...
>>
>> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...
>
>> Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away with
>> releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully refer
>> to
>> as "shonky".
>
> Did you read the ZDNet and KB articles? Is there some case of
> SP2 breaking a program when it shouldn't? It looks like Security
> Alerts might be annoying for those of us who run local servers, but
> other than that I'm not sure what in that KB article is worthy of
> criticism. Please enlighten me.
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 1:39:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"WSZsr" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o Q9Uc.8099$vW4.5641@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> The article reports compatibility issues. Just as previous service packs
> for previous versions of Windows have broken poorly written programs.
> Some people just like to bash Microsoft. Ignore them and they will go
> away!
>
>

<snip>


Which was not my reason for posting the link, I might add. By and large, I
happen to be a fan of Windows XP when compared to previous versions.

The link was simply meant to inform, not to provoke MS bashing or trolling.


Stew
August 17, 2004 2:12:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

So it's broken poorly written programs, like MS SQL Server, CRM, VS .Net,
SMS 2003 Server... I don't usually bash MS, but if their own programs won't
work with it (or require a special patch to fix the SP), doesn't that
indicate a bit of a problem? Especially given the amount of time they've
taken to get the SP2 out the door...

Clint

"WSZsr" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o Q9Uc.8099$vW4.5641@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> The article reports compatibility issues. Just as previous service packs
> for previous versions of Windows have broken poorly written programs.
Some
> people just like to bash Microsoft. Ignore them and they will go away!
>
>
> "Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:41212017$0$5919$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> >
> > "The Social Outcast" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:fO7Uc.1422$qK6.17325173@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >>
> >> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...
> >
> >> Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away with
> >> releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully refer
> >> to
> >> as "shonky".
> >
> > Did you read the ZDNet and KB articles? Is there some case of
> > SP2 breaking a program when it shouldn't? It looks like Security
> > Alerts might be annoying for those of us who run local servers, but
> > other than that I'm not sure what in that KB article is worthy of
> > criticism. Please enlighten me.
> >
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:51:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

your are assuming that MS writes no bad code. bad assumption

"Clint" <nobody@nowhere.non> wrote in message
news:kjaUc.124151$J06.96310@pd7tw2no...
> So it's broken poorly written programs, like MS SQL Server, CRM, VS .Net,
> SMS 2003 Server... I don't usually bash MS, but if their own programs
won't
> work with it (or require a special patch to fix the SP), doesn't that
> indicate a bit of a problem? Especially given the amount of time they've
> taken to get the SP2 out the door...
>
> Clint
>
> "WSZsr" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o Q9Uc.8099$vW4.5641@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> > The article reports compatibility issues. Just as previous service
packs
> > for previous versions of Windows have broken poorly written programs.
> Some
> > people just like to bash Microsoft. Ignore them and they will go away!
> >
> >
> > "Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:41212017$0$5919$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> > >
> > > "The Social Outcast" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > > news:fO7Uc.1422$qK6.17325173@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > >>
> > >> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > >> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...
> > >
> > >> Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away
with
> > >> releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully
refer
> > >> to
> > >> as "shonky".
> > >
> > > Did you read the ZDNet and KB articles? Is there some case of
> > > SP2 breaking a program when it shouldn't? It looks like Security
> > > Alerts might be annoying for those of us who run local servers, but
> > > other than that I'm not sure what in that KB article is worthy of
> > > criticism. Please enlighten me.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
August 17, 2004 4:52:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Considering the long list of problem apps, and the extensive
instructions on how to configure the firewall so the apps work, I'd
say MS did a lot of research and knew about the problems in advance.
The firewall is written for the millions of users that have no idea
how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every attachment they get in
email. I'm more than willing to open those ports my apps need to work
if it helps stop the spread of nasties.

You can always just disable the firewall, and use one that prompts you
every time a new app wants internet access.

Dave


On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:12:32 GMT, "Clint" <nobody@nowhere.non> wrote:

>So it's broken poorly written programs, like MS SQL Server, CRM, VS .Net,
>SMS 2003 Server... I don't usually bash MS, but if their own programs won't
>work with it (or require a special patch to fix the SP), doesn't that
>indicate a bit of a problem? Especially given the amount of time they've
>taken to get the SP2 out the door...
>
>Clint
>
>"WSZsr" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:o Q9Uc.8099$vW4.5641@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
>> The article reports compatibility issues. Just as previous service packs
>> for previous versions of Windows have broken poorly written programs.
>Some
>> people just like to bash Microsoft. Ignore them and they will go away!
>>
>>
>> "Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:41212017$0$5919$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>> >
>> > "The Social Outcast" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> > news:fO7Uc.1422$qK6.17325173@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> >>
>> >> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> >> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...
>> >
>> >> Astonishing that Microsoft seem to be able to repeatedly get away with
>> >> releasing products that our Australian cousins would delightfully refer
>> >> to
>> >> as "shonky".
>> >
>> > Did you read the ZDNet and KB articles? Is there some case of
>> > SP2 breaking a program when it shouldn't? It looks like Security
>> > Alerts might be annoying for those of us who run local servers, but
>> > other than that I'm not sure what in that KB article is worthy of
>> > criticism. Please enlighten me.
>> >
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 6:01:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, in
<p7l2i09e6d3prnai1h9oad36ij0hcksh3r@4ax.com>, Dave
<dmjohn29@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Considering the long list of problem apps, and the extensive
>instructions on how to configure the firewall so the apps work, I'd
>say MS did a lot of research and knew about the problems in advance.
>The firewall is written for the millions of users that have no idea
>how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every attachment they get in
>email. I'm more than willing to open those ports my apps need to work
>if it helps stop the spread of nasties.
>
>You can always just disable the firewall, and use one that prompts you
>every time a new app wants internet access.
>
>Dave

If a firewall is really "written for the millions of users that
have no idea how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every
attachment they get in email," then it better prompt you every
time a new app wants Internet access, or it better deny access.
Unless SP2 fixes it, the firewall provided with WinXP does
neither.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 6:01:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jim Higgins" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:mn34i01tv65g9vd4i2a8v17jvarakmfmav@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, in
> <p7l2i09e6d3prnai1h9oad36ij0hcksh3r@4ax.com>, Dave
> <dmjohn29@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Considering the long list of problem apps, and the extensive
>>instructions on how to configure the firewall so the apps work, I'd
>>say MS did a lot of research and knew about the problems in advance.
>>The firewall is written for the millions of users that have no idea
>>how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every attachment they get in
>>email. I'm more than willing to open those ports my apps need to work
>>if it helps stop the spread of nasties.
>>
>>You can always just disable the firewall, and use one that prompts you
>>every time a new app wants internet access.
>>
>>Dave
>
> If a firewall is really "written for the millions of users that
> have no idea how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every
> attachment they get in email," then it better prompt you every
> time a new app wants Internet access, or it better deny access.
> Unless SP2 fixes it, the firewall provided with WinXP does
> neither.
>

The firewall offers no prompts for program exit or entry to my knowledge, so
to the end user that remains unchanged.

Attachments, along with HTML e-mail are aggressively contained and are not
displayed (at least in OE) w/o altering those specific settings on the
"tools/options" menus.

Thing is, I suspect even a newbie will be annoyed at that very fact and find
a way to allow access for both, and then you're back to square one with
regard to e-mail.


Stew
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 9:59:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

CuteFTP 5 XP works for me with the port 21 and I don't think Shaw,
VillagePhoto, Tripod and Arenacenter's are Windows XP SP2-based computer


"S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:R66Uc.5815$B53.3978@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> ....well, at least my Unreal Tournament demos don't show any
> problems......yet :
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,391...
>
>
> Stew
>
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 5:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

In article <mn34i01tv65g9vd4i2a8v17jvarakmfmav@4ax.com>, Jim Higgins <me7@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, in
><p7l2i09e6d3prnai1h9oad36ij0hcksh3r@4ax.com>, Dave
><dmjohn29@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Considering the long list of problem apps, and the extensive
>>instructions on how to configure the firewall so the apps work, I'd
>>say MS did a lot of research and knew about the problems in advance.
>>The firewall is written for the millions of users that have no idea
>>how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every attachment they get in
>>email. I'm more than willing to open those ports my apps need to work
>>if it helps stop the spread of nasties.
>>
>>You can always just disable the firewall, and use one that prompts you
>>every time a new app wants internet access.
>
>If a firewall is really "written for the millions of users that
>have no idea how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every
>attachment they get in email," then it better prompt you every
>time a new app wants Internet access, or it better deny access.

Not too long ago I recall reading a review that suggested *most*
available firewall programs (commercial as well as freeware) did not
protect against "spoofing" where a malicious program on your machine
simply said something like "I'm your e-mail program" and the firewall
let it out. A *very few* actually used digital signatures to verify a
program was what it purported to be.

I hope someone can reassure me that all the previously inadequate
firewalls now address this issue?

>Unless SP2 fixes it, the firewall provided with WinXP does neither.


Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
August 18, 2004 5:39:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2oh4g2FakdlpU3@uni-berlin.de...

> Not too long ago I recall reading a review that suggested *most*
> available firewall programs (commercial as well as freeware) did not
> protect against "spoofing" where a malicious program on your machine
> simply said something like "I'm your e-mail program" and the firewall
> let it out. A *very few* actually used digital signatures to verify a
> program was what it purported to be.
>
> I hope someone can reassure me that all the previously inadequate
> firewalls now address this issue?

I don't know enough about all the different firewalls to reliably answer
that question. I do know that local client/server fingerprinting has
become more popular. It is usefull as a secondary level of defense,
and hyping it is a good way to sell firewalls. Heck, I'm almost
tempted to buy a couple. For purposes of developing demonstrations
of how easy it is to bypass them ;-)
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 5:57:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

In article <41238a46$0$21756$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>,
"Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2oh4g2FakdlpU3@uni-berlin.de...
>
>> Not too long ago I recall reading a review that suggested *most*
>> available firewall programs (commercial as well as freeware) did not
>> protect against "spoofing" where a malicious program on your machine
>> simply said something like "I'm your e-mail program" and the firewall
>> let it out. A *very few* actually used digital signatures to verify a
>> program was what it purported to be.
>>
>> I hope someone can reassure me that all the previously inadequate
>> firewalls now address this issue?
>
>I don't know enough about all the different firewalls to reliably answer
>that question. I do know that local client/server fingerprinting has
>become more popular. It is usefull as a secondary level of defense,
>and hyping it is a good way to sell firewalls. Heck, I'm almost
>tempted to buy a couple. For purposes of developing demonstrations
>of how easy it is to bypass them ;-)

You seem to be saying these things don't work anyway? :-)

Sigh... Life really was *much* simpler when running MSDOS 3.2 and
logging in to a Unix box over a 2400 baud modem to read News.


Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
August 19, 2004 7:17:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ojptiFbfaqaU2@uni-berlin.de...
> In article <41238a46$0$21756$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>,
> "Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >I don't know enough about all the different firewalls to reliably answer
> >that question. I do know that local client/server fingerprinting has
> >become more popular. It is usefull as a secondary level of defense,
> >and hyping it is a good way to sell firewalls. Heck, I'm almost
> >tempted to buy a couple. For purposes of developing demonstrations
> >of how easy it is to bypass them ;-)
>
> You seem to be saying these things don't work anyway? :-)

What do you mean by "work"? If you are asking how effective are
they at preventing unauthorized net access, that depends in large part
on how hostile the local environment is. How knowledgeable and
carefull are the machine's users? Has malware found its way onto
the machine, and if so, how sophisticated is it?

If the environment is "friendly"... if the firewall is used properly and
all malware is caught *before* it has a chance to execute on the
machine, they should work quite well. But in that kind of situation,
the [advanced] fingerprinting techniques aren't really necessary.

If the firewall isn't used properly and/or if malware *is* allowed to
execute on the machine, it's a whole different ballgame. If the
malware is relatively unsophisticated/nonaggressive, such firewalls
should be effective and the fingerprinting technique may come in
handy. If the malware is highly sophisticated/aggressive, it may
utilize any number of techniques (some automatic/technical, some
involving tricking the user) that can be used to slip data past even
those firewalls that utilize advanced fingerprinting. In some cases
the malware will be able to uninstall the firewall, in some cases
disable it or punch a hole in it, in some cases the malware will be
able to coerce a trusted/fingerprinted app into sending/receiving
data for it, etc. FWIW, the same or similar techniques can be
used to disable or otherwise bypass other anti-malware tools such
as antivirus software. Which is why it is so critical to prevent
malware from getting onto your box and/or executing in the first
place.

Does this mean that fingerprinting firewalls are useless or are not
worth upgrading to? No, I'm not saying that. It doesn't hurt to
have additional protection even when that additional protection
may not work in all scenarios. People, not necessarily you, just
need to understand that there are limitations to what fingerprinting
firewalls and outgoing blocking can do. The biggest one being
that they are geared toward protecting you from "harm" that is
caused by something that should never be given an opportunity
to begin with.
Anonymous
August 20, 2004 5:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

Thanks for your followup, Ted. As you say, if one can keep stuff
*out* to begin with that will solve most problems. I imagine that
once malware in "in" it becomes difficult for the system to determine
if a given instruction is coming from the malware or, legitimately,
from the user?

In article <4124fcd9$0$21737$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>,
Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2ojptiFbfaqaU2@uni-berlin.de...
>> In article <41238a46$0$21756$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>,
>> "Ted" <nothanks@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >I don't know enough about all the different firewalls to reliably answer
>> >that question. I do know that local client/server fingerprinting has
>> >become more popular. It is usefull as a secondary level of defense,
>> >and hyping it is a good way to sell firewalls. Heck, I'm almost
>> >tempted to buy a couple. For purposes of developing demonstrations
>> >of how easy it is to bypass them ;-)
>>
>> You seem to be saying these things don't work anyway? :-)
>
>What do you mean by "work"? If you are asking how effective are
>they at preventing unauthorized net access, that depends in large part
>on how hostile the local environment is. How knowledgeable and
>carefull are the machine's users? Has malware found its way onto
>the machine, and if so, how sophisticated is it?
>
>If the environment is "friendly"... if the firewall is used properly and
>all malware is caught *before* it has a chance to execute on the
>machine, they should work quite well. But in that kind of situation,
>the [advanced] fingerprinting techniques aren't really necessary.
>
>If the firewall isn't used properly and/or if malware *is* allowed to
>execute on the machine, it's a whole different ballgame. If the
>malware is relatively unsophisticated/nonaggressive, such firewalls
>should be effective and the fingerprinting technique may come in
>handy. If the malware is highly sophisticated/aggressive, it may
>utilize any number of techniques (some automatic/technical, some
>involving tricking the user) that can be used to slip data past even
>those firewalls that utilize advanced fingerprinting. In some cases
>the malware will be able to uninstall the firewall, in some cases
>disable it or punch a hole in it, in some cases the malware will be
>able to coerce a trusted/fingerprinted app into sending/receiving
>data for it, etc. FWIW, the same or similar techniques can be
>used to disable or otherwise bypass other anti-malware tools such
>as antivirus software. Which is why it is so critical to prevent
>malware from getting onto your box and/or executing in the first
>place.
>
>Does this mean that fingerprinting firewalls are useless or are not
>worth upgrading to? No, I'm not saying that. It doesn't hurt to
>have additional protection even when that additional protection
>may not work in all scenarios. People, not necessarily you, just
>need to understand that there are limitations to what fingerprinting
>firewalls and outgoing blocking can do. The biggest one being
>that they are geared toward protecting you from "harm" that is
>caused by something that should never be given an opportunity
>to begin with.

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
August 20, 2004 7:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2omau5Fc6m2eU2@uni-berlin.de...
> Thanks for your followup, Ted. As you say, if one can keep stuff
> *out* to begin with that will solve most problems. I imagine that
> once malware in "in" it becomes difficult for the system to determine
> if a given instruction is coming from the malware or, legitimately,
> from the user?

Yes
Anonymous
August 21, 2004 8:16:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers,alt.comp.freeware (More info?)

Not sure about the new XP SP2.
But sygate has always told me when a program changes.
such as after security updates ect...

--
James A. Smith
http://www.jastek.net
To reply add "nospam" to the subject to bypass my spam filters.


"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2oh4g2FakdlpU3@uni-berlin.de...
> In article <mn34i01tv65g9vd4i2a8v17jvarakmfmav@4ax.com>, Jim Higgins
> <me7@privacy.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, in
>><p7l2i09e6d3prnai1h9oad36ij0hcksh3r@4ax.com>, Dave
>><dmjohn29@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Considering the long list of problem apps, and the extensive
>>>instructions on how to configure the firewall so the apps work, I'd
>>>say MS did a lot of research and knew about the problems in advance.
>>>The firewall is written for the millions of users that have no idea
>>>how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every attachment they get in
>>>email. I'm more than willing to open those ports my apps need to work
>>>if it helps stop the spread of nasties.
>>>
>>>You can always just disable the firewall, and use one that prompts you
>>>every time a new app wants internet access.
>>
>>If a firewall is really "written for the millions of users that
>>have no idea how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every
>>attachment they get in email," then it better prompt you every
>>time a new app wants Internet access, or it better deny access.
>
> Not too long ago I recall reading a review that suggested *most*
> available firewall programs (commercial as well as freeware) did not
> protect against "spoofing" where a malicious program on your machine
> simply said something like "I'm your e-mail program" and the firewall
> let it out. A *very few* actually used digital signatures to verify a
> program was what it purported to be.
>
> I hope someone can reassure me that all the previously inadequate
> firewalls now address this issue?
>
>>Unless SP2 fixes it, the firewall provided with WinXP does neither.
>
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> --
> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>
!