🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mn34i01tv65g9vd4i2a8v17jvarakmfmav@4ax.com>, Jim Higgins <me7@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, in
><p7l2i09e6d3prnai1h9oad36ij0hcksh3r@4ax.com>, Dave
><dmjohn29@REMOVE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Considering the long list of problem apps, and the extensive
>>instructions on how to configure the firewall so the apps work, I'd
>>say MS did a lot of research and knew about the problems in advance.
>>The firewall is written for the millions of users that have no idea
>>how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every attachment they get in
>>email.  I'm more than willing to open those ports my apps need to work
>>if it helps stop the spread of nasties.
>>
>>You can always just disable the firewall, and use one that prompts you
>>every time a new app wants internet access.
>
>If a firewall is really "written for the millions of users that
>have no idea how a virus spreads and eagerly click on every
>attachment they get in email," then it better prompt you every
>time a new app wants Internet access, or it better deny access.

Not too long ago I recall reading a review that suggested *most* 
available firewall programs (commercial as well as freeware) did not 
protect against "spoofing" where a malicious program on your machine 
simply said something like "I'm your e-mail program" and the firewall 
let it out.  A *very few* actually used digital signatures to verify a 
program was what it purported to be. 

I hope someone can reassure me that all the previously inadequate 
firewalls now address this issue?

>Unless SP2 fixes it, the firewall provided with WinXP does neither.


Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID