Re: no longer true

From: JW (JustPostYourReply_at_ToThisNewsGroup.pls)
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:43:21 GMT

there once was a time when using multiple anti-spyware programs
protected people from contracting spyware infections. this is no longer
true. new spyware is being developed so fast, that even the best
anti-spyware program fails to stop over 1/3 of all spyware. this is
proven by tests documented at the following web site:
http://windowssecrets.com/050127/#story1

there once was a time when the only way you could get a
virus/worm/Trojan/spyware infection was to intentionally click on
something. this is no longer true. these days, infectious code is much
more sophisticated, and can be acquired even by clicking on Nothing.
these are called "No-click attacks". plenty of sources of information
can be found by searching Google for "No-click attack".

they can occur not only through E-mail and web browsing, but also
through IM programs. in fact, the No-click attack vulnerability got so
bad, that Microsoft has stopped people from signing into MSN Messenger
until they install the newest upgrade, because you could be attacked
with an infection using MSN Messenger, even if you clicked on Nothing.

anti-virus programs are of some help, but even with frequent updates,
they still only recognize infections known up until yesterday. they
might or might not recognize new infections spreading today, so PCs will
always be vulnerable to new infections until the anti-virus software
maker develops the signature, makes it available, and the PC acquires
it. this can mean a vulnerability of hours or days. therefore, it is
easy to acquire a newly released virus/worm, without knowing it.

and anti-virus programs fail miserably when it comes to
detecting/removing Trojans. these Trojans can be easily acquired
nowadays too, with the sophistication of "No-click" E-mail attachments,
and your friend's name in the From field. the web site
www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com states
"Most folk harbor the belief that they are totally protected from
malicious trojan horses by their anti-virus scanner. The bad news is
that many anti-virus scanners give only limited protection against
trojans. Just how limited can be gauged from the fact that Norton
Anti-Virus 2004 missed every single trojan in the test data set we used
in these series of reviews."

of course, your years of knowledge and experience about how to correctly
tweak every program and router can stop practically all of these
infections, but 99% of average PC users in the world will never acquire
  (and have no desire to spend time acquiring) the same years of
knowledge and experience that you have. they truly want to practice
"safe-hex" and they think they know what it means (do not visit Bangkok
porn sites), but since they really don't know what "safe hex" means, and
don't know that they don't know, their only protection is their cheap
$25 router (which has no firewall), and/or a free software firewall. of
course, neither one will guarantee 100% security.

but at least these 99% of average PC users in the world have a fighting
chance with a free software firewall. and yes, they can defeat it
easily by saying "Yes" to everything, just as easily as they can defeat
their cheap router by allowing Outbound communication on every port.
but with a software firewall, at least they get a chance by seeing and
deciding how to answer a pop-up question. plus, 99% of the time it is
not a mysteriously complicated question. if ZoneAlarm asks me "Do you
want XYZ program to access the internet", i would say Yes, if i just now
launched it. if i did not launch XYZ program, and ZoneAlarm suddenly
asks me out of no where "Do you want XYZ program to access the
internet", i would say "What for? i didn't just launch that program.".

yes, there will always be the unclear 1% leading to confusion. but if
people refuse to ask an expert or search Google, then they deserve the
consequences of taking that "leap in the dark". a cheap $25 router, on
the other hand, would never ask the question, because it is either
totally clueless to this Outbound breach of security, or is easily
tricked into approving it using the trick documented by the LeakTest
program at www.grc.com

the best solution is documented at
www.firewallguide.com which states the following:
Bottom Line -- If a personal firewall is the sheriff, a posse is needed
to help the sheriff capture the pests sent out by Internet outlaws like
spyware, browser hijackers, viruses, Trojan horses, worms, phishing,
spam and hybrids thereof.
A layered approach is best to protect your security and privacy:
     * First line of defense -- Choose an Internet service provider
(ISP), an email service and/or a website hosting service that offers
online virus, spam and content filters.
     * Second line of defense -- Install a hardware router with a built
in firewall between your modem and your computer or network.
     * Third line of defense -- Use personal firewall, anti-virus,
anti-Trojan, anti-spyware, anti-spam, anti-phishing, and privacy
software on your desktop computer and every computer on your network.

Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
> Scott M. wrote:
>
>>I agree with most of what you say with exception that no outbound
>>blocking is usually enough.
>
>
> For home/novice users, it usually is, unless they have something else
> (gateway/firewall appliance blocking all but, say, 80, 443, 110 and 25
> outbound). These things are inexpensive nowadays. I see no reason not to
> have one.
>
>
>> As you know, *most/many* home users are
>>oblivious to what is running on their PCs and *many* have
>>spyware/adware that they don't even know about. Having no outbound
>>blocking for *most* people in these circumstances is like leaving the
>>bank vault open and walking away.
>
>
> Well - I somewhat disagree. First, the spyware got in there somehow - and it
> didn't just blithely wander in through the guy's cable modem when he wasn't
> looking, & install itself. And spyware infestation is not going to be
> stopped by disabling TCP port X Y or Z outbound. Spyware is prevented by
> safe hex, XP SP2, tightening browser security, running antispyware software
> (Microsoft's beta, or others). In fact - this is a must, regardless.
>
> Re *trojans* (which are more of an issue in the context we're discussing
> here) yes, one can do the whole internet a favor by not allowing all but
> needed traffic outbound, it's true - and this is a Good Thing. However,
> again, the trojan got in somehow and didn't just blithely wander in through
> the... (see above). And the aforementioned guy needs good antivirus
> software, kept updated regularly and needs to know how to practice safe hex,
> as well as running WU regularly. Again, this is a must, regardless.
>
> If this guy doesn't get how to deal with the above, you think he's going to
> know exactly what to do when his local fw software asks him whether he would
> like to allow svchost.exe to access the Internet? I don't. He'll get
> frustrated and pick the wrong choice- or he'll simply turn off the annoying
> thing to avoid being asked.
>
>
>> For this reason, I say the Windows
>>Firewall is crude at best.
>
>
> Yes, it's simple, or if you must insist, I'll allow you your "crude." But it
> won't be any *less* useful than a third party application with regard to
> spyware. Spyware comes in and runs - it doesn't then launch attacks to the
> Internet.
>
>>I whole-heartedly agree that a perimeter firewall is a much better
>>solution. Myself, I use a hardware firewall at my network perimeter
>>and software firewalls (ZA) on each of my client machines.
>
>
> Yep - belt & suspenders, but your clients had better be pretty savvy unless
> you don't present them with "pick yes or no" messages.
>
>>
>>"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
>><lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
>>message news:%23$4EM5cIFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Scott M. wrote:
>>>
>>>>I use ZA with XP Pro SP2 and have had no problems on any of the 6
>>>>machines I use it with. I would NOT recommend the XP Firewall as
>>>>the other person suggested. The Windows Firewall is crude at best.
>>>
>>>I'd say "simple", rather than "crude". It blocks *all* inbound
>>>traffic by default....and no outbound, which is often enough.
>>>
>>>I personally don't use it myself, but I've found that for the
>>>majority of home/small biz users, it's very confusing for them to
>>>continually get popup
>>>messages asking if they want to allow blah.exe to access the
>>>Internet. They
>>>either click No all the time out of (reasonable) paranoia and mess up
>>>something, or they allow things they shouldn't.
>>>
>>>I prefer perimeter network firewalls, even for home networks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>>>message news:14147609-4F15-47CE-B7EA-C313C8D87FEB@microsoft.com...
>>>>
>>>>>"Rod P." wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have Windows XP Pro SP2 and I tried to install ZoneAlarm Pro,
>>>>>>but my computer would not boot, so I am wondering if there is a
>>>>>>firewall out there
>>>>>>that is compatible with the SP2 firewall.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah. The SP2 firewall. Once you install SP2 and keep it up to
>>>>>date, you really don't need a third party firewall as long as you
>>>>>use other measures to
>>>>>keep viruses, trojans, worms, adware, and spyware from getting on
>>>>>your system
>>>>>in the first place -- and you will also be free of all the problems
>>>>>(did someone mention Zone Alarm?) that people seem to experience
>>>>>whenever they attempt to install a third party firewall with SP2
>>>>>(as you can quickly learn
>>>>>by regularly following these newsgroups).
>>>>>
>>>>>If, despite all this, you want to use a third party firewall, you
>>>>>should turn off the Windows firewall. You should have only one
>>>>>firewall running at
>>>>>any time on your system. Ditto for antivirus.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken
>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New XP Pro User Questions
    ... I have never made any adjustments to the firewall, ... What WinXP SP2's firewall does not do, is provide an important additional layer of protection by informing you about any Trojans or spyware that you might download and install inadvertently. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Best spyware program
    ... Scan system for infections with test program ... With the software protection enabled, install spyware from these ... but this time run through a set of online ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Third-Party Firewall Still Important?
    ... for infections. ... so using microsoft's firewall ... What I'm less sure about is the need for a third-party firewall vs. Windows Firewall. ... computer despite all your efforts to stop it...outbound protection doesn't tell you anything you don't already know, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: So, windows doesnt get viruses and worms eh?
    ... By computers I mean all computers running ... I do not deny that all computers need a firewall. ... That is still a separate problem from needing virus protection, ... OS X has spyware and viruses so it needs to be protected. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Please Help! XP security...advice wanted!
    ... As for firewall and virus protection your good, ... hardware firewall, plus the built-in software firewalls from XP SP2, and AV. ... I have 6 spyware programs running, 3 are passive, 2 are scanners and one is ... If you do install one, one is not enough, I suggest you install both Adaware ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)