Re: RealSecure Desktop Protector
From: Duane Arnold (notme_at_notme.com)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:11:33 GMT
Bart Bailey <email@example.com> wrote in
> In Message-ID:<Xns955947F6AFE6Bnotmenotmecom@18.104.22.168> posted on
> Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:04:28 GMT, Duane Arnold wrote: Begin
>>You don't have a clue about BI.
> I have enough of a clue to not trust the hyperbole their marketing
> team was renowned for prior to the reality check called Witty.
It's funny how I don't recall such a marketing ploy and I have been using
the product for a few years. There have also been some issues with the
other solutions as well. But I am not going to go off the deep end about
>>I use BI and had BI configured so that
>>compromise would never happen on my machines no matter what settings
>>were being used.
> Your personal configuration up there in Decatur Illinois is absolutely
> irrelevant to a corporate implementation down in Dallas Texas.
All one had to do is take the extra step in configuring the product like I
did and it would have bee a moot point. But I guess it comes down to if one
doesn't know how to implement something for max protection, then one
doesn't know how to do it.
And secondly, I guess I am going to have to watch my back here in little
old Decatur, IL. LOL
>>I am a bit leery of a lot of things too.
> Like all the historical claims of BI's capabilities?
I have seen BI come into play on several occasions behind the Watchguard
that I use and behind the Linksys router that was the border device with
solicited traffic between machine, especially with the my ISP's POP3 email
server and NG server. But again, it comes down to does one know how to
configure the product correctly.
>>FW applications costing $1,000 have problems from time to time and are
>>exploited as well.
> Is this your attempt at an excuse?
It's a program like any other program written by Human Beings. There is
always the potential for holes in a program.
> Like bragging about your invulnerability until it's disproved,
> then saying "well, even heavily armed soldiers get killed in spite of
> their best efforts to avoid it"
Where are you coming up with this? You need to show some proof that there
has been some bragging going on. All I have ever seen is some
advertisements trying to sale a product, like the rest of them.
> Difference being, they don't claim invulnerability like ISS does.
I don't recall ISS or BI claiming that and it's your take on it and it
seems a little off the deep end at that.
>>As long as the exploit is patched, then it's moot.
> Unless it was your data that was lost to the exploit...
Windows, Linux and a whole lot of things are being exploited, because one
doesn't know how to configure things properly.
All of this is moot.