If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
In message ,
Lostgallifreyan writes: Lee wrote in news:5d0b64e0-8e7c-49da-a470- : What do you guys use for a 98 firewall? LnS Firewall. It definitely works nicer than ZoneAlarm. I once used ZA, and not having to still makes me happy, ZA casts a long shadow. Kerio (KPF) 2.1.5. I'm still using it under XP. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ....Every morning is the dawn of a new error... |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:38:44 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: In message , Lostgallifreyan writes: Lee wrote in news:5d0b64e0-8e7c-49da-a470- : What do you guys use for a 98 firewall? LnS Firewall. It definitely works nicer than ZoneAlarm. I once used ZA, and not having to still makes me happy, ZA casts a long shadow. Kerio (KPF) 2.1.5. I'm still using it under XP. Me too! -- [dash dash space newline 4line sig] Albi CNU |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
Inbound filtering: - effectively dealt with by any NAT router or modem with NAT capabilities Indeed. Though some early broadband MoDems used USB-powered MoDems like the SpeedTouch that, I believe, didn't. Because of subscriber "churn" (customers moving, changing ISP's, etc) it's likely that the numbers of old non-NAT modems in current use in USA/Canada is likely very low. So anyone running a 98 system as some sort of "working museum exhibit" is vulnerable, though see below. Running win-98 on original 10 to 12 year-old equipment is certainly a museum situation, but the basic Win32 architecture underlying win-98 still enables it to run quite a wide variety of software even today, especially with the help of KernelEx, and it does so very well on more modern hardware (ie - any P4 2 ghz machine with 512 mb). I run win-98 on a Core2 socket 775 CPU running 3.5 ghz with 1 gb ram and 1.5 tb SATA hard drive. I wouldn't necessarily call that a museum piece. Anyone running modern equipment, with a modern MoDem, and just running 98 because they like it, isn't. Isin't what? Isin't safe from internet-based exploits? My experience is to the contrary. windows 98 is simply not vulnerable to any of the 6 different network worms that have been developed / discovered over the past 10 years. Indeed: in practice, I've not heard of anything in the wild that targets (i. e. runs on) 98 systems for years. Even back in the prime-time for Win-98, there wasn't much that could touch it. When it came to network worms, it wasn't so much that win-98 wasn't targeted - it was that it simply wasn't vulnerable to anything. Back in 2000 through 2004, there were quite a few win-98 systems in use, but no worm vulnerabilities were ever discovered for them. Conclusion: Most people who run firewalls on windows-98 machines do so more for the control it gives them over legit programs and how those programs communicate with the internet. These people are, for lack of a better word, "control freaks" and enjoy exerting a high level of control and /or awareness over their system. There I'd rather tend to disagree with you, or at least I don't like being called a control freak. I would argue that the vast majority of anyone that has ever run a software firewall on a win-98 machine did so because it either came with their AV/security software, or they were told to run it by someone else, or their computer was setup by someone else. Which means that most people that had a firewall did not so much care to manage it or care to know what their software was doing, but just following the knee-jerk instructions of others that "they should have a firewall". I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know when something I've legitimately installed is trying to use the internet - That's fine. But don't confuse or associate the software firewall with part of the security aspect of a system when you're using it more for it's administrative or system-awareness / monitoring functionality. especially if it's something that has no reason to be doing so, such as an image editor. Where or when does such communication cross a line into being considered malicious? Again, most people wouldn't care about such communication because it doesn't rise to the level of being malicious, or comprimising the control over their machine. And it's crazy to be so paranoid about stuff like that when your browser is opening dozens of connections to beacons, click-trackers, and ad servers when you surf the web. Actually, there's a particularly good reason to want to control such accesses for someone running a 98 system: some software may try to upgrade itself to a version that won't run under 98. (Ideally, it wouldn't try to load an incompatible upgrade, but I've known at least one software on which the upgrade got far enough under 98 to screw things up a bit.) An esoteric reason. It's a situation that I've never encountered. The one piece of software on my systems that auto-updates itself (Flash player) has been working flawless - so far. Certainly little or no true malware around now will run on 98. Doesn't hurt to be able to monitor outgoings from legitimate software though. IMO of course. Which proves my point that those that advocate the use of a firewall on win-98 systems always fall back to what you just said as the core reason to use it. Because while it doesn't hurt to monitor outgoings from legit software, it really doesn't help to do so either. (and all the while it does take a cut out of your computer's performance to run the firewall). It's also just as effective (and more efficient) to add a HOSTS file entry for the offending site or host so that the software can't reach the external machine. And what happens after you've been running your computer for a while and you discover that NONE of your software is performing back-door internet access? What then is the usefullness of continuing to have the firewall running? I *believe* that SP-1 had in-bound firewalling, and SP-2 had both in-bound and out-bound (or full) firewalling enabled by default. That's the first I've heard of XP having outbound firewalling Getting a straight answer on this is somewhat difficult. Based on some additional research, it appears that XP-SP2 (not SP1) came with the inbound firewall turned on by default. The question as to whether XP can do outbound firewalling is murky, and apparently even if it can, it doesn't do it by default. The best explanation I've found so far is from he http://www.corecom.com/external/live...xpfirewall.htm And in particular, this: ================= Access to IP Security Policies isn't available from Windows Security Center, the control panel Microsoft offers as a way to manage your Windows security settings. To modify outbound traffic handling policy you must configure Internet Protocol security (IPSec) policies, which is a difficult configuration task for non-technical users. By making outbound policy configuration this challenging, Microsoft has all but assured that relatively few users will modify the defaults. ================= So is XP - SP2/SP3 able to perform out-bound firewalling? The answer seems to be yes - but this functionality is not enabled by default and not trivial to set up. This document: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...(v=ws.10).aspx claims that out-bound firewalling is NOT enabled by default in: Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2 And it goes on to plainly state: =============== Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 do not support outbound filtering. =============== Although Micro$haft is known to use phrases and statements that can be true when interpreted in certain ways to suit their marketing and product-obsolescence (depreciation) strategies. The above statement might be true only when seen in terms referring to any GPO or IPsec (group policies) that come with those versions of windows - not with any that you create on your own. Anyone running XP should have SP3 by now - (Other than those, another reason to be on SP3 is that the end of support date is later - I'm not even sure if it's already passed for SP2.) It has. As of July 2010. And again I say that there is nothing useful to be gained by installing a third-party firewall on XP. I will modify that statement and say that For those that believe an out-bound firewall is of any *protective* value on a computer with an NT-based OS (and specifically XP in this case) then the firewall integrated into XP may not be user-friendly enough to be able to setup correctly by the average user, then a third party firewall is likely the most practical route to go. I still say that as of this writing (2012) and even going back 5 to 7 years in the past, that the benefit of running a software firewall on Windows 9x/ME is/was marginal to negligable. Again, too much focus here on firewall software. It's an irrational focus. If you mean fear of malware on 98 systems, probably. Being able to monitor the activities of "legitimate" software, perhaps not so. I think the prevalance AND consequences of legit software performing "back-door" contact with the internet is way overblown and does not nor ever has risen to the level where firewall blocking ever did anything useful to justify the energy and cost put into acquiring, installing and maintaining the firewall. I know that a lot of the "auto-update" and checking for newer versions that some software does can be disabled by their own config and control-panel settings. And for any that don't or can't, removing the offending modules (either through msconfig or by renaming / deleting their files) is a satisfactory alternative. I frequently delete the file "jusched.exe" for example as a way to achieve this. And again, a simple HOSTS file entry can achieve the same purpose as the firewall would have - to prevent a given program from being able to contact a specific host. As to whether there is "too much" focus, that's a matter of individual preference: one could say your reflex action to any mention of it is also irrational (-:. It's never irrational to assert logic and facts into a discussion. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
In message , 98 Guy writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: Inbound filtering: - effectively dealt with by any NAT router or modem with NAT capabilities Indeed. Though some early broadband MoDems used USB-powered MoDems like the SpeedTouch that, I believe, didn't. Because of subscriber "churn" (customers moving, changing ISP's, etc) it's likely that the numbers of old non-NAT modems in current use in USA/Canada is likely very low. Remember I'm not, I'm in UK. Though I suspect there aren't many of those in use here either - partly for the reasons you mention and partly because, I believe, they're not capable of the maximum speed obtainable (on a good line) anyway; I think they're mostly if not all USB 1.1, which is raw max. 12 M anyway - in theory enough, but in practice marginal. So anyone running a 98 system as some sort of "working museum exhibit" is vulnerable, though see below. Running win-98 on original 10 to 12 year-old equipment is certainly a museum situation, but the basic Win32 architecture underlying win-98 still enables it to run quite a wide variety of software even today, especially with the help of KernelEx, and it does so very well on more modern hardware (ie - any P4 2 ghz machine with 512 mb). I run win-98 on a Core2 socket 775 CPU running 3.5 ghz with 1 gb ram and 1.5 tb SATA hard drive. I wouldn't necessarily call that a museum piece. No; that's why I said "working museum exhibit", because I know your views (basically, use modern kit, with which I don't disagree). There _are_ some who like to run old kit, and I can sympathise with that - there is a certain fascination in seeing it work at all, in the same way as listening to a valve (toob) wireless set; however, I wouldn't use a 486 or earlier, or even early Pentiums, as a main internet access machine these days. Anyone running modern equipment, with a modern MoDem, and just running 98 because they like it, isn't. Isin't what? Isin't safe from internet-based exploits? Isn't vulnerable. Sorry, I do tend to write long sentences! [] Indeed: in practice, I've not heard of anything in the wild that targets (i. e. runs on) 98 systems for years. Even back in the prime-time for Win-98, there wasn't much that could touch it. much? Or anything at all? When it came to network worms, it wasn't so much that win-98 wasn't targeted - it was that it simply wasn't vulnerable to anything. Back in 2000 through 2004, there were quite a few win-98 systems in use, but no worm vulnerabilities were ever discovered for them. So you were just CYA when you used "much" above (-: [] I would argue that the vast majority of anyone that has ever run a software firewall on a win-98 machine did so because it either came with their AV/security software, or they were told to run it by someone else, or their computer was setup by someone else. Well, we're all affected by others - I don't think many folk would run a firewall whatever the OS if they'd never heard of one (-: Which means that most people that had a firewall did not so much care to manage it or care to know what their software was doing, but just following the knee-jerk instructions of others that "they should have a firewall". True in many cases. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know when something I've legitimately installed is trying to use the internet - That's fine. But don't confuse or associate the software firewall with part of the security aspect of a system when you're using it more for it's administrative or system-awareness / monitoring functionality. No, I'm not seeing it as a security matter. especially if it's something that has no reason to be doing so, such as an image editor. Where or when does such communication cross a line into being considered malicious? I'm not seeing it as a security matter. Again, most people wouldn't care about such communication because it doesn't rise to the level of being malicious, or comprimising the control over their machine. And it's crazy to be so paranoid about stuff like that when your browser is opening dozens of connections to beacons, click-trackers, and ad servers when you surf the web. I have lots of ad-blockers, a hosts file, and other tweaks, but you are of course right, there is probably still lots going on from the browser. However, I expect that - it's the function of a browser to go onto the internet; when other software does, I am _interested_ to know that it is doing so. "Paranoid" is an emotive term. Actually, there's a particularly good reason to want to control such accesses for someone running a 98 system: some software may try to upgrade itself to a version that won't run under 98. (Ideally, it wouldn't try to load an incompatible upgrade, but I've known at least one software on which the upgrade got far enough under 98 to screw things up a bit.) An esoteric reason. It's a situation that I've never encountered. The one I can bring to mind is trivial: the last self-"upgrade" of AVG (which I had on one of my '98 machines) that ran under '98 - I mean the last upgrade that did - installed a very irritating thing that pops up a warning that you might not be protected (more irritating than the same from previous versions), and offers to go online to update itself; if you let it, it goes, then reports that the next version won't run on the Windows you have. But it doesn't remember that it has done so and made that discovery - so until you remove AVG altogether, you keep getting this annoying nag. OK, this isn't breaking anything, but is annoying. I do have the feeling that there were one or two other things I had where the last upgrade I tried got so far and then stopped, but had got far enough to break the existing installation, but I can't remember what they were. [] Doesn't hurt to be able to monitor outgoings from legitimate software though. IMO of course. Which proves my point that those that advocate the use of a firewall on win-98 systems always fall back to what you just said as the core reason to use it. "Fall back" is emotive. But yes, that's probably the _only_ reason - and certainly not an important one, only interesting. Because while it doesn't hurt to monitor outgoings from legit software, it really doesn't help to do so either. (and all the while it does take Depends what you mean by "help". It helps satisfy my curiosity (-:. a cut out of your computer's performance to run the firewall). What, on your super-duper machine, you'd notice that (-:? It's also just as effective (and more efficient) to add a HOSTS file entry for the offending site or host so that the software can't reach the external machine. I don't _necessarily_ want to stop it doing so - I just like to know when it is. But that's just me. And what happens after you've been running your computer for a while and you discover that NONE of your software is performing back-door internet access? What then is the usefullness of continuing to have the firewall running? See above: I don't necessarily block it. [] That's the first I've heard of XP having outbound firewalling Getting a straight answer on this is somewhat difficult. [] The question as to whether XP can do outbound firewalling is murky, and apparently even if it can, it doesn't do it by default. The best explanation I've found so far is from he http://www.corecom.com/external/live...xpfirewall.htm [] To modify outbound traffic handling policy you must configure Internet Protocol security (IPSec) policies, which is a difficult configuration task for non-technical users. By making outbound policy configuration this challenging, Microsoft has all but assured that relatively few users will modify the defaults. ================= From a non-MS source ... So is XP - SP2/SP3 able to perform out-bound firewalling? The answer seems to be yes - but this functionality is not enabled by default and not trivial to set up. This document: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...(v=ws.10).aspx [] Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 do not support outbound filtering. =============== .... and from an MS one. So, as you say, hard to tell! Although Micro$haft is known to use phrases and statements that can be true when interpreted in certain ways to suit their marketing and product-obsolescence (depreciation) strategies. The above statement I definitely agree with you there! So the earlier statement from non-MS that it (outbound firewalling) is available but hard to get at, is probably the correct one. [] And again I say that there is nothing useful to be gained by installing a third-party firewall on XP. I will modify that statement and say that For those that believe an out-bound firewall is of any *protective* value on a computer with an NT-based OS (and specifically XP in this case) then the firewall integrated into XP may not be user-friendly enough to be able to setup correctly by the average user, then a third party firewall is likely the most practical route to go. Hmm. Glad you're willing to amend, though the revised version does require some parsing! I still say that as of this writing (2012) and even going back 5 to 7 years in the past, that the benefit of running a software firewall on Windows 9x/ME is/was marginal to negligable. Certainly from a _security_ point of view, I'd agree, negligible. [] I think the prevalance AND consequences of legit software performing "back-door" contact with the internet is way overblown and does not nor ever has risen to the level where firewall blocking ever did anything useful to justify the energy and cost put into acquiring, installing and maintaining the firewall. I've certainly never _bought_ one. Installing was fairly trivial, and maintaining dropped to zero fairly quickly (a hosts file needs maintenance effort too). I know that a lot of the "auto-update" and checking for newer versions that some software does can be disabled by their own config and A lot, but not all. And of course that assumes you actually want to stop it, rather than just monitor it. I find it of interest to do so; I agree that most probably wouldn't. [] their files) is a satisfactory alternative. I frequently delete the file "jusched.exe" for example as a way to achieve this. What prog. creates that file? (Just curious - e. g., whether it's part of Windows itself, or some other piece of software you're running. Oh, is it something to do with Java or javascript?) [] As to whether there is "too much" focus, that's a matter of individual preference: one could say your reflex action to any mention of it is also irrational (-:. It's never irrational to assert logic and facts into a discussion. No; I think we're having a civilized discussion now! (I just hope it's benefitting others too!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have the courage to be ordinary - people make themselves so desperately unhappy trying to be clever and totally original. (Robbie Coltrane, RT 8-14 Nov. 1997.) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
Because of subscriber "churn" (customers moving, changing ISP's, etc) it's likely that the numbers of old non-NAT modems in current use in USA/Canada is likely very low. Remember I'm not, I'm in UK. Though I suspect there aren't many of those in use here either - partly for the reasons you mention and partly because, I believe, they're not capable of the maximum speed obtainable (on a good line) anyway; I think they're mostly if not all USB 1.1, which is raw max. I think I've had this conversation before regarding early DSL modems and the USB interface. My own experience from my first DSL modem back in the fall of 2001 is that on this side of the pond, they all came with ethernet and maybe some of the early ones came with ethernet *and* USB. It's not my recollection that any of the older ones offered by any ISP came with *only* USB. The reasoning would have been that USB and win-98 weren't necessarily good friends, and back in the 1999 - 2004 time frame many people still had win-98 systems at home, and an ethernet interface would have been easier to setup vs USB. Even back in the prime-time for Win-98, there wasn't much that could touch it. much? Or anything at all? No network worms could touch win-98. Other vulnerabilities such as IE-based exploits - I think there were a few. The ANI (animated icon) vulnerability could theoretically exloit win-98 but it had to be written differently than the ones found in the wild (targeting XP, of course). Back in the summer of 2006 (the official end-of-support for win-98) Secunia.org was listing a grand total of 35 security issues with win-98 - most of which were patched and none of which were "critical". (and there were hundreds of security issues posted by secunia for win-2k/xp by July 2006) In the year or two following that, many or most of the IE patches released for IE6sp1 for Win-2k were directly usable on win-98. But it's not clear that win-98 was exploitable to the vulnerabilites being addressed by those patches in the first place. I've experimented with several of the java-script-based pdf exploits in conjunction with acrobat reader 6 (the last version to officially run on win-98) and the combination of win-98 and reader-6 was not vulnerable to any pdf exploits I found "in the wild". You may be aware that there is something called the blackhole (or blacole) exploit kit, which if you browse to a malicious website your browser might run some nasty javascript that causes the browser to download and run arbitrary .exe files (usually fake AV software). I can tell you that my win-98 system (in combination with Firefox 2.0.0.20) did actually do that - except the .exe performed an illegal operation and crashed. In other instances, the .exe file is passed as an argument to regsvr32 (where it again crashes). I have since created a "dummy" version of regsvr32 which simply writes to a log file the argument that was being passed to it. When I want to install legit software I'll replace the dummy version with the real one. Apparently this trick of using regsvr32 to invoke malicious files downloaded with rogue javascript is somewhat common. Blackhole is the most common vector in use right now to infect people browsing the internet. It leverages 5 Java JRE vulnerabilities as well as a "Microsoft Windows Help and Support Center" MS10-042 vulnerability. Windows 98 is completely immune to the MS10-042 issue (which affects XP). The Java vulnerabilities exist in older versions of JRE 6, the most recent of those being update 10 (I'm running update 30). Blackhole also tries to leverage 3 pdf exploits, and finally a 2006 IE-Mdac vulnerability (MS06-014). There's a very long thread here regarding the existance of MS patches for MDAC for win-98: http://help.lockergnome.com/windows2...ict451804.html I participated / started that thread some years ago, and I honestly don't remember how it got resolved - or even if my own systems are patched. So you were just CYA when you used "much" above (-: Back during the time-frame 2000 through the end of 2005, we had about 2 dozen machines connected directly to the internet WITHOUT the use of NAT or a firewall. Each machine had a directly-routable IP address. About a dozen of those machines were win-98, 4 were NT4, 6 were win-2k. The win-98 systems ran Norton Antivirus (dating from 2000, 2001 and 2002) and had their virus def'n sporadically updated during this 5-year time span. They were never infected with anything. Sometimes the AV caught a virus in incoming e-mail. The NT and 2k systems were periodically hit with worms. I remember that someone (or some group) was using one of our NT machines as a sort of private file-server. So I can say that operating a dozen win-98 machines without the benefit of a firewall AND a nat-router and using only mediocre AV protection during the most vulnerable period in the history of usage for that OS resulted in no malware infestation on those machines. Hmm. Glad you're willing to amend, though the revised version does require some parsing! Ok, I won't argue that firewall software can be an interesting tool for those that want to use it. It comes with some remote benefit that it might stop some malware from doing something once every few years. For others, specifically win-98 users, who feel naked and vulnerable running their PC without a firewall, I guess those are the ones that I can't relate to and for which most of my comments are aimed at. their files) is a satisfactory alternative. I frequently delete the file "jusched.exe" for example as a way to achieve this. What prog. creates that file? (Just curious - e. g., whether it's part of Windows itself, or some other piece of software you're running. Oh, is it something to do with Java or javascript?) Yea, Java Update Scheduler. I hate seeing that running on my systems. It's never irrational to assert logic and facts into a discussion. No; I think we're having a civilized discussion now! (I just hope it's benefitting others too!) We'll see... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
98 Guy wrote in :
There I'd rather tend to disagree with you, or at least I don't like being called a control freak. No-one who isn't ever gets any good at coding. It's just a matter of where we exert the control. So if a computer user gets called a 'control freak', they should take it as a compliment unless the person putting the charge is busy trying to make others see the world from a viewpoint other than their own. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know when something I've legitimately installed is trying to use the internet - That's fine. But don't confuse or associate the software firewall with part of the security aspect of a system when you're using it more for it's administrative or system-awareness / monitoring functionality. .. .. Because while it doesn't hurt to monitor outgoings from legit software, it really doesn't help to do so either. (and all the while it does take a cut out of your computer's performance to run the firewall). LnS takes just 0.05% average of CPU time waiting for a signal from its XVD driver. I got Opera to go to Youtube, usually full of links off-page to other stuff) and while Opera chewed 84%+, and momentarily drove the machine into unresponsive behaviour as th video loaded, LnS never saw a demand greater than 0.8%. That's not a cut that would ever concern me. An example of why I use it: I like Sound Forge v4.5. This program would sometimes try to reach the net on loading. I don't consider it 'malicious' in any way, but it is still a security issue. The reason is like that it is reporting some memory dump after a failure of some kind, intended to make the coders aware of trouble and fix it before anyone starts actually complaining. There's no other reason for that program to have any sockets code in it at all! Now I'm not concerned with what it's trying to report, and the address it's trying to reach is likely long dead too. What matters is that when I use the program for critical radio recordings or other audio work (its reliability is why I use it), I like to know if there may be some flaw that might risk a crash mid-session. As soon as I learned that Sound Forge was likely to be reporting one, it permanently established a reason to keep something that alerted me so I could relaunch or reboot before some long session where reliability was extremely important. LnS was the only warning method I had. There's also a surprising amount of programs with sockets code in it, when no overt need for it exists. perhaps it just got linked and compiled by coders who didn't intend this, but again, whatever the reson, if that code gets used, something like LnS might be the only way we'll know. Never mind 'security', we need to be aware because otherwise we are in no fit state to even decide if it IS a security issue or not. It's also just as effective (and more efficient) to add a HOSTS file entry for the offending site or host so that the software can't reach the external machine. A big hosts file can be a drain, as it gets scanned every time any socket is used to connect to a remote host. A good firewall will be a lot more efficient because it can be programmed by simple human decisions. I very rarely have to change anythign in LnS, it really is a set-and-forget firewall, that's one of the things people comment on when posting about it on WIlder's security forums (which is where I first learned about it when looking for something better than ZoneAlarm). And what happens after you've been running your computer for a while and you discover that NONE of your software is performing back-door internet access? What then is the usefullness of continuing to have the firewall running? Strange assumption. People tend to try new software frequently. And plenty of stuff (like that early Sound Forge that I like so much) does try to go online, most likely to upload a log of some internal failure. There could be many reasons. I guess it all comes down to whether you're the kind of person who likes to look both ways when crossing roads, or not. It's not an expensive habit. And again, a simple HOSTS file entry can achieve the same purpose as the firewall would have - to prevent a given program from being able to contact a specific host. Now how would you KNOW what remote address some unexplained and unexpected outbound was headed for unless you had something like LnS to tell you? Given that the watcher on my gate only wants about 0.05% of machine time, and will throw in an actual rugby tackle for free when required, I'd say that managing a hosts file was a real annoyance in comparison, and is also redundant under the circumstances. It's never irrational to assert logic and facts into a discussion. Kind of why I just said that... |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: And it's crazy to be so paranoid about stuff like that when your browser is opening dozens of connections to beacons, click-trackers, and ad servers when you surf the web. I have lots of ad-blockers, a hosts file, and other tweaks, but you are of course right, there is probably still lots going on from the browser. However, I expect that - it's the function of a browser to go onto the internet; when other software does, I am _interested_ to know that it is doing so. I recently put Proxoitron back in, to see how it went. Old rule sets slowed web access right down, it was nasty. Opera is actually very good at handling that problem, though I did see that Google (and the BBC) offered slightly leaner, cleaner versions of their pages. (And a lot less of the 'slightly' in the case of Google...) So I'll probably strip down the Prox filter set to the minimum needed to give me those advantages. I don't like spending lots of time on filters and firewall rules and such. What matters to me is that BOTH tools are capable of very smart rulings, and remove the dependence on specific browsers or other software to handle problems associated with web access. The more I can make Prox do well, the less I have to agonise over the minutiae of the about:config pages in various browsers. if Prox can do this as efficiently as LnS, it will be worth keeping it. My only problem with Proxomitron is that it is not a set-and-forget tool, it needs frequent familiarity to keep its use an easy task. But even so, probably easier than getting used to a new browser's methods. (And any opportunity to refresh RegExp skills is a Good Thing). |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
98 Guy wrote in :
Even back in the prime-time for Win-98, there wasn't much that could touch it. much? Or anything at all? No network worms could touch win-98. But could they have? I remember that Nimda and Code Red were maybe the first big 'worm' craze. They hit W2K and WXP but not W98. They could infetc W98, I think, but not do much with the infection, but I can't remember details of why. But that likely has more to do with worms still being new to most people (as opposed to viruses which were older news). I think it had more to do with the surge of unwary users getting online, rather than the technical details of the OS's they chose. The coders will have aimed at the OS they were most likely to use into the near future. Microsoft at that time were talking about merging the home and business OS's into one based on WNT and W2K, so that, rather than anything W98 specific, likely explains the targetting for the new form of net-based attack called worms. Until that time, most attacks were based on the machine under attack, and its contents. Later, the scope was for harnessing its power on the net (remote controlled email spamming and scamming, DDoS attacking, bot-nets, etc). All those abuses need many similar machines, and as W98 was losing users fast, there was no point in aiming at W98. But if they had, I'm sure it would have rolled over easily enough if used as supplied, by those same unwary users. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
In message , 98 Guy writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: Because of subscriber "churn" (customers moving, changing ISP's, etc) it's likely that the numbers of old non-NAT modems in current use in USA/Canada is likely very low. Remember I'm not, I'm in UK. Though I suspect there aren't many of those in use here either - partly for the reasons you mention and partly because, I believe, they're not capable of the maximum speed obtainable (on a good line) anyway; I think they're mostly if not all USB 1.1, which is raw max. I think I've had this conversation before regarding early DSL modems and the USB interface. My own experience from my first DSL modem back in the fall of 2001 is that on this side of the pond, they all came with ethernet and maybe some of the early ones came with ethernet *and* USB. It's not my recollection that any of the older ones offered by any ISP came with *only* USB. I think they did he somewhat like a large mouse in appearance. You did make me go rummage in my junk pile, as I am sure I have at least one of them, but I couldn't. (I really must attack that pile sometime - must learn about how to sell on ebay.) But I remember when they came out, and even helping someone use one to set up. In those days, ISPs provided a CD that you ran, and it did everything - load up the drivers, put the relevant settings into the unit (actually, I don't think the unit had any non-volatile RAM for such things, so they were loaded in each time it was started), probably loaded some (bad) news and email clients and a bodged version of IE, and so on. This ran - to my surprise, reasonably trouble-free (I like you wasn't used to getting USB things working without problems under '98); I suppose it was in the ISP's interest to ensure that it did. [] The win-98 systems ran Norton Antivirus (dating from 2000, 2001 and 2002) and had their virus def'n sporadically updated during this 5-year time span. They were never infected with anything. Sometimes the AV caught a virus in incoming e-mail. Yes, the only time I ever remember even seeing a virus was when I exported an attachment from an unsolicited email to the desktop, and pointed my then AV at it; I'd assumed it was a virus, and it was. That was indeed in '98 days. The NT and 2k systems were periodically hit with worms. I remember that someone (or some group) was using one of our NT machines as a sort of private file-server. Hmm, so you could get at their files, presumably (-:! [] For others, specifically win-98 users, who feel naked and vulnerable running their PC without a firewall, I guess those are the ones that I can't relate to and for which most of my comments are aimed at. [] No; I think we're having a civilized discussion now! (I just hope it's benefitting others too!) We'll see... LG is reading us (-:! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test." - David Bedno |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Point to the Best Page | Ian H | General | 20 | January 10th 07 09:34 PM |
Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) | Dahmane | Internet | 1 | November 30th 04 01:19 PM |
keeps going back to home page | mike | Internet | 1 | September 15th 04 01:24 PM |
Strange File in Windows registry that come back | Jone | Internet | 1 | September 5th 04 10:22 AM |
strange vid problem, strange error | heynow | General | 2 | July 2nd 04 02:37 PM |