Re: Norton Internet Security -- Automatic Access Configuration
From: Ben Hallert (bhallert@symantec.com)Date: 03/12/02
- Next message: Chris Severance: "Re: D-Link router DMZ & Virtual Server"
- Previous message: Dr. Bob: "Re: Is tiny and kerio same thing?"
- In reply to: Larry W4CSC: "Re: Norton Internet Security -- Automatic Access Configuration"
- Next in thread: Joseph V. Morris: "Re: Norton Internet Security -- Automatic Access Configuration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Ben Hallert <bhallert@symantec.com> Date: 12 Mar 2002 20:00:49 GMT
spaminator@knology.net (Larry W4CSC) wrote in
news:3c8df940.170085@isp-west.usenetserver.com:
> I'll bite, Ben. Explain the ale/alc files to us and why there are
> automatic holes in NIS from obscure companies noone ever heard of.
The ALE/ALC files are used to specify known default ports for common
internet using applications, as you well know. They are, in effect,
templates to describe common setups for these programs so that users can
easilly configure their firewall to allow only what is appropriate
behaviour for a program and nothing else. Without these files, many
users would either create rules that allow too much (opening all access
on all ports, for instance) or, after spending much time troubleshooting
why their programs cannot access the network properly, simply disable the
firewall entirely.
> Explain why your company obfuscated them by encrypting them so the
> users cannot read them any longer.
We didn't do it to stop users from reading them, we did it to protect the
integrity of the files against tampering from malicious apps.
> I'll ask you the same questions I asked a long time ago. Did Symantec
> get money from any of the companies whos alc/ale files show up in
> C:\WINDOWS\APPLICATION DATA\SYMANTEC\NORTON INTERNET SECURITY? Who
> are all these companies and why are they being installed in NIS
> "protected" systems, without the user's knowledge or permission?
I'll give you the same answer I've given you everytime you've asked: We
have not been paid a single red cent for any of the rules. I suspect
that no matter how many times I tell you that we have not been paid for
these rules, you'll still think there's something up, but there isn't.
> Thanks for your insight and information. Everyone here is a
> suspicious person. We have a good right to be having been screwed
> over by software company after software company, website after
> website. It's why we post here....lurk here.
The difference, Larry, is that most people stop posting the same question
over and over again once they've gotten an answer. My response to your
post is to answer the questions others may have gotten from reading your
message, but I'm pretty sure it won't stop your attempts to spread FUD.
Regards,
-- Ben Hallert Consumer Products Division - Internet Security Symantec
- Next message: Chris Severance: "Re: D-Link router DMZ & Virtual Server"
- Previous message: Dr. Bob: "Re: Is tiny and kerio same thing?"
- In reply to: Larry W4CSC: "Re: Norton Internet Security -- Automatic Access Configuration"
- Next in thread: Joseph V. Morris: "Re: Norton Internet Security -- Automatic Access Configuration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
