Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices

["Dave Korn" <davek_throwaway () hotmail com>]

Stan Bubrouski wrote in 
news:122827b90601190751o5b5a6379mfe03e60e04d35d76 () mail gmail com
> On 1/19/06, Dave Korn <davek_throwaway () hotmail com> wrote:
> >  I'd like to second what Greg says.
> >
> >  I've used ZA for years, through many changes of version.
> >
> >  It's never forgotten its settings for me.
> >  It's never blocked anything it shouldn't or not blocked anything it
> > should.
>
> Really?  Do you just run notepad?  I've had to remove it on several
> machines because it blocked the launch of certain applications despite
> there being no rules to do so.  This includes (to my recollection this
> was some months ago) some popular tax software updating features,
> adobe acrobat plugin stoppped working within IE even though it was
> configured to, and numerous other problems that couldn't be tracked to
> any rules.

  I run a vast range of apps, including acrobat, and like I said, it's never 
broken anything for me.

  Actually, it's just occurred to me that I've only ever used the free 
version, and the pro version may have features in it that I haven't had a 
chance to use and are buggy.  In which case I'd recommened upgrading to the 
free version.

> >  It's not remotely bloated compared to similar packages like anything
> > Norton/Symantec/McAfee[*]
>
> Symantec is hugely bloated, but on a 1.2 GHz machine I have here, when
> ZA is installed web browsing with IE is slowed down very noticably,
> far more than average Norton System Works install causes.

  But have you diagnosed this problem enough to show that ZA is at fault 
rather than anything else?  Did you do a controled experiment?  Did you take 
identical machines with identical setups and nothing different between them 
except ZA on one and Norton on the other and compare them at the same time? 
If you haven't done a controlled experiment, then your assumption that the 
different behaviours you have observed on two different systems is down to 
one particular one of the differences between those systems - the PFW 
software - rather than any of the many many other differences between those 
systems that you haven't even considered or analyzed - is simply an unproven 
and unjustified assertion.

> >  Nor do I find a dialog such as "Should internet explorer be allowed to
> > connect to the internet" at all confusing.
>
> Neither does anyone else in this thread, you just presume we're all
> lusers who can't read english or configure simple software.

  I think you're reading too much into my words.  I was expecting an answer 
along the lines of "No, that's perfectly clear, but /this/ one is 
misleading/confusing/vague".  Instead, you've merely repeated your unproven 
assumption one more time with still no evidence to back it up.

> >  So I'm convinced the problem exists between chair and keyboard.
>
> Your wild assumptions that because you've never had a problem that
> anyone who does must be an idiot is astounding...do you teach?

  No, but I'll try and teach you how not to make assumptions:

  Saying that "the problem exists between chair and keyboard" does not make 
any claim about the nature of that problem.  Specifically, it does not imply 
that the user is an idiot.  It implies nothing more than that the user did 
not operate the software correctly.  The rest is something you imagined 
because you are overreacting emotively.

> Try
> using google you'll found thousands of ZA problems, not all imagined

  Well, I was actually asking _you_ to back up _your_ claims.  You are the 
one making them, after all, so it should be for you to document or otherwise 
prove them.

> >  Can you actually back up your claims?  For example, can you describe a
> > simple procedure, that anyone with ZA installed could try out, that
> > shows it to misbehave?  Or do you have detailed notes that you took at
> > the time one of these problems occurred that shows the symptoms you
> > observed and the steps you took to attempt to diagnose and solve the
> > problem?
>
> Having uninstalled it, deleted the executable, and wiped my free space.
> No.
>
> >  Or can we just expect to hear "No, I didn't know what was going on, I
> > didn't keep proper notes, I was in a rush and just needed to get things
> > working so I didn't investigate"?  In which case it would be false to
> > claim
>
> It's clearly the problem if it degrades system performance, some apps
> fail to load, and all this goes away when is disabled.  And who the
> hell takes notes on every piece of software they install and remove
> because its buggy?  Please we'd all have a set of encyclopedia-sized
> notes for Windows problems alone.

  As I have demonstrated above, not doing a controlled experiment means that 
your reasoning here is just an exercise in fallacious and dogmatic thinking.

  As to "who takes notes" on their processes and procedures, the answer is 
"professionals who understand the value of documentation and repeatability".

> > that you knew ZA to be the cause of the problem, rather than either pilot
> > error or a faulty PC or any number of other confounding factors that
> > could arise?
>
> It's easy to know, because when you uninstall it suddenly things are
> much smoother and your heart rates go back down.
>
> >  I hear people slagging off ZA quite often, but not one of them has ever
> > been able to actually demonstrate a real problem or even explain what the
> > problem is in terms any more precise then "Uh I dunno it just went
> > wrong".
>
> Just because someone doesn't take notes every time some piece of shit
> software doesn't work as advertised and uninstall it, doesn't make
> what they say any less true.

  No, it's the false inferences with which your reasoning is peppered that 
makes what you say less true.

> Why would I install something just to
> prove it causes problems to satisfy the ego of someone who thinks
> because something works for them it must be perfect for everyone.

  Again, you read stuff into my words that simply isn't there.  This claim 
of "perfection" is a fantasy that you have just invented.  I won't bother 
addressing your strawman except to point out that it's a straw man.

> I have a sigline for you:  ZA is in my mouth.
> Stop sucking.

  Fine.  I have one for you:  "Everything is just how I imagine it to be, so 
I don't need to ever check my facts against reality."

> Why isn't it friday yet,

  Because reality remains obstinately non-compliant with your wishful 
thinking.  I note that you are the one whose post is filled with emotive and 
pejorative terms like "presume we're all lusers", "wild assumptions", "must 
be an idiot", "piece of shit", "satisfy the ego", "stop sucking".  You won't 
find any such language in my post to which you are replying.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... 



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/