Would a firewall prevent Sasser worm?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <290rm1xgsj.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
>
> >When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and have
> >her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
> >she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys router
> >with Norton AV 2004 running.
>
> You must *really* hate your mother-in-law.

Nope, I actually like her - the thing is that I understand her
limitations and what software she wants to run - there is little chance
that Quick Books will come out for the Linux Platform. She has a NAT
router, broadband, NAV 2004, and uses IE in HIGH-Security mode and
Outlook 2003 for email. She's never been compromised and shows no signs
of having any trouble using the system.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <290rm1xgsj.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
>> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and have
>>> her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
>>> she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys router
>>> with Norton AV 2004 running.
>>
>> You must *really* hate your mother-in-law.
>
> Nope, I actually like her - the thing is that I understand her
> limitations and what software she wants to run - there is little chance
> that Quick Books will come out for the Linux Platform.

well, that did not take long for the requirements to shift. so i guess this
means you are not, in fact, happy that your mother-in-law could indeed
install linux and an office suite from scratch in an evening.

> She has a NAT
> router, broadband, NAV 2004, and uses IE in HIGH-Security mode and
> Outlook 2003 for email. She's never been compromised and shows no signs
> of having any trouble using the system.

other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of course,
quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...

-- j

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

On Thu, 6 May 2004 18:26:10 -0700, "Jörn W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at yahoo
dot com> spoketh

>
>other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of course,
>quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...
>

Funny how it suddenly was about cost ...


Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Lars M. Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004 18:26:10 -0700, "Jörn W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at yahoo
> dot com> spoketh
>
>>
>> other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of course,
>> quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...
>>
>
> Funny how it suddenly was about cost ...

so you think shifting the topic should be a privilege reserved to windows
advocates? a redmond-patent, perhaps? ;-) or have we already figured out why
that mother-in-law suddenly needs quickbooks so badly when just a moment ago
installing os+office was the standard for happiness?

also, i guess when discussing with someone for whom customer lock-in and
lack of openness are no issues as such, and for whom the very obvious fact
that serious viruses and worms and whatnot are almost exclusively a windows
problem is the result of either (a) windows being designed to be "easy"
and/or (b) the widespread use of windows, then the almighty greenback
becomes the least common denominator.

since, surely, nobody in their right mind wants to spend that amount of
money for something that they could replace for free, now would they. (on
amazon: xp pro 179 to 269 + office 124 to 419 + outlook 86 + nav 59 +
quickbooks 139 to 289 = 587 to 1122, and that's USD) but i am sure that
there is some feature in, what was it, quickbooks, that is not in gnucash,
and that just happens to be absolutely essential to this "mother-in-law."
and if it's just the ability to read quickbook files.

sooner or later people will realize the foolishness of spending USD 587 to
1122 for a tiny collection of bloatware when they can get a wealth of
decently functioning and stable software, without spyware, without having to
ask for permission to use it if they fiddle with their machine, entirely for
free. as an added bonus, they get to know about the latest
nimda/sasser/netsky epidemic through the news.

-- j

.... who recently got his work-laptop rebooted by sasser. grrr.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b047d672523345d98a4e6@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <m2cl901nrf75ijlplggqcjqopbc17vrcm7@4ax.com>,
roedy-look-on-
> the-website@mindprod.com.invalid says...
> > On Thu, 06 May 2004 18:57:33 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote
or
> > quoted :
> >
> > >
> > >I've run NIX boxes for almost a decade, and Windows PC's for more
than
> > >20 years, mainframes too - there is no difference in securing any
> > >platform, you just need to know how, you don't need to see the
code.
> >
> > YOU don't need to see the code, but you want EXPERTS to see the
code.
> >
> > It gets a more severe lookover if the source is open.
>
> And from what I've seen all these years, it hasn't made a difference
in
> the OS's that have come out. Windows was designed to be "easy" for all
> users, mostly the home users where it was targeted early. It takes a
> massive shift to move it to being secure first and easy last. If the
> home user versions of Unix (Linux) had been designed to be easy for
the
> users to install/use, it would be the same as windows.
>
> When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and
have
> her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
> she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys router
> with Norton AV 2004 running.

Does she install Windoze & M$Office by herself?

I didn't actually count the number of keys one needs to press in both
cases (Win+M$Office and Linux/OpenOffice), but I couldn't detect a major
difference. Plausibly. When was the last time your mother in law checked
the Linux/OpenOffice installation? 1970?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b04a93b5456976398a4e9@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <290rm1xgsj.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
> > Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
> >
> > >When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and
have
> > >her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
> > >she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys
router
> > >with Norton AV 2004 running.
> >
> > You must *really* hate your mother-in-law.
>
> Nope, I actually like her - the thing is that I understand her
> limitations and what software she wants to run - there is little
chance
> that Quick Books will come out for the Linux Platform. She has a NAT
> router, broadband, NAV 2004, and uses IE in HIGH-Security mode and
> Outlook 2003 for email. She's never been compromised and shows no
signs
> of having any trouble using the system.

Except what you listed above is more than a system. System is Windoze
<whatever>. NAV 2004 is not a part of it. There is no measure for how
fast she'd get into trouble using the "system" alone.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

<newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:y6Fmc.35825$_41.3254321@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> If the capability is there from your ISP, then you'd really have to
> ask if the ISP would want to turn on NAT by default. Think about it:
> how many people hook up to the net and want to run a peer-to-peer
> program? I think I saw a survey recently that said something like 30%
> of users have used Kazaa or a variant at some point. Guess what? It
> won't work behind a NAT, without configuring the NAT specifically to
> deal with this.... How many calls to customer service would that be?

Hmmm......Kazaa isn't really P2P as it goes through a server.
So it does work through a NAT router (at lest through mine which isn't
currently uPNP).

You get more problems with things like M$ Messenger which tries to open new
incoming ports on the remote machine to establish communication.

Simple rule with NAT - if you open the port outgoing, then any responses
will get back to you.

If someone outside tries to open a port incoming, then it gets blocked
(unless you do something to tell the router you want that port open).

This is the basis of security using NAT - by default nobody can call in on
ANY port.

So nobody can hack you by direct attack.

It isn't a firewall; more of a brick wall 🙂

HTH
Dave R

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

"Richard H Miller" <rick@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:c7ebq3$9o2@gazette.corp.bcm.tmc.edu...
> Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?= (lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid)
wrote:
> : Leythos wrote:
> : >... Once the Nix systems
> : > and apps hit the desktop with as many installs as Windows you'll
see
> : > weekly exploits about them too.
>
> : Not likely. Unix has been hacked (and attacked) many years longer
than
> : Windows. And Unix architecture is far better than Windows, in the
sense
> : that software modules can be isolated from each other.
>
> : -- Lassi
>
> This is not correct
>
> 1) If you are talking about the kernels of the two systems, the NT OS
has
> a more secure design.

a) Is there such a thing as a kernel in Windoze? (I asked the same
question some time ago and didn't get any relevant answers.)
b) When you say NT OS, do you mean just the NT or it's successors (2000,
2003, whatever) also?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
news:9eql9013plilkadni2e7tkeircae8jguvn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 May 2004 18:26:10 -0700, "Jörn W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at
yahoo
> dot com> spoketh
>
> >
> >other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of
course,
> >quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...
> >
>
> Funny how it suddenly was about cost ...

Funny how in order to make the "system" even plausibly stable and secure
one has to install _extra_software_. Expensive, too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"John Brock" <jbrock@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c7dsoq$5u9$1@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <c7b546$1qgaa$1@ID-122774.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> David W.E. Roberts <nospam@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> >NAT by itself doesn't do much for you - because safety depends on who is
on
> >your side of the router.
> >
> >In a SOHO environment then NAT is pretty damn good - because you know all
> >the people behind the NAT router and you don't expect them to hack you
> >(although one PC with a worm behind your NAT router can gut all the other
> >local PCs). Safest is one PC behind a NAT router - nobody else to
compromise
> >you.
>
> At home I connect two PCs to the Internet through a Linksys BEFSX41,
> which has a built in "Stateful Packet Inspection firewall". In
> terms of security from external attacks what advantages (if any)
> does this have over a vanilla NAT router, like the BEFSR41? (Note
> that I am the only user of the two PCs).
>
> Also, if I were to turn off the BEFSX41 firewall would I still have
> the same level of protection that I would have with any NAT router?

AFAIK the SPI bit gives you additional protection against Denial of Service
[DoS] attacks designed to confuse your router by sending malformed packets
or packets with e.g. only the first half fragment of a two part packet.
These can cause the router to fill up the incoming buffers waiting for the
second half of the packet, and crash the router.
SPI looks at the incoming packets, and those queued in the router, and
decides if they are causing problems and need to be thrown away.
There are a variety of known attacks which can crash routers, and SPI
provides at least some protection against these.
So you have more protection than just NAT.

Having said that, DoS attacks require a significant amount of resource
(usually several machines acting in concert) and so are usually aimed at
high profile targets.
It is unlikely that a 'hacker' would launch a DoS attack at any (or every)
unprotected PC on an ISP.

The more likely attack on a 'vanilla' PC on an ISP is port scanning,
followed by an attempt to use one of the many well known exploits against
specific ports where they are found to be open.

This is easy to automate, and can be left running long term with a low
profile.

A bit like walking down a street full of cars and gently trying each door
handle until you find one that is unlocked. Or looking through each car
window until you see one with the keys in the ignition.

So NAT is the major protection but in a pretty dumb way - whatever the
question the answer is NO!

SPI gives you more protection and is a good thing, but people (IMHO) can
live without it.

Firewall capability allows you to modify the NAT behaviour to allow selected
incoming calls to selected destinations, which is good for online gamers,
and people running their own web and mail servers.

Full firewalls allow you to do all sorts of cool things but tend to cost
uncool amounts of money and require a higher spec. router.

HTH
Dave R

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <2g121oF3c4edU1@uni-berlin.de>,
David W.E. Roberts <nospam@talk21.com> wrote:

>"John Brock" <jbrock@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:c7dsoq$5u9$1@panix1.panix.com...

>> At home I connect two PCs to the Internet through a Linksys BEFSX41,
>> which has a built in "Stateful Packet Inspection firewall". In
>> terms of security from external attacks what advantages (if any)
>> does this have over a vanilla NAT router, like the BEFSR41? (Note
>> that I am the only user of the two PCs).
>>
>> Also, if I were to turn off the BEFSX41 firewall would I still have
>> the same level of protection that I would have with any NAT router?

>AFAIK the SPI bit gives you additional protection against Denial of Service
>[DoS] attacks designed to confuse your router by sending malformed packets
>or packets with e.g. only the first half fragment of a two part packet.
>These can cause the router to fill up the incoming buffers waiting for the
>second half of the packet, and crash the router.
>SPI looks at the incoming packets, and those queued in the router, and
>decides if they are causing problems and need to be thrown away.
>There are a variety of known attacks which can crash routers, and SPI
>provides at least some protection against these.
>So you have more protection than just NAT.
>
>Having said that, DoS attacks require a significant amount of resource
>(usually several machines acting in concert) and so are usually aimed at
>high profile targets.
>It is unlikely that a 'hacker' would launch a DoS attack at any (or every)
>unprotected PC on an ISP.
>
>The more likely attack on a 'vanilla' PC on an ISP is port scanning,
>followed by an attempt to use one of the many well known exploits against
>specific ports where they are found to be open.
>
>This is easy to automate, and can be left running long term with a low
>profile.
>
>A bit like walking down a street full of cars and gently trying each door
>handle until you find one that is unlocked. Or looking through each car
>window until you see one with the keys in the ignition.
>
>So NAT is the major protection but in a pretty dumb way - whatever the
>question the answer is NO!
>
>SPI gives you more protection and is a good thing, but people (IMHO) can
>live without it.
>
>Firewall capability allows you to modify the NAT behaviour to allow selected
>incoming calls to selected destinations, which is good for online gamers,
>and people running their own web and mail servers.
>
>Full firewalls allow you to do all sorts of cool things but tend to cost
>uncool amounts of money and require a higher spec. router.

Thanks for the answer. If I may try to boil it down, it looks like
you are saying that NAT is a perfectly good firewall for a home
user who has no reason to think he will ever be the target of a
DoS attack (which is to say most home users) and has no desire ever
to allow outside computers to initiate connections to his machine.
Is that right?

Or let me put it another way: If I am using a NAT router and I go
to a security site like grc.com and use its ShieldsUP! facility I
should see nothing but closed ports, which means that while it's
possible for a hacker to disrupt my Internet connection with a DoS
attack it is *not* possible for him to break into my machine. Yes?
You are saying that what an SPI firewall does is allow you to expand
on this basic protection, allow certain incoming connections, and
perhaps filter outgoing connections in various ways. Right?

I bought my BEFSX41 firewall/router because I had gotten the
impression from various reading that a NAT router, while helpful,
fell short of complete protection from outside break-ins. I don't
resent spending the extra money, but it looks like you are telling
me that I was mistaken, and that for my purposes NAT alone would
have been sufficient. The thing is, I may be helping another home
user get set up for broadband soon, and if a NAT router is all she
needs then there is little point in making things more expensive
and complicated by getting a full firewall/router. But I don't
want to leave this person open to infection either, so I want to
make sure I understand the issue fully. Can you point me to any
helpful web sites which go into the issue of NAT as firewall in
more detail?
--
John Brock
jbrock@panix.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <c7eojl$kp41@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>, "Jörn W. Janneck"
<jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <290rm1xgsj.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> > bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
> >> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and have
> >>> her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
> >>> she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys router
> >>> with Norton AV 2004 running.
> >>
> >> You must *really* hate your mother-in-law.
> >
> > Nope, I actually like her - the thing is that I understand her
> > limitations and what software she wants to run - there is little chance
> > that Quick Books will come out for the Linux Platform.
>
> well, that did not take long for the requirements to shift. so i guess this
> means you are not, in fact, happy that your mother-in-law could indeed
> install linux and an office suite from scratch in an evening.

Nope, it didn't shift, it was still about her installing Linux and
getting it running. I know for a fact that she can install XP on her new
P4 (yea, cheap, but it works) without any problems and get Office and
such running. I have enough licenses so it doesn't cost her anything.

> > She has a NAT
> > router, broadband, NAV 2004, and uses IE in HIGH-Security mode and
> > Outlook 2003 for email. She's never been compromised and shows no signs
> > of having any trouble using the system.
>
> other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of course,
> quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...

I think what she would find harder is going down to the local Best Buy
store, finding Mandrake 10 (which is still in beta) or anything but Red
Hat, and then finding Open Office or Star Office - you see, without her
computer she would not be able to download them, and without a CD-Burner
she would not be able to move the ISO images to a CD to install it
anyway. On top of those, she has the support of her friends, family, and
co-workers that are all running Windows XP and MS Office.

As for being secure, she's behind a router, so she has nothing to fear
as she installs, gets the Windows Updates, Office Updates, NAV Updates,
and then checks her email (in that order).

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <c7eojl$kp41@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>, "Jörn W. Janneck"
> <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <290rm1xgsj.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
>>> bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
>>>> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and
have
>>>>> her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
>>>>> she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys router
>>>>> with Norton AV 2004 running.
>>>>
>>>> You must *really* hate your mother-in-law.
>>>
>>> Nope, I actually like her - the thing is that I understand her
>>> limitations and what software she wants to run - there is little chance
>>> that Quick Books will come out for the Linux Platform.
>>
>> well, that did not take long for the requirements to shift. so i guess
this
>> means you are not, in fact, happy that your mother-in-law could indeed
>> install linux and an office suite from scratch in an evening.
>
> Nope, it didn't shift, it was still about her installing Linux and
> getting it running.

here is what it takes:
(a) put knoppix (mandrake move, probably others) cd in drive.
(b) turn on computer.

there you have it. linux running on your machine. big trouble, wasn't it.

> I know for a fact that she can install XP on her new
> P4 (yea, cheap, but it works) without any problems and get Office and
> such running. I have enough licenses so it doesn't cost her anything.

well, isn't that fortunate. now all that software also happens to be "free"
for your "mother-in-law."

>> other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of course,
>> quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...
>
> I think what she would find harder is going down to the local Best Buy
> store, finding Mandrake 10

so i suppose not only does she desperately need some non-gnucash quickbooks
feature, have a circle of xp-zealots as friends, she also has some religious
problem with buying online, right?

> (which is still in beta)

that not what it says here:
http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/

> or anything but Red
> Hat, and then finding Open Office or Star Office

she would not have to, openoffice is, of course, included. along with
koffice, and quite possibly others. just pick from the wealth, rather than
carrying your cash to bestbuy.

> - you see, without her
> computer she would not be able to download them, and without a CD-Burner
> she would not be able to move the ISO images to a CD to install it
> anyway.

with the cash she dropped on useless bloatware, she could buy an entire farm
of cd burners.

i have an idea: why not buy here a $400 machine with some windows on it and
a cd burner, burn the cds, give the windows box to charity, and *still* have
saved between $100 and $700? and done a good deed, if you remember to put
linux on the windows box too, before giving it away... ;-)

> On top of those, she has the support of her friends, family, and
> co-workers that are all running Windows XP and MS Office.

poor souls.

> As for being secure, she's behind a router, so she has nothing to fear
> as she installs, gets the Windows Updates, Office Updates, NAV Updates,
> and then checks her email (in that order).

i am relieved to hear that. now what about your happiness once you she could
install the linux/office that you give her in an evening?

-- j

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <c7f3h1$mf01@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>, "Jörn W. Janneck"
<jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> says...
> so you think shifting the topic should be a privilege reserved to windows
> advocates? a redmond-patent, perhaps? ;-) or have we already figured out why
> that mother-in-law suddenly needs quickbooks so badly when just a moment ago
> installing os+office was the standard for happiness?

As I said in a previous post, it's not about shifting, it's about ease
of install - in order for her to get the BETA copy of Mandrake 10 she
would have to find an FTP site (hard to do if your computer isn't
running), download it, burn the ISO to CD, and run from there.

With a common OS, such as Red Hat or Windows, she can purchase it just
about anywhere. Problem is that she's not going to be able to secure
install RH unless she's behind a router any more than Windows. On top of
the security issue, she only knows one person that knows Linux, and she
has friends, family, co-workers that have Windows systems and MS Office
- kind of makes sense to stick with something that works for so many and
has such a large support base - at least for someone like her.

Cost is not really an issue - by the time you look at the cost of
finding, burning, installing, learning a new OS, learning Open Office,
you've paid for the cost of Windows and MS Office.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <c7f3h1$mf01@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>, "Jörn W. Janneck"
> <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> says...
>> so you think shifting the topic should be a privilege reserved to windows
>> advocates? a redmond-patent, perhaps? ;-) or have we already figured out
why
>> that mother-in-law suddenly needs quickbooks so badly when just a moment
ago
>> installing os+office was the standard for happiness?
>
> As I said in a previous post, it's not about shifting, it's about ease
> of install - in order for her to get the BETA copy of Mandrake 10 she
> would have to find an FTP site (hard to do if your computer isn't
> running), download it, burn the ISO to CD, and run from there.

gimme your address, i'll send you a set. or just buy it online from
mandrake. or...

and what does any of this has to do with installation? did you not say that
you'd be happy if *you* could give her those cds? what keeps you from giving
them to her?

> With a common OS, such as Red Hat or Windows, she can purchase it just
> about anywhere. Problem is that she's not going to be able to secure
> install RH unless she's behind a router any more than Windows.

even if that were so, how does that pertain to the fact that mandrake 10
(say) is easy enough to install for her to do it in an evening, dinner,
show, and cocktail included?

> On top of
> the security issue,

which "issue"?

> she only knows one person that knows Linux, and she
> has friends, family, co-workers that have Windows systems and MS Office
> - kind of makes sense to stick with something that works for so many and
> has such a large support base - at least for someone like her.

i seem to remember you were talking about installation issues. now you shift
into user-grid-lock-in (i.e. lock in due to the desire to stay compatible
with her many xp-using friends).

> Cost is not really an issue - by the time you look at the cost of
> finding, burning, installing, learning a new OS, learning Open Office,
> you've paid for the cost of Windows and MS Office.

finding: 5 min
burning: 10 min
installing, learning (os + oo): about the same as new version of windows/ms
office.

15 min for >$500? you do have a career mother-in-law, kudos.

-- j

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <c7f3h1$mf01@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>, "Jörn W. Janneck"
<jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> says...
> since, surely, nobody in their right mind wants to spend that amount of
> money for something that they could replace for free, now would they. (on
> amazon: xp pro 179 to 269 + office 124 to 419 + outlook 86 + nav 59 +
> quickbooks 139 to 289 = 587 to 1122, and that's USD) but i am sure that
> there is some feature in, what was it, quickbooks, that is not in gnucash,
> and that just happens to be absolutely essential to this "mother-in-law."
> and if it's just the ability to read quickbook files.

Well, lets take a look at this - since we're talking about people that
are doing it on their own, we're talking about people that must know
enough to purchase OEM copies instead of retail. Heck, if they know
enough to find/download/install Mandrake and Open Office and then find
GNUCash and install/import they know enough to get OEM.

Windows XP Prof OEM: $140
Office 2003 SBE (Access, Word, Excel, Publisher, Outlook) $241
Total cost $381

Open Source:
Time to find Mandrake 10 Beta 15 minutes
Time to download - 2 streams 4 hours each - 8 hours total 3 ISO images
Burn to CD - 4 minutes each
Wipe computer you just downloaded from - 15 minutes
Install Mandrake 10 - Guessing 1 hours for first time?
Install Open Office - Guessing 15 minutes first time?
Get Travan 40 tape drive working - 2 hours
Restore backup of data - nope, used Tapeware for backup
Find Tapeware for nix - download it
Figure out how to install it - 30 minutes
Restore backup of data - Yea, (no time since it would be the same on a
Windows box)
Find GNUCash - 15 minutes
Install GNUCash - 15 minutes
Restore QuickBooks backup file - not sure if we could
Relearn office tasks - about 30 minutes over the week.

TOTAL TIME 14 hours, 6 hours if we don't count downloads

Pay rate $25/hr * 14 hours = $350 base cost
Pay rate $25/hr * 6 hours = $150 base cost

So, if we account for all of her time to download and setup Mandrake 10
and Open Office it's about a wash, even if we don't count the time she
takes to be around to monitor the FTP, Mandrake/Office solution is only
half as cheap as the MS solution.

In reality, the Mandrake / Open Office solution is going to cost her
much more in relearning time over the next 6 to 8 months as she learns
more about it and tries to do the same things she did on Windows base.

Once you look at the cost, it's not much difference, it's about comfort
and ease of use, and for someone that already knows the Windows base
it's not worth the effort.



--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <c7f3h1$mf01@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>, "Jörn W. Janneck"
> <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> says...
>> since, surely, nobody in their right mind wants to spend that amount of
>> money for something that they could replace for free, now would they. (on
>> amazon: xp pro 179 to 269 + office 124 to 419 + outlook 86 + nav 59 +
>> quickbooks 139 to 289 = 587 to 1122, and that's USD) but i am sure that
>> there is some feature in, what was it, quickbooks, that is not in
gnucash,
>> and that just happens to be absolutely essential to this "mother-in-law."
>> and if it's just the ability to read quickbook files.
>
> Well, lets take a look at this - since we're talking about people that
> are doing it on their own, we're talking about people that must know
> enough to purchase OEM copies instead of retail. Heck, if they know
> enough to find/download/install Mandrake and Open Office and then find
> GNUCash and install/import they know enough to get OEM.

good spin, i congratulate you!

> Windows XP Prof OEM: $140
> Office 2003 SBE (Access, Word, Excel, Publisher, Outlook) $241
> Total cost $381

so nav and quickbooks are suddenly free? and install themselves, of course?

> Open Source:
> Time to find Mandrake 10 Beta 15 minutes
> Time to download - 2 streams 4 hours each - 8 hours total 3 ISO images

so you mean you expert mother-in-law is canny enough to get oem, but she
actually sits through these downloads, watching the progress bars on the
screen, unable to do anything else? and

> Burn to CD - 4 minutes each
> Wipe computer you just downloaded from - 15 minutes
> Install Mandrake 10 - Guessing 1 hours for first time?
> Install Open Office - Guessing 15 minutes first time?
> Get Travan 40 tape drive working - 2 hours
> Restore backup of data - nope, used Tapeware for backup
> Find Tapeware for nix - download it
> Figure out how to install it - 30 minutes
> Restore backup of data - Yea, (no time since it would be the same on a
> Windows box)
> Find GNUCash - 15 minutes
> Install GNUCash - 15 minutes
> Restore QuickBooks backup file - not sure if we could
> Relearn office tasks - about 30 minutes over the week.
>
> TOTAL TIME 14 hours, 6 hours if we don't count downloads

i have the following questions:

1. how much is a trip to bestbuy that gets you all the software that you
need?
2. why are we no longer discussing the ease of installation, but rather
construct more and more fairy tales to justify the use of proprietary
software?

> Pay rate $25/hr * 14 hours = $350 base cost
> Pay rate $25/hr * 6 hours = $150 base cost
>
> So, if we account for all of her time to download and setup Mandrake 10
> and Open Office it's about a wash, even if we don't count the time she
> takes to be around to monitor the FTP, Mandrake/Office solution is only
> half as cheap as the MS solution.

what do mean "only"? are you saying that you consider a 50% savings
insignificant? i mean, even *if* your "calculations" represented reality.

> In reality, the Mandrake / Open Office solution is going to cost her
> much more in relearning time over the next 6 to 8 months as she learns
> more about it and tries to do the same things she did on Windows base.
>
> Once you look at the cost, it's not much difference, it's about comfort
> and ease of use, and for someone that already knows the Windows base
> it's not worth the effort.

so now it is definitely about lock-in in the form of some menu structure,
and no longer ease of installation, right?

or rather, what this is really about is struggling to find justifications
for using proprietary software instead of perfectly fine, free,
spyware-free, no-home-dialing open source alternatives---which, i think
everybody here understands that, is not an easy job, considering that you
effectively have to convince people that it's a good idea to part with a
thick wad of cash for essentially no good reason whatsoever.

oh well.

-- j

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <2g0tt8F2urajU1@uni-berlin.de>, Luke_Tulkas_88@hotmail.com
says...
>
> "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
> news:9eql9013plilkadni2e7tkeircae8jguvn@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 6 May 2004 18:26:10 -0700, "Jörn W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at
> yahoo
> > dot com> spoketh
> >
> > >
> > >other than having paid for xp prof, office, outlook, nav, and, of
> course,
> > >quickbooks. that's a lotta girlscout cookies...
> > >
> >
> > Funny how it suddenly was about cost ...
>
> Funny how in order to make the "system" even plausibly stable and secure
> one has to install _extra_software_. Expensive, too.

Funny how the person suggesting Mandrake and Open Office didn't include
any AV software for it.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <2g0tt8F2urajU1@uni-berlin.de>, Luke_Tulkas_88@hotmail.com
> says...
[snip]
> Funny how the person suggesting Mandrake and Open Office didn't include
> any AV software for it.

indeed. want to speculate why that might be?

-- j

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <2g0tftF26gsaU1@uni-berlin.de>, Luke_Tulkas_88@hotmail.com
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b04a93b5456976398a4e9@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <290rm1xgsj.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> > bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au says...
> > > Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and
> have
> > > >her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
> > > >she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys
> router
> > > >with Norton AV 2004 running.
> > >
> > > You must *really* hate your mother-in-law.
> >
> > Nope, I actually like her - the thing is that I understand her
> > limitations and what software she wants to run - there is little
> chance
> > that Quick Books will come out for the Linux Platform. She has a NAT
> > router, broadband, NAV 2004, and uses IE in HIGH-Security mode and
> > Outlook 2003 for email. She's never been compromised and shows no
> signs
> > of having any trouble using the system.
>
> Except what you listed above is more than a system. System is Windoze
> <whatever>. NAV 2004 is not a part of it. There is no measure for how
> fast she'd get into trouble using the "system" alone.

I specifically mentioned NAV 2004 in my first post - read back through
the thread. Actually, a SYSTEM is made up of many parts, an Operating
System is just part of what Windows offers in the package. Your don't
consider email, browser, FTP client, etc.. an OS do you - those are
packages that come with the OS to make the OS easier to use.

You should address what I posted and not try to take this off-track. The
system, Windows XP, Office 2003, and NAV 2004 are SIMPLE for her to
install, see my other post about what she would have to do/learn to
install Mandrake 10 and Open Office as suggested by another poster.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <y6Fmc.35825$_41.3254321@attbi_s02>, newstome@comcast.net
says...
> In comp.security.misc Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > In article <nfjmc.38027$kh4.2032372@attbi_s52>, newstome@comcast.net
> > says...
> >> In comp.security.misc Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <c7b546$1qgaa$1@ID-122774.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >> > nospam@talk21.com says...
> >> >> If an ISP has a NAT router then (unless I am missing something) all the
> >> >> other customers (at least those served by your particular router) will also
> >> >> be your side of the router, and able to port scan you anytime they want.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think that most ISPs will have firewalls between their own customers and
> >> >> the Internet - if only to protect their own machines and routers.
> >> >
> >> > I wasn't talking about the ISP doing a NAT for their network, I was
> >> > talking about the ISP enabling NAT on the Cable/DSL modem at each
> >> > customers location. Free, works great, blocks uninvited inbound.
> >>
> >> ???? What does this mean ????
> >>
> >> I'm not aware of any Cable modem with an IP stack, so they simply
> >> wouldn't be capable of doing NAT. I imagine DSL modems are the same.
> >>
> >> The ISP could provide a NAT-enabled router of some sort in addition to
> >> the Cable/DSL modem, but that would be an extra cost....
> >
> > All of the routers that RR uses in our region provide for the ability to
> > provide private address ranges on the internal side through means of
> > NAT. It's free to the ISP since it's already a feature in the modems.
>
> There's a huge difference between a router and a modem though. What I
> have is a cable modem. It's not a router. My ISP doesn't provide a
> router at all -- in fact it supplies nothing that understands IP at
> all, so nothing they supply could possibly do NAT.

And you would be one of the exceptions in this scenario - I never said
that ALL ISP's cable/dsl modems do NAT, but most of them do.

> If the capability is there from your ISP, then you'd really have to
> ask if the ISP would want to turn on NAT by default. Think about it:

I think that they should enable it by default and then customers should
ask to have it disabled in writing.

> how many people hook up to the net and want to run a peer-to-peer
> program? I think I saw a survey recently that said something like 30%
> of users have used Kazaa or a variant at some point. Guess what? It
> won't work behind a NAT, without configuring the NAT specifically to
> deal with this.... How many calls to customer service would that be?

30% of the people on the net use P2P? I bet not. In reality most of the
people surfing the net from their home systems would not be impacted at
all. The people running P2P programs on their computers are, in most
cases, violating their ISP TOS so that's a non-issue and once you take
out the illegal content it's even less of an issue.

The simple fact is that if ISP's installed with NAT by default and
customers had to request to have it disabled, all of us we be better off
and people (that requested) could still do anything they want - you can
have your cake and eat it too.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <409B2CF4.B67EE36F@ieee.orgies.invalid>,
lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid says...
> > 1) If you are talking about the kernels of the two systems, the NT OS has
> > a more secure design. The ability to implement security is part of the
> > kernel [This is based on previous disclosures by Microsoft and knowledge
> > of the ancestors of NT]. Security is part of the kernel design. You can
> > design isolation into the software.
>
> I haven't analyzed it, and I don't believe blindly what Microsoft
> claims. Real life tests show that even if security is available, it
> isn't being used much.

Which Kernels for nix have you analyzed?

What certifications/degree's do you hold that would give us any
indication that you would even understand the security implications of
the kernel of the platform that you were inspecting?

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> [snip]
> Windows was designed to be "easy" for all
> users, mostly the home users where it was targeted early. It takes a
> massive shift to move it to being secure first and easy last.

I wonder about that "massive shift". What does it really take to secure
the average stand-alone Windows PC? You set unnecessary services to
Manual or Disabled. You disable DCOM, unneeded network components,
NetBIOS over TCP/IP and some other stuff. One or two tricks may be
needed to close port 445. Having done this, one is reasonably secure
against worms and other vermin of the sort that wreak havoc and make
headlines.

So why isn't there a configuration page in Windows where the average
user can do this sort of thing by pointing and clicking? Sure, there
will have to be some options to allow for different configurations, but
the idea still seems worth pursuing.

And of course, Windows should be shipped with most of these things
turned OFF. But this configuration page should help reduce the calls to
MS whenever anyone needs to turn them ON.
--
Tore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

In article <4nKmc.2338$Yc.35503@news4.e.nsc.no>, toreld@netscape.net
says...
> So why isn't there a configuration page in Windows where the average
> user can do this sort of thing by pointing and clicking? Sure, there
> will have to be some options to allow for different configurations, but
> the idea still seems worth pursuing.

There are many pages on the web, even from MS, that tell you how to
secure your installation - you just have to look a little.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.misc,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.lang.java.advocacy (More info?)

"Jörn W. Janneck" <jwjanneck at yahoo dot com> wrote in message news:<c7ee3s$n0s1@cliff.xsj.xilinx.com>...
> Leythos wrote:
> [snip]
> > When I can give my mother-inlaw a CD with Linux and Star Office and have
> > her install it from scratch in one evening I'll be happy, till then
> > she's on XP prof with Office 2003 and sitting behind a Linksys router
> > with Norton AV 2004 running.
>
> have you tried giving her mandrake 10? it even has openoffice on it, i guess
> it won't get any simpler than that.

Case in point. My Mother-In-Law, whom I do adore, bought herself a
brand new computer some months ago with XP and a bunch of other
unneeded additional software. It was all pre-installed, no having to
learn how to install software. But this was her first computer, and
even the concept of click was initially beyond her.

After a month of her practicing and getting used to the mouse and
keyboard, I brought Knoppix over and booted it. And wouldn't you know
it, she had no problem using it. She was able to surf the net, check
her email and watch DVDs - just what she was doing in Windows. Again,
no learning how to install software, just poke the ON button and sit
back.

When you introduce a Windows user to a non-Windows system, the user
will prejudge the system and immediately begin looking for the
shortcomings to justify his or her decision that Windows is somehow
better (how many of us disapproved of Mac - or still do - merely
because it isn't Windows?). When you introduce a non-user to any
system, Windows or otherwise, the user has no baseline by which to
compare this new system and so cannot prejudge. Learning how to do
things on the computer would be as difficult whether Windows, Linux,
or BSD sat under the hood.