Windows Security Update CD Feb 2004

I am sure that there are a lot of computer users who have received the free
Security Update CD, if any of you have installed the EZ Antivirus and
Firewall software I would be interested to read about your experience with
them. In particular, I would like to know if you have checked the level
of security using Shields-UP!! I have installed the software on a Dell
Dimension 4100 using Windows ME which is connected via a Dell Dimension 4500
using Windows XP. The Shields-UP!! security test on the ME computer
suggests that there are weaknesses in the EZ Firewall. On the XP computer
the security is first class. I have consulted the EZ Firewall Knowledge
Base Documents (Document 75) which claims that this can happen for the LAN
set-up that I have but I am rather sceptical since, if Shields-UP!! can find
weak points, what is stopping less scrupulous websites from doing the same
thing? Pitstop, on the other hand, gives the computer a satisfactory
report.

Has anybody had any similar reports?

T.Hyde

Do not rely on grc.com for sensible advice on firewalls. Gibson is a
self-publicist who knows little or nothing about networking and even less
about net security.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Tom _Hyde wrote:

I am sure that there are a lot of computer users who have received
the free Security Update CD, if any of you have installed the EZ
Antivirus and Firewall software I would be interested to read about
your experience with them. In particular, I would like to know if
you have checked the level of security using Shields-UP!! I have
installed the software on a Dell Dimension 4100 using Windows ME
which is connected via a Dell Dimension 4500 using Windows XP.
The Shields-UP!! security test on the ME computer suggests that there
are weaknesses in the EZ Firewall. On the XP computer the security
is first class. I have consulted the EZ Firewall Knowledge Base
Documents (Document 75) which claims that this can happen for the LAN
set-up that I have but I am rather sceptical since, if Shields-UP!!
can find weak points, what is stopping less scrupulous websites from
doing the same thing? Pitstop, on the other hand, gives the
computer a satisfactory report.

Has anybody had any similar reports?

T.Hyde

Correct me if this is no longer right.....but isn't the firewall in EZ Trust
one of the Version 3.xxx's of Zone Alarm?? That alone should make it all
right with GRC.

And I use EZ Trust and ZAPro 4.538.xxx and have absolutely no problems with
it, but did have problems with 3.xxx versions.

Just my thoughts.....Heather

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Do not rely on grc.com for sensible advice on firewalls. Gibson is a
self-publicist who knows little or nothing about networking and even less
about net security.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Tom _Hyde wrote:

I am sure that there are a lot of computer users who have received
the free Security Update CD, if any of you have installed the EZ
Antivirus and Firewall software I would be interested to read about
your experience with them. In particular, I would like to know if
you have checked the level of security using Shields-UP!! I have
installed the software on a Dell Dimension 4100 using Windows ME
which is connected via a Dell Dimension 4500 using Windows XP.
The Shields-UP!! security test on the ME computer suggests that there
are weaknesses in the EZ Firewall. On the XP computer the security
is first class. I have consulted the EZ Firewall Knowledge Base
Documents (Document 75) which claims that this can happen for the LAN
set-up that I have but I am rather sceptical since, if Shields-UP!!
can find weak points, what is stopping less scrupulous websites from
doing the same thing? Pitstop, on the other hand, gives the
computer a satisfactory report.

Has anybody had any similar reports?

T.Hyde

To Mike M and Heather, thank you for your replies. I had read that there
was some kind of link between EZ Trust and Zone Alarm but I did not have any
specific information. Were the problems with ZA Vers. 3.xxx significant?
Did you have any unwelcome trojans or spyware?

I have no knowledge of the professional skills or technical ability of
Gibson , but the fact remains that Shields UP!! detected weaknesses in the
security of my ME computer.
"Heather" wrote in message
...
Correct me if this is no longer right.....but isn't the firewall in EZ
Trust
one of the Version 3.xxx's of Zone Alarm?? That alone should make it all
right with GRC.

And I use EZ Trust and ZAPro 4.538.xxx and have absolutely no problems
with
it, but did have problems with 3.xxx versions.

Just my thoughts.....Heather

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Do not rely on grc.com for sensible advice on firewalls. Gibson is a
self-publicist who knows little or nothing about networking and even
less
about net security.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Tom _Hyde wrote:

I am sure that there are a lot of computer users who have received
the free Security Update CD, if any of you have installed the EZ
Antivirus and Firewall software I would be interested to read about
your experience with them. In particular, I would like to know if
you have checked the level of security using Shields-UP!! I have
installed the software on a Dell Dimension 4100 using Windows ME
which is connected via a Dell Dimension 4500 using Windows XP.
The Shields-UP!! security test on the ME computer suggests that there
are weaknesses in the EZ Firewall. On the XP computer the security
is first class. I have consulted the EZ Firewall Knowledge Base
Documents (Document 75) which claims that this can happen for the LAN
set-up that I have but I am rather sceptical since, if Shields-UP!!
can find weak points, what is stopping less scrupulous websites from
doing the same thing? Pitstop, on the other hand, gives the
computer a satisfactory report.

Has anybody had any similar reports?

T.Hyde

Did you have any unwelcome trojans or spyware?

Not at all. There is a problem though in that many recent versions of Zone
Alarm seem to prevent some PCs running Win Me from creating automatic system
restore checkpoints. The problem being, where it occurs, that on some ZA can
cause the state manager to "think" that the PC is never idle. Manual
checkpoints can be created without problem and ZA has no effect on the actual
workings of system restore unlike say Symantec's NAV which can make the system
restore archive unusable. By no means all users have problems with lack of
checkpoints when running Win Me with ZA, some do and some don't - it appears
to be luck of the draw.

Shields UP!! detected weaknesses in the security of my ME computer.

Who's to say these were weaknesses other than the self-appointed non-guru
Gibson?
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Tom _Hyde wrote:

To Mike M and Heather, thank you for your replies. I had read
that there was some kind of link between EZ Trust and Zone Alarm but
I did not have any specific information. Were the problems with ZA
Vers. 3.xxx significant? Did you have any unwelcome trojans or
spyware?

I have no knowledge of the professional skills or technical ability of
Gibson , but the fact remains that Shields UP!! detected weaknesses
in the security of my ME computer.

I also ran security checks using Pitstop, Sygate and Symantec, Pitstop and
Sygate did not detect any holes but Symantec detected a significant number.
According to the EZ Firewall Knowledge Documents, ID 1805, Symantec's
report is biased because they are EZ's competitors. EZ also say that, for
a network set-up like ours where the ME computer is linked to the internet
via another computer (XP) in a LAN, then the tests are spurious because the
computer that is actually tested is not the one being used. I checked the
IP address that was being tested using the RIPE data base and it showed that
the address had been assigned to my cable company. So I am feeling more
reassured, I wonder if there is a program that can test the security of our
system. The XP always passes the tests without problems.

T.Hyde

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Did you have any unwelcome trojans or spyware?

Not at all. There is a problem though in that many recent versions of
Zone
Alarm seem to prevent some PCs running Win Me from creating automatic
system
restore checkpoints. The problem being, where it occurs, that on some ZA
can
cause the state manager to "think" that the PC is never idle. Manual
checkpoints can be created without problem and ZA has no effect on the
actual
workings of system restore unlike say Symantec's NAV which can make the
system
restore archive unusable. By no means all users have problems with lack
of
checkpoints when running Win Me with ZA, some do and some don't - it
appears
to be luck of the draw.

Shields UP!! detected weaknesses in the security of my ME computer.

Who's to say these were weaknesses other than the self-appointed non-guru
Gibson?
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Tom _Hyde wrote:

To Mike M and Heather, thank you for your replies. I had read
that there was some kind of link between EZ Trust and Zone Alarm but
I did not have any specific information. Were the problems with ZA
Vers. 3.xxx significant? Did you have any unwelcome trojans or
spyware?

I have no knowledge of the professional skills or technical ability of
Gibson , but the fact remains that Shields UP!! detected weaknesses
in the security of my ME computer.

If you are connecting to the net using Internet Connection Sharing (ICS), in
this case running on an XP PC, you are isolated from the net since you are
using what is called Network Address Translation (NAT). In other words the
address on the client PC, that is your Win Me PC, is a private address
assigned to it by the DHCP server running on the XP box and thus your Win Me
PC is not directly accessible from the net. The same applies here although in
this case I am using a router rather than having one PC connecting to the net
and using ICS. My router also uses NAT with my current outward (WAN) facing
IP address being 212.158.222.126 whereas the IP address of this PC, which is
assigned by the DHCP server on the router is 192.168.0.80.

What I am trying to say, and not very well, is that any PC assigned a private
address is invisible to the net at large as such addresses are what is called
non routable. Public addresses such as my 212.158.222.126 is unique whereas
there are probably hundreds of thousands of PCs, most able to access the net
via router or similar that have the private address 192.168.0.80. In my case
there are five PCs here all with different private addresses in the
192.168.0.? range yet to the outside world I present just the one address
212.158.222.126 and the router, and in your case ICS on the XP PC, looks after
the necessary address translation between the net side of the connection and
the private home side. I see that your public address is 82.35.145.221
(Blueyonder in the UK, mine is Bulldog also in the UK) which is probably the
address of your XP box whereas your Win Me box possibly has a private address
such as 192.168.0.2.

I realise that I am most likely confusing what is already a confused situation
but basically your ICS host PC, your XP box, is the machine responsible for
outward facing security (that is controlling what may enter and leave your
network) rather than your Win Me client with its private address. Where a
product such as Zone Alarm comes to the fore is in letting you know and
allowing you to control how and what applications on your PC can connect to
the net.

Regards,
--
Mike Maltby



Tom _Hyde wrote:

I also ran security checks using Pitstop, Sygate and Symantec,
Pitstop and Sygate did not detect any holes but Symantec detected a
significant number. According to the EZ Firewall Knowledge Documents,
ID 1805, Symantec's report is biased because they are EZ's
competitors. EZ also say that, for a network set-up like ours
where the ME computer is linked to the internet via another computer
(XP) in a LAN, then the tests are spurious because the computer that
is actually tested is not the one being used. I checked the IP
address that was being tested using the RIPE data base and it showed
that the address had been assigned to my cable company. So I am
feeling more reassured, I wonder if there is a program that can test
the security of our system. The XP always passes the tests
without problems.

To Mike M: Thank you for spending your valuable time to give an excellent
explanation of the topics that were bothering me. This news server is
like many other user forums, for example Delltalk and BigBlueBall, if a user
has a problem he is more likely to get a helpful and quicker response in the
user forums than trying to contact the so-called official support services.

T.Hyde



"Mike M" wrote in message
...
If you are connecting to the net using Internet Connection Sharing (ICS),
in
this case running on an XP PC, you are isolated from the net since you are
using what is called Network Address Translation (NAT). In other words
the
address on the client PC, that is your Win Me PC, is a private address
assigned to it by the DHCP server running on the XP box and thus your Win
Me
PC is not directly accessible from the net. The same applies here
although in
this case I am using a router rather than having one PC connecting to the
net
and using ICS. My router also uses NAT with my current outward (WAN)
facing
IP address being 212.158.222.126 whereas the IP address of this PC, which
is
assigned by the DHCP server on the router is 192.168.0.80.

What I am trying to say, and not very well, is that any PC assigned a
private
address is invisible to the net at large as such addresses are what is
called
non routable. Public addresses such as my 212.158.222.126 is unique
whereas
there are probably hundreds of thousands of PCs, most able to access the
net
via router or similar that have the private address 192.168.0.80. In my
case
there are five PCs here all with different private addresses in the
192.168.0.? range yet to the outside world I present just the one address
212.158.222.126 and the router, and in your case ICS on the XP PC, looks
after
the necessary address translation between the net side of the connection
and
the private home side. I see that your public address is 82.35.145.221
(Blueyonder in the UK, mine is Bulldog also in the UK) which is probably
the
address of your XP box whereas your Win Me box possibly has a private
address
such as 192.168.0.2.

I realise that I am most likely confusing what is already a confused
situation
but basically your ICS host PC, your XP box, is the machine responsible
for
outward facing security (that is controlling what may enter and leave your
network) rather than your Win Me client with its private address. Where a
product such as Zone Alarm comes to the fore is in letting you know and
allowing you to control how and what applications on your PC can connect
to
the net.

Regards,
--
Mike Maltby



Tom _Hyde wrote:

I also ran security checks using Pitstop, Sygate and Symantec,
Pitstop and Sygate did not detect any holes but Symantec detected a
significant number. According to the EZ Firewall Knowledge Documents,
ID 1805, Symantec's report is biased because they are EZ's
competitors. EZ also say that, for a network set-up like ours
where the ME computer is linked to the internet via another computer
(XP) in a LAN, then the tests are spurious because the computer that
is actually tested is not the one being used. I checked the IP
address that was being tested using the RIPE data base and it showed
that the address had been assigned to my cable company. So I am
feeling more reassured, I wonder if there is a program that can test
the security of our system. The XP always passes the tests
without problems.

I just hope Tom you understood at least part of what I wrote. If not don't
worry, I've just re-read it myself and totally confused myself. g

Cheers,
--
Mike M


Tom _Hyde wrote:

To Mike M: Thank you for spending your valuable time to give an
excellent explanation of the topics that were bothering me. This
news server is like many other user forums, for example Delltalk and
BigBlueBall, if a user has a problem he is more likely to get a
helpful and quicker response in the user forums than trying to
contact the so-called official support services.