Re: Limiting access to US users only

From: James Hodson (jUNDERSCOREhodson_at_ntlworld.com.invalid)
Date: 09/17/03 

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:05:27 +0100

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:05:55 GMT, T.R.
<Spammers_R_Godless_Pedophiles@inbred.com> wrote:

[SNIP all of TR's kindly worms ... whoops, words]

TR, you appear to know the mate of mine who's due to pop around to my
home in a few moments!

A mate of the above mentioned mate thought she was fully protected
because she'd bought NAV2002. Updating the AV sigs? Not a chance. When
I peeked at her system I found she was about 18 months out of date.
She had not updated the AV sigs since she purchased NAV.

Perhaps even worse, my mate, who've I've tried to educate about the
ins and outs of ZoneAlarm (hardly complex), still misses the point. As
far as I can tell, the only program he has installed that's grossly
different from anything on my PC is Kazzar (spelling?). Whatever I
say, he still maintains in letting all his programs having server
rights. (Allow all on ZA.) Svchost.exe, although I'm not exactly sure
what it does, is the one that scares me. Now, TR, I'm not sure, as
I've said, about the ins and and outs of security, but I'm pretty
certain that allowing server rights to most progs is not a good idea.
I operate on the opposite principle: I disallow everything.

On the topic of "functional imbeciles", I suppose I must be doing
something right as I have yet to be infected with any sort of "nasty"
ever since I've been online (some 15 years, including BBs) and all of
the Symantec removal tools report me as being "clean". During that
time I've use a variety of firewall / AV software progs.

TR says: "No my fine feathered friend..."
I do hope, TR, you're not referring to my receding hairline! ;-/

Regards
James 

-- 
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.