FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released

[John John (MVP)]

I don't know but *I* was using a 3rd party (so-called) firewall application
and (incidentally) Registry Cleaner

What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even
mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue?
If third party firewalls are only "so-called firewalls" then the Windows
XP firewall is no different, it too is nothing more than a personal
firewall.

I don't know.

That doesn't surprise me.

Well, these are throwaway words; If you were more open-minded' in relation
to OS's and read (*and* comprehend) through pertinent write-ups (even in
this thread), than it'd be obvious to you - and no, I am not a techie

I am more open minded than you are! I have no quibbles about which
firewall people decide to use, if they want to use the Windows firewall
that is fine, the Windows firewall offers protection for what it was
design to do, there is nothing wrong with it at all. If users want to
use other good firewalls that offer different features that is fine too,
many of these other firewalls are also good and they do everything that
the Windows firewall does plus they give users additional features that
users have asked for. That is fine by me, I don't care what they use
providing that they use something! You on the other hand think that you
should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling
them what to do. You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses.

When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate
them and try to impose your views on them. The fact is that there is
nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there and if
users want to use them it really is none of your business. You're
attempt to discredit all third party firewalls is plainly misguided, the
facts are that many of these other products are also good products and
many are free.

The bottom line is that you and others in your camp simply cannot back
that notion that you perpetuate that all third party firewalls are
incapable of protecting users. That is untrue, it is a lie, plain and
simple, there is no other way to put it.

John

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

[This has got to be one of the longest & most crossposted 'Threads That Will
Not Die' I've seen in quite some time. Now I wish I'd set the Followup-To
in my original post for alt.zonies.misc_rant newsgroup! <eg>]

 

[Stinger]

Bottom line, this update is important since
it was a gapping hole in Windows


You should do a bit of research before you post. The gaping hole was in the
way DNS worked. It was not Windows specific. Almost every OS was affected.
In fact almost everything that interacted with DNS in any way was affected.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526

Take a look at some of the affected products.

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day. I don't think
at the end of the debate either of us would change their mind. You think
they're great. I think they're mostly hype and snake oil. There is no
debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be patched and
it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with Windows.
The flaw was in the way DNS worked. The fact that your 3rd party application
couldn't deal with the fact that an OS update changed some system files says
a lot about how well it's programmed. It wasn't any changes in the files
that broke your software. It was just the fact that the files changed that
broke it. If an application can't deal with the fact that an OS may update
itself it's not an application I would want on my computer.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier
attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a static
IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows firewall
(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and
watch what happens. You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in
your computer world. Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without the
aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors.

Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle.
You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world
outside of the protection of this forum? Sure, most computer users are small
fish in a big see but not all of us....obviously. I for one would rather be
safe with my firewall protection than to take the word of someone that
discounts security as easliy as the like of this group.

Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is
"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. Windows is also the most
common OS in the world. But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web
pages. Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really say
that??) is laughable. Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS issue
should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a firewall
isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. What conduit is being used
for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via
ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for those
reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites --> "If the
records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your
ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS
problem. If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, ask
yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there
wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm?

Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic!

You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real
world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.

 

[Root Kit]

Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier
attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a static
IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows firewall
(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and
watch what happens.

So - what's going to happen? Please enlighten us.

You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in
your computer world.

I don't recall anyone claiming security isn't important.

Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without the
aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors.

Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle.

Do you have any technical arguments to prove otherwise, or are you
just babbling?

You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world
outside of the protection of this forum?

Feel free.

Sure, most computer users are small fish in a big see but not all of us..
..obviously. I for one would rather be safe with my firewall protection
than to take the word of someone that discounts security as easliy as the
like of this group.

No one here forces you to stop using pseudo-security software.

Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is
"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time.

Really? - I guess that comes as a major chock to all of us...

Windows is also the most common OS in the world.

It is? - You continue to surprise...

But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web
pages.

Well... it's also an ActiveX rich web client if you ask me.

Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really say
that??) is laughable.

I don't honestly think you understood what he said.

Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS issue
should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a firewall
isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy.

Blasphemy? - Holy sh...

What conduit is being used for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via
ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for those
reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites --> "If the
records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your
ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS
problem.

Do you even understand the problem?

If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial, ask
yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there
wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm?

Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic!

You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real
world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.

It's hard to avoid MS products also in the real world ;-)


BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes
you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security
software company do you represent?

 

[Kerry Brown]

Simply amazing to me how many of you responders hold such a cavalier
attitude toward security. I challenge any of you to publicly post a
static
IP address available you can monitor, turn on that wonderful Windows
firewall
(since that's all you believe is needed) and sit back for a few days and
watch what happens. You'll soon discover how vital a security becomes in
your computer world. Do it the right way, like MOST consumers do without
the
aid of any router or other bandwidth protectors.

Firewalls are mostly hype and snake oil. Thanks for that little chuckle.
You don't mind if I share that statement with others in the real world
outside of the protection of this forum? Sure, most computer users are
small
fish in a big see but not all of us....obviously. I for one would rather
be
safe with my firewall protection than to take the word of someone that
discounts security as easliy as the like of this group.

Oh and let's be real honest about something here. Internet Explorer is
"bundled" with Windows, has been for a long time. Windows is also the
most
common OS in the world. But IE is nothing more than a GUI for viewing web
pages. Saying the DNS problem wasn't related to Windows (did you really
say
that??) is laughable. Perhaps a better understanding of the actual DNS
issue
should be on your todo list. And on top of all that even implying a
firewall
isn't involved in this DNS issue is blasphemy. What conduit is being used
for this communication between your computer and web pages if it's not via
ports? I'll quote a single line explaining part of the DNS process for
those
reading this that are tired of being directed to web sites --> "If the
records are not stored locally, your computer queries (or contacts) your
ISP's recursive DNS servers." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
understand
the Windows operating system does indeed have a major stake in this DNS
problem. If you still are riding on the boat down the river of denial,
ask
yourself one question.... Why was the patch even produced by MS if there
wasn't a "problem" with the OS, hmm?

Yea, firewalls are all hype and snake oil. That's an instant classic!

You folks need to get out of the Microsoft world and step intto the real
world every once in a while or you're limiting yourself.

I live in the real world. I manage networks for a living. This includes
managing the network security for a government contractor who gets audited
for security yearly. I use real firewalls (not software firewalls) every
day. The networks I manage use many products and OS's, other than
Microsoft's, that do DNS lookups. Here's what happened with the DNS changes.
Windows was using DNS as it was supposed be used. A flaw was found in the
way DNS communications work. This flaw had nothing to do with Windows. All
of the major networking hardware and software developers were made aware of
this and as a group decided to make a change in the way DNS communications
worked to close this possible exploit. This change in the way DNS
communications worked meant some low level system files in Windows needed to
be updated. FWIW my Linux computers and some of the hardware firewall
appliances I manage also had some low level changes because of this as well.
The change was made and some Windows files were updated via Windows Updates.
At this point some versions of Zone Alarm barfed. I don't use Zone Alarm so
the rest of the story I gleaned from reading Zone Alarm forums and official
announcements. The Zone Alarm application noticed that some Windows files
had changed and decided not to allow these files to communicate to the
Internet. It wasn't anything in the way the files worked, merely that they
had changed, that caused the problem. Because these are system files Zone
Alarm doesn't ask about them. Clearing the Zone Alarm database so that it
would not think the files were changed fixed the problem. How is an OS
supposed to update itself if it can't change files? The way that Zone Alarm
monitors and responds to system file changes is flawed.

You have misquoted me. I never said "firewalls are all hype and snake oil".
I said "We can debate the effectiveness of software firewalls all day."
followed by "I think they're mostly hype and snake oil." Of course not all
firewalls are hype and snake oil. Software firewalls that advertise they can
stop malicious outbound traffic are. If you want to quote me anywhere,
including this forum, please quote me verbatim without changes.

Oh and by the way, I know of of many people using both XP and Vista with
only the Windows firewall running on their computer. What am I supposed to
see happen? They have no more problems with malware than anyone else. In
fact the ones that I set up have almost no malware problems at all. Many of
them don't have a router (i.e. dialup) yet they don't have any problems with
malware. How will your preferred firewall solution help protect them better
than they are now? Maybe you could tell us exactly how their security will
be improved by using a different software firewall?

 

[Stinger]

BTW, what you provided here lacks any technical arguments which makes
you sound more like a salesman than anything else. So what security
software company do you represent?

The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission
statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in taking
things out of context. It's boring when people do that.

Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from others.

Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word...
"There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to be
patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do with
Windows."

Nothing to do with Windows??????????

Why didn't you copy and paste the most important part of my last post Root
Kit? You know the one...

"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"

PS - don't see you posting a static IP yet Root Kit...

 

[Kerry Brown]

The same "software company" that includes common sense as part mission
statement Root Kit. Try reading the entire thread before you jump in
taking
things out of context. It's boring when people do that.

Read back through the entire post before challenging my quotes from
others.

Here's EXACTLY what Kerry said earlier word for word...
"There is no debating the fact that this flaw in the DNS system needed to
be
patched and it needed to be patched immediately. This has nothing to do
with
Windows."

Nothing to do with Windows??????????

I stand by the statement. The flaw iself had nothing to do with Windows. It
was a flaw in the DNS communications protocol. Windows was using the
existing protocol which was flawed. This meant that Windows had to be
changed to work with the new protocol or it would be vulnerable. How is this
a Windows problem? It's a DNS problem that all developers that make products
that communicate with DNS servers have had to deal with.

I agree with Root Kit. You havn't provided technical details of how a
software firewall that does outbound monitoring improves security over the
Windows firewall. You haven't tried to refute the fact that Zone Alarm's
monitoring of and reaction to system file changes is flawed. You obviously
misunderstand what caused Microsoft to update the DNS client in Windows. I'm
done with the conversation unless you can provide us with some technical
reasons that back up your assertions. I like a good debate as much as
anybody but it's pointless unless you at least try to back up your
statements.

 

[Root Kit]

Why didn't you copy and paste the most important part of my last post Root
Kit? You know the one...

You mean the one where you avoided answering what would happen to the
machine protected with "just" the windows firewall?

 

[Stinger]

I stand by the statement. The flaw iself had nothing to do with Windows. It
was a flaw in the DNS communications protocol. Windows was using the
existing protocol which was flawed. This meant that Windows had to be
changed to work with the new protocol or it would be vulnerable. How is this
a Windows problem? It's a DNS problem that all developers that make products
that communicate with DNS servers have had to deal with.

I agree with Root Kit. You havn't provided technical details of how a
software firewall that does outbound monitoring improves security over the
Windows firewall. You haven't tried to refute the fact that Zone Alarm's
monitoring of and reaction to system file changes is flawed. You obviously
misunderstand what caused Microsoft to update the DNS client in Windows. I'm
done with the conversation unless you can provide us with some technical
reasons that back up your assertions. I like a good debate as much as
anybody but it's pointless unless you at least try to back up your
statements.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/

And I've yet to see anyone answer the most important question, you include
Kerry..

"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"

Windows has to be changed to work with the new protocol? So either there
was something wrong with Windows before or after the new protocol was
invoked...which is it? Can't have it both ways. If everything was fine
before the new DNS protocol was invoked, we're right back to my question
above. You don't need to have technical expertise to see when people dance
cokmpletely around a subject folks.

 

[Root Kit]

And I've yet to see anyone answer the most important question, you include
Kerry..

"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"

Why should anyone bother answering a question which exists only in
your head?

Windows has to be changed to work with the new protocol?

Just like all the other platforms.

So either there was something wrong with Windows before or after the new protocol was
invoked...which is it? Can't have it both ways. If everything was fine
before the new DNS protocol was invoked, we're right back to my question
above.

Seems like you're talking to stay awake.

You don't need to have technical expertise to see when people dance
cokmpletely around a subject folks.

That's true. Everyone can see that's what you're doing.

 

[Kayman]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote:

What do registry cleaners have to do with firewalls? Why are you even
mentioning them here, if only as a feeble attempt to muddle the issue?

John, John (MVP), as I mentioned in a preceding thread, you can't be very
intelligent and your lateral thinking capabilities are vitually not
existent! Prior NT these apps were basically regarded essential tools.
Don't you you know the meaning of *"incidentally"*?

If third party firewalls are only "so-called firewalls" then the Windows
XP firewall is no different, it too is nothing more than a personal
firewall.

The WinXp firewall application is an *integral* part of the OS and deals
with inbound protection and therefore does not give you a false sense of
security. Best of all, it doesn't implement lots of nonsense like
pretending that outbound traffic needs to be monitored. And yes,
technically speaking, 'firewall' is really a misnomer.

That doesn't surprise me.

Why is that, and what is that supposed to mean?
Ah, I recall a statement you made in a previous message:
"*We all know* that the Windows firewall is sufficient and good at it's
job...".
I envy you for having the gift to know thoughts of others. (And my crystal
ball ain't working - bummer).

I am more open minded than you are!

But it seems your comprehension is lacking

I have no quibbles about which
firewall people decide to use, if they want to use the Windows firewall
that is fine, the Windows firewall offers protection for what it was
design to do, there is nothing wrong with it at all. If users want to
use other good firewalls that offer different features that is fine too,

Agree, as long it is not a 3rd party software (so-called) firewall!
When starting learning to drive a car I wanted to drive on the 'left' side
of the road because at the time I thought there was nothing wrong with it
all, in fact I thought that driving on the middle of the road is much
safer. Boy am I glad that somebody put me straight!

many of these other firewalls are also good and they do everything that
the Windows firewall does plus they give users additional features that
users have asked for. That is fine by me,

We are talking about 3rd party software (so-called) firewall applications!
The user gets easily blinded by all the hype created by the makers of 3rd
party (so-called) firewalls. Now they believe it (your're one of them) and
if an opportunity presents itself I will continue posting links with
articles saying otherwise in order to create some realistic counterbalance.
Heck, even Sunbelt (the makers of Kerio) concede that outbound controll of
their software is basically a useless POS.
In the end it's the user (not you or I) who'll decide.

I don't care what they use...

Nor do I. But *you* should be ashamed of yourself for making such a
statement. As a MVP you should set an example and advise novices and the
uninformed to the best of your ability and in accordance with your vast and
specialized knowledge (isn't that you've got the 'badge' in the first
place?)! And all you can say "I don't care".

providing that they use something!

(LOL) I refrain from commenting! Except that I sincerely believe that you
must have demonstrated some skills prior being awarded with a MVP badge.
Would you please stick to these particular skills and refrain from
commenting and/or making statements related to Internet Security!
(Embarrasing, really).

You on the other hand think that you
should dictate your views onto others and that you should be telling
them what to do.

Bunk, you don't know what what I am thinking [PERIOD]!
I provide links to educational articles provided by well respected authors
who are highly regarded and respected in the Internet Security Community;
Their credentials are outstanding!
I know you disregard the writings of these authors as 'nonsense'. You do
recall your statement in a previous post:
"I really don't know why you keep spewing this *nonsense* out..."
'Nuff said.

You are on a religious zeal to convert the masses.

Call it what you wish. Based on what I know, I am eager providing a counter
balance, the accompanied links of my posts speak for themself (if
understood).

When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate
them and try to impose your views on them.

You tried this before. Providing educational links to the uninformed can
hardly be considered 'berating'.
You're some kind of a frustrated individual, to say the least!

The fact is that there is
nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there and if
users want to use them it really is none of your business.

The fact is there are a lot of things wrong with these Illusion ware! You
just don't seem do understand it. I will continue making it my business
providing links to educational article, so what are you going to do about
it? Users can take heed or ignore these write-ups. Heck, it's a free
country and this is usenet.
If you feel so strong about it, why don't you join a moderated forum!

You're attempt to discredit all third party firewalls is plainly
misguided, the facts are that many of these other products are also good
products and many are free.

Since almost all educational and factual write-ups fail to get commercial
support, my effort to provide this material opposing the hype created by
the makers of 3rd party software (so-called) firwall is justified and
right.
Now be honest, which software company do you work for?

The bottom line is that you and others in your camp simply cannot back
that notion that you perpetuate that all third party firewalls are
incapable of protecting users. That is untrue, it is a lie, plain and
simple, there is no other way to put it.

The bottom line is that 3rd party (so-called) firewall applications
promoting the importance of 'outbound control" are *without exception*
snake oil!
BTW, aside from your MVP badge, what are your credentials?

 

[Kayman]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:00:03 -0700, Stinger wrote:

And I've yet to see anyone answer the most important question, you include
Kerry..
"Why was the patch even produced by MS if there wasn't a "problem" with the
OS?"
Windows has to be changed to work with the new protocol? So either there
was something wrong with Windows before or after the new protocol was
invoked...which is it? Can't have it both ways. If everything was fine
before the new DNS protocol was invoked, we're right back to my question
above. You don't need to have technical expertise to see when people dance
cokmpletely around a subject folks.

This may clarify things:

http://securosis.com/2008/07/08/dan...ue-in-dns-massive-multivendor-patch-released/

....Mr. Kaminsky immediately reported the issue to major authorities,
including the United States Computer Emergency Response Team (part of the
Department of Homeland Security), and began working on a coordinated fix.
Engineers from *major technology vendors* around the world converged on the
*Microsoft* campus in March to coordinate their response. All of the
vendors began repairing their products and agreed that a synchronized
release, on a single day, would minimize the risk that malicious
individuals could figure out the vulnerability before all vendors were able
to offer secure versions of their products...

"Dan Kaminsky was finally successful in getting the security research
community to back his claims to the design flaw with DNS."
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2008/07/11/skepticism-relieved-with-dns-bug/

Happy reading

 

[Paul (Bornival)]

Intersting comments.
(See details hereunder)

Looks like MS does not want to invest time and resources in developing a
full firewall and is thus marketing and trying to convince its users
that outbound control is unnecessary.

I giess this is really true and is what I was suspecting.

Historically, MS has wanted their OS to be used by dumb average Joe
users and thus tuned its system as such. Consequently, they compromised
on multiuser features, restricted user usage habits and proper computer
terminology. Result: Almost all users believe Windows must be run in
admin mode. They do not gain any basic knowledge about computers which
is commonplace among computer technologists (MS uses its own
nomenclature, as you mentioned, probably based on recommendations by
marketing drones). All this leads to significant ignorance of important
issues related to computer security.

Also a very good point. This habit of MS to give other names to things
already existing under a well known, common name is really annoying. It goes
even from one version of Windows to the next, as seen in Vista for which I
lost a lot of time finding things which I knew rom WinXP but eventually got
other names...

But to be fair, these marketing strategies also resulted in the boom of
personal computer.

I'am not so sure about that. Marketing people tend to think they (and their
recepes) make the market, but they never conduct real stidies to prove that.
In the case of Windows, I guess the success stems from two elements:
- an open base for software developpers to construct their programs (and
this is actually one oint that is being forgotten by MS ... see the problem
of ZA and KB951748 that spraked all this discussion)
- the rapid incoporation in MS products of the good things from other
programs (see Word, that was clearly inferior to other word processing
packages, but improved ... now, it also got its sucess because MS made
access to Win difficult for other programs when moving from MS-Dos to
Windows)...

 

[Harry Johnston [MVP]]

ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it.
So it's ZA's problem?

Strictly speaking, ZA prevented the update from functioning properly. For the
record, according to my best understanding of the technical details of the
conflict, even if Microsoft had known about the issue there wasn't anything they
could have done about it.

Harry.

 

[Harry Johnston [MVP]]

When users tell you they want other features all you can do is berate
them and try to impose your views on them. The fact is that there is
nothing wrong with many of the third party firewalls out there [...]

Except that they subvert the functionality of the operating system, increasing
the risk of ... well, to choose an example completely at random, losing internet
connectivity after applying a security update.

It's a trade-off. There is some security benefit - provided the malware in
question is carelessly written - but is it worth the costs?

On the whole, the computer security industry spends enough on advertising that I
don't think it hurts to have the occasional person noisily presenting the other
side of the case!

Harry.

 

[John John (MVP)]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:26 -0300, John John (MVP) wrote:




John, John (MVP), as I mentioned in a preceding thread, you can't be very
intelligent and your lateral thinking capabilities are vitually not
existent! Prior NT these apps were basically regarded essential tools.
Don't you you know the meaning of *"incidentally"*?

The best you can do now is resort to personal attacks, says a lot about you.

The point to be made is that before XP was released third party firewall
products were the only alternative to hardware firewalls, many of these
third party firewall products were good and many were free. These were
trusted applications from trusted companies. Then, overnight, just
because Windows XP was released, in the eyes of a zealous few these
companies became villains peddling worthless products! A couple of
individuals decided to tar and feather a whole ISV group with the same
wide brush! That is wrong, absolutely wrong, and the attack on some of
those ISVs is completely unwarranted, those ISVs were trusted companies
the day before XP hit the market and they were no less trustworthy the
day after XP was released. Much of the hype against those ISVs is
nothing more than blind zealotry!

There is also a developing and troubling trend in this whole debate, one
that some people are bent on spreading at all costs, that because
software firewalls are not immune to exploits by malware attempting to
send data to outside networks, then by simple deduction any and all
egress filtering as a security concept is unnecessary. Egress filtering
at the perimeter, done by reliable network appliances, is a vital part
of network security, without proper egress control your network security
is incomplete, ignore egress traffic at your own perils! Maybe you do
not value your data, but others do! In a perfect world there would be
no pests, no virus, worms, or trojans. No one would try to pry at your
private data and malicious attacks against computers would be non
existent. Of course we don't live in a perfect world and people are
going to continue to get infected with all kinds of pests and some of
those pests will attempt to steal private data, the value of egress
control has not diminished when Windows XP was released, over the years
the need for proper egress filtering has not diminished or vanished, it
has increased.

John

 

[Paul (Bornival)]

Strictly speaking, ZA prevented the update from functioning properly. For the
record, according to my best understanding of the technical details of the
conflict, even if Microsoft had known about the issue there wasn't anything they
could have done about it.

Harry.

Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been
looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you
can't understand what is going on).

 

[Harry Johnston [MVP]]

Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been
looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you
can't understand what is going on).

I believe there is some information on the ZoneAlarm forums, and there's been a
fair bit of discussion in microsoft.public.windowsupdate.

The quick summary, as I understand it, is that ZoneAlarm couldn't cope with the
fact that the update modified some of the system files associated with internet
access. It wasn't anything specific about the way they were changed, simply the
fact that they had changed.

Harry.

 

[Kayman]

Where can we find the technical details of the incompatibility. I have been
looking hard but have not found anything relevant so far (or so vague you
can't understand what is going on).

Informative reading:

Dan Kaminsky Discovers Fundamental Issue In DNS: Massive Multivendor Patch
Released
http://securosis.com/2008/07/08/dan...ue-in-dns-massive-multivendor-patch-released/

"Dan Kaminsky was finally successful in getting the security research
community to back his claims to the design flaw with DNS."
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2008/07/11/skepticism-relieved-with-dns-bug/

DNS flaw discoverer says more permanent fixes will be needed
Current patch options merely stopgaps; worst attacks likely on the way
http://www.computerworld.com/action...ewArticleBasic&articleId=9110284&pageNumber=1

Just a quick note...
http://www.doxpara.com/

Multiple DNS implementations vulnerable to cache poisoning
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

 

[Kayman]

The best you can do now is resort to personal attacks, says a lot about you.

Nonsense, the "attacks" are nothing but observations based on *your*
immature and ill informed responses! In any case, you made your own bed!
You started this by calling me names (remember?)...I can only assume you
were smoking this stuff (i.e. crack & pot).

The point to be made is that before XP was released third party firewall
products were the only alternative to hardware firewalls, many of these
third party firewall products were good and many were free.

Yes, as I had mentioned many times previously - *Prior NT*!

These were trusted applications from trusted companies.

I wouldn't go that far, but admittedly some of these software were suitable
for platforms prior NT.
(Which company did you say you are representing?)

Then, overnight, just
because Windows XP was released, in the eyes of a zealous few these
companies became villains peddling worthless products! A couple of
individuals decided to tar and feather a whole ISV group with the same
wide brush! That is wrong, absolutely wrong, and the attack on some of
those ISVs is completely unwarranted, those ISVs were trusted companies
the day before XP hit the market and they were no less trustworthy the
day after XP was released. Much of the hype against those ISVs is
nothing more than blind zealotry!

You rant is (again) embarrassing. And *YES*, with the introduction of XP
these 3rd party personal (so-called) firewalls became superfluous [PERIOD]!
The makers of these Illusion Ware recognized this very quickly. The dollar
almighty is their foremost motivation, not users' security..hence the hype!
(by which you're blinded with).

There is also a developing and troubling trend in this whole debate, one
that some people are bent on spreading at all costs, that because
software firewalls are not immune to exploits by malware attempting to
send data to outside networks, then by simple deduction any and all
egress filtering as a security concept is unnecessary. Egress filtering
at the perimeter, done by reliable network appliances, is a vital part
of network security, without proper egress control your network security
is incomplete, ignore egress traffic at your own perils!

Fact:
Outbound control on an XP platform as a security measure against malware is
still utter nonsense.
The windows platform was designed with usability in mind providing all
kinds of possibilities for e.g. inter-process communication. This
together with the very high probability that the user is running with
unrestricted rights makes it impossible to prevent malware allowed to
run and determined to by-pass any outbound "control" (which, of course
modern malware is) from doing so. It's simply too unreliable to
qualify as a security measure.

Fact:
Malware must be stopped at the front door and *NOT* allowed to run
believing that its behavior can be somehow "controlled". In a
multi-purpose OS like windows with all programs running with
unrestricted rights, if program A can control program B, what prevents
program B from controlling program A (or C which A has already granted
permission for that matter)? (thx RK)

Maybe you do not value your data, but others do!

There you go *again*, another "crystal ball" statement!
You don't know *my* values! And you're really talking about *YOU*, now
don't you?

In a perfect world there would be
no pests, no virus, worms, or trojans. No one would try to pry at your
private data and malicious attacks against computers would be non
existent. Of course we don't live in a perfect world and people are
going to continue to get infected with all kinds of pests and some of
those pests will attempt to steal private data, the value of egress
control has not diminished when Windows XP was released, over the years
the need for proper egress filtering has not diminished or vanished, it
has increased.

Fact:
The only reasonable way to deal with malware is to prevent it from being
run in the first place. That's what AV software or Windows' System
Restriction Policies are doing. And what 3rd party Personal (so-called)
Firewalls fail to do!

John John (MVP), would you please educate and inform yourself by studying
publications not associated with any COMMERCIAL influence. Additionally,
the authors of these publications can be contacted....why don't you bite
the bullet and do so? It'll brighten your horizon and you could pass on
your newly acquired knowledge to this and other newsgroups.

You may wish to utilize this:
Configuring NT-services much more secure.
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html