RE: [fw-wiz] Annoying pop-ups

From: Gregory Austin (gaustin@rkon.com)
Date: 11/01/02 

To: "R. DuFresne" <dufresne@sysinfo.com>, Richard.Scott@BestBuy.com
From: Gregory Austin <gaustin@rkon.com>
Date: Fri Nov  1 13:50:02 2002

Ron and Richard,

At 10:18 PM 10/31/2002 -0500, Ron DuFresne wrote:

>AGREED! I've long advocated that vendors make folks shoot themselves in
>the foot if they wish to, rather then ship products and appliances that
>leave a hole in their heads from the time they install or plug-in.

At 06:07 PM 10/31/2002 -0600, Richard Scott wrote:

>I strongly disagree. Users who wish to use this software, and the vast
>majority of users, are not always inclined to review such functionality.
>Given that we all purchase cars, do we insist on the manufacturing methods
>to construct the car, do we insist that all the safety checks have been
>executed to ensure they work?
>In fact do we all not speed at some time or another?
>
>The issue here is that Microsoft and other vendors need to understand that
>default settings are acceptable to the techno people of the world. But
>given the technology push to fulfill the "Family Entertainment Learning
>experience" not everyone will understand the implications of this
>"vulnerability"/annoyance.
>Microsoft and others need to change their mindset, after all XP machines are
>not server engineered and such functionality is not needed for home use.
>With many features, the necessary procedure should be FULLY documented to
>instruct the user how to TURN ON the server, not turn it off.
>It has long been argued that security and privacy is lowered to increase
>usability. Here is the crux of the problem, it's an engineering one. We
>should be engineering components that operate in the high security setting
>that allows the user to do what they wish. And if and only if they require
>such a service, a well documented process for switching the functionality on
>and having it work correctly should be given.

      While, generally speaking, I agree with the premise that dangerous
services should have to be turned on not off, you guys miss my point
entirely. There are many "dangerous" features in MS's desktop OS's (take
UPNP or the RDP server, for example)-- but the messenger service is not one
of them. The service provides useful functionality used by admins all over
to broadcast messages to their LAN's (particularly easy and useful in flat
environments).

      An ardent Microsoft basher myself, I'd love to jump on your anti-MS
bandwagon here but I can't. I wouldn't put the base install of anything
unfiltered on the Internet, would you? It's a wee bit silly to demand that
MS set their operating system to have every feature turned off by default,
even the useful non-dangerous ones like the messenger service. It's
silly. The network functionality built into their software was designed,
to some extent, for the soft warm LAN not the cold, hard Internet.

      Consider the stated problem:

              How do I keep from getting those pop-ups hitting my machine's
netbios ports from the Internet?

      Now think about my response:

               Firewall it, you moron. (so I'm paraphrasing myself here)

       And finally, think about where you're reading this in the first place:

               Could it be a list about . . . hmmmm . . . *filtering* traffic?

Greg

P.S. Forget your "they should have made it different in the first place"
argument for a moment and answer this: If your dear sweet grandmother was
going to hook her Windows 98 machine up to her shiny new cable modem, and
you were the one helping her do it, would you turn off all the services and
build some sort of weird bastion98 installation, or would you just firewall
it? (Either by buying a packet-filtering/NATing cable modem, or by
installing some personal firewall software like ZA?) What's that? You'd
firewall it? Go figure.

==============================
Greg is, among other things, a moron.
Anything he has said above is solely his
own opinion, not that of his employer.
==============================

Relevant Pages

  • RE: [fw-wiz] Annoying pop-ups
    ... >>leave a hole in their heads from the time they install or plug-in. ... are not always inclined to review such functionality. ... > to some extent, for the soft warm LAN not the cold, hard Internet. ... > installing some personal firewall software like ZA?) ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • Re: [fw-wiz] EAL4 firewall choice
    ... > I have a requirement to install an EAL4 firewall in my very small office, ... functionality works as the vendor specified it." ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • Re: Software firewall for Windows NT domain controllers
    ... >> We are looking for a software firewall product that we can install on ... We are looking for a product with roughly the same functionality ... * small and low power ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Thinking about wpgrading from NIS 2002 to 2003 any comments?
    ... > | The problem is that each time you upgrade a Norton firewall, ... > THERE'S NO VALID REASON WHY THIS FUNCTIONALITY SHOULD NOT STILL BE PRESENT ... called Managed Settings. ... I'm referring to those customers who upgrade ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Resource Information and Emails
    ... its good to see the functionality in action for ... Do you have a "Workgroup" command in the Tools menu? ... Yes I did but can't find the menu option to use the feature :-( ... Did you install the WGSetup.exe file? ...
    (microsoft.public.project)