"Disconnect" from Web using DSL

"Esra Sdrawkcab" wrote in newsp.v38c5eu1hswpfo@dell3100:

Firewall software running on windows 98 has ZERO usefulness from a
security standpoint.

I use KPF (last freeware version) - it tells me if something nasty on my
PC tries to "phone home".



Aside from the bizarre statement that a firewall on Windows has zero value (a
statement which absolutely ignores the fact that malformed or offensive
packets likely don't give a damn WHAT your OS is so long as it or any
software running on it can respond to the packets), I advocate LnS.
Look'n'Stop. Silly name I think, but an awesome anti-phone-home device. I
remember debates where a firewall was claimed to be best if it did not
contain anti-trojan capability, but now, it's one of the best things it CAN
have. No need to know what kind or version of horrible virus it is until
later, if you need to disinfect. At crunch time, you need a guard on the gate
to hold up the intruder or escaper because of what it DOES, never mind whose
it is, and let you know, immediately. Most of the serious problems come out
of processes that promise to spare us from the need to think.

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

Firewall software running on windows 98 has ZERO usefulness from a
security standpoint.

I use KPF (last freeware version) - it tells me if something nasty
on my PC tries to "phone home".

And how often, or when was the last time you got such a notification
from KPF?

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Firewall software running on windows 98 has ZERO usefulness from a
security standpoint.

Aside from the bizarre statement that a firewall on Windows has zero
value

I specifically said WINDOWS 98.

(a statement which absolutely ignores the fact that malformed
or offensive packets likely don't give a damn WHAT your OS is so
long as it or any software running on it can respond to the packets)

It's well known that Windows 2K and XP were extremely vulnerable to
about 7 different strains of network worms over the past 10 years that
windows 9x/me was completely immune to.

And besides, you are focusing on the in-bound scenario here, one for
which is automatically discounted or made irrelavent by having a
NAT-router between you and the internet - something which has been the
default condition for many/most/all broadband subscribers for at least
the past 5 years.

If someone is running windows 98 on a broadband connection behind a NAT
router (ie - if your machine's IP address begins with 192.168) then the
only thing that firewall software will do for you is needlessly consume
CPU cycles, and throw up red-herring (false-positive) warnings about
this-or-that unauthorized software trying to make a connection out to
the internet.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:12:32 -0000, 98 Guy wrote:
[]


If someone is running windows 98 on a broadband connection behind a NAT
router (ie - if your machine's IP address begins with 192.168) then the
only thing that firewall software will do for you is needlessly consume
CPU cycles, and throw up red-herring (false-positive) warnings about
this-or-that unauthorized software trying to make a connection out to
the internet.

Ah, so it was a rhetorical question you asked me.


--
[dash dash space newline sig]

"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

Ah, so it was a rhetorical question you asked me.

No, it was a real question.

How often, or when was the last time you got such a notification (that
you have real mal-ware - a trojan or virus) from KPF?

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:02:08 -0000, 98 Guy wrote:

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

Ah, so it was a rhetorical question you asked me.

No, it was a real question.

How often, or when was the last time you got such a notification (that
you have real mal-ware - a trojan or virus) from KPF?

twice in the last 2 months, I'm embarrassed to admit. Not so much before
that, but it also helps identify programs that "helpfully" do automatic
updates.

Note that I mostly use XP these days, but run KPF in preference to MS
firewall.


--
[dash dash space newline sig]

"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

How often, or when was the last time you got such a notification
(that you have real mal-ware - a trojan or virus) from KPF?

twice in the last 2 months, I'm embarrassed to admit.

Note that I mostly use XP these days, but run KPF in preference
to MS firewall.

Was this detection on a PC running XP, or Windows 98?

I wrote:

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

How often, or when was the last time you got such a notification
(that you have real mal-ware - a trojan or virus) from KPF?

twice in the last 2 months, I'm embarrassed to admit.

Note that I mostly use XP these days, but run KPF in preference
to MS firewall.

Was this detection on a PC running XP, or Windows 98?

Since you didn't answer my last question, I'm going to assume the answer
was "XP" - which would reinforce my claim that there is no tangible
benefit in running firewall software on a win-98 system.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 02:20:33 -0000, 98 Guy wrote:

I wrote:

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

How often, or when was the last time you got such a notification
(that you have real mal-ware - a trojan or virus) from KPF?

twice in the last 2 months, I'm embarrassed to admit.

Note that I mostly use XP these days, but run KPF in preference
to MS firewall.

Was this detection on a PC running XP, or Windows 98?

Since you didn't answer my last question, I'm going to assume the answer
was "XP" - which would reinforce my claim that there is no tangible
benefit in running firewall software on a win-98 system.

It was XP, but the same would occur under w98. But you seem to have a set
opinion, I'll not argue further.

--
[dash dash space newline sig]

Albi CNU

Harry Vaderchi wrote:

How often, or when was the last time you got such a notification
(that you have real mal-ware - a trojan or virus) from KPF?

twice in the last 2 months, I'm embarrassed to admit.

Was this detection on a PC running XP, or Windows 98?

It was XP, but the same would occur under w98.

No, you can't say that for sure.

The malware that got onto your XP machine and got detected by KPF when
it tried to "phone home" would not necessarily have run correctly under
windows 98.

I've seen this happen a few times when a malicious java JAR file fails
to run properly on a win-98 system. Win-98 throws up an error message
saying that "program so-and-so performed an illegal operation".

But you seem to have a set opinion, I'll not argue further.

No, you won't argue further because you don't have a leg to stand on.

I said that firewall software running on win-98 was useless.

I asked you if KPF running on your win-98 system has ever detected and
stopped malware from making a connection to the internet.

You came back and started talking about your experience with KPF on XP.

You have done nothing to change my opinion that there are simply no
threats to win-98 systems to be found on the web that makes it worth
while to run firewall software.