Re: Online Armor Firewall?



On Dec 5, 12:28 pm, "Sebastian G." <se...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bassbag wrote:
- buffer overflows in the kernel-mode driver due to lacking parameter
validation - runs a privileged service with 6 invisible windows,
making it vulnerable to shatter attacks

Can you provide links to this ,and also links to show that the vendor
is unwilling to fix this?

Sorry, the 30 days of disclosure time aren't over yet. At any rate, the
windows for the shatter attacks are trivial to see with Spy++.

Technically you are correct,though some folks actually use it to
discuss firewall security ,with the intention of helping other posters
me

That's doesn't make the discussion any less pointless. What use is it to
secure the windows if the door is standing open?

I wont take this discussion to far off topic I promise. i do however
have a question and a few statements.

There is no reason to debate how nonsecure or secure for that matter
any email client is. I ask anyone here what email client is
"completely" secure? For that matter the only secure computer/server/
or network that I have ever seen is the one that is turned off. Some
people might argue the point that any of the previous systems
mentioned are secureable as long as they are in a locked room with one
exit and one entry and not on the internet or connected to any other
type of public access point. After being part of this news group for
over a year now and having the chance to speak to a number of
extremely talented folks, I would bet there are quite a number of
people on this group who would be able to still steal your stuff.

So I ask why give people a hard time. If you can help then please do.
It will only make this group and those who read it stronger, more
educated people. If you cant help then why respond? Is it just so you
can flex a little muscle to give people a hard time.

Carma always wins!

..
.