zone alarm users

It's true.

If you install the latest MS update, you can't even access the web on ZA high security settings.

You have to uninstall the patch or surf on medium settings (not a great option, IMO, since you're basically allowing your resources to be shared).

The kicker is that since this relates to DNS cache poisoning, which is a pretty serious threat, you're sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

This is the kind of crap that makes me ever so closer to just buying a Mac.


Here's a good link discussing it:

http://securosis.com/2008/07/08/dan...ue-in-dns-massive-multivendor-patch-released/
 
thanks for posting about this. must be issues in the registry cause i disabled ZA from running entirely and still no internet. once i uninstalled the update, worked fine.
 
Quote from battle river:

i was using comodo also but every time i wanted to do something i had to grant permission and it got frustrating.
More...

Thats a good thing. I set ZoneAlarm to do the same and have been very happy. This gives you direct control over what can access the internet.

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

If you install the latest MS update, you can't even access the web on ZA high security settings.
More...

DO NOT install MS updates. Ever.
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:

Thats a good thing. I set ZoneAlarm to do the same and have been very happy. This gives you direct control over what can access the internet.



DO NOT install MS updates. Ever.
More...

hi. yeah but with zone i click the remember this setting or whatever it says,but comodo for some reason wouldnt.
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:



DO NOT install MS updates. Ever.
More...


One of the truly stupid statements of all times.

Many of the updates are bug fixes or to patch holes that could be targeted by hackers.

Maybe you should trying installing Windows 3.1. After all, it worked great in the 1992 era.

RSXSetupLarge.jpg
 
Quote from battle river:

hi. yeah but with zone i click the remember this setting or whatever it says,but comodo for some reason wouldnt.
More...

Ahh ok, thank you for the heads up. Yes, that is VERY annoying.
 
Quote from TraderZones:


One of the truly stupid statements of all times.

Many of the updates are bug fixes or to patch holes that could be targeted by hackers.

Maybe you should trying installing Windows 3.1. After all, it worked great in the 1992 era.
More...

Yeah ok, I'm the idiot. Continue installing patches upon patches which rarely fix anything, and if they do, it's at the cost of having another problem. Conitinue sending your information to Microsoft for their databases, I would rather be stupid. Continue clogging up your system with additional megabytes of data & bugs, so that the incentive for a new computer and a "NEW & IMPROVED" operating system only gets bigger.

You stick to your plan, I will stick to mine.
 
Quote from Hydroblunt:

Yeah ok, I'm the idiot. Continue installing patches upon patches which rarely fix anything, and if they do, it's at the cost of having another problem. Conitinue sending your information to Microsoft for their databases, I would rather be stupid. Continue clogging up your system with additional megabytes of data & bugs, so that the incentive for a new computer and a "NEW & IMPROVED" operating system only gets bigger.

You stick to your plan, I will stick to mine.
More...

WOW, you might be about the most stupid person I ever saw on the internet. :D

Shrinking patch windows hit by automated attacks

Quick and dirty exploit peril
By John Leyden →

The length of time between the development of security patches and the development of exploits targeting the security holes they address has been dropping for some time.

Hackers exploit this period of time - the so-called patch window - to launch attacks against unpatched machines. Typically, exploits are developed by skilled hackers versed in the arcane intricacies of reverse engineering.

However, hackers have now begun using off-the-shelf tools to at least partially automate this process, a development that might lead to exploits coming out hours instead of days after the publication of patches.

Security researchers at Berkeley, the University of Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon have launched a research project investigating the approach (pdf.), which relies on comparing the configuration of patched and unpatched machines.

In some cases hackers are able to develop an exploit just minutes after receiving a patch. Fortunately, for now, the technique is rather hit and miss. More often than not the semi-automated process creates tools that only crash vulnerable applications, rather than creating a means to inject hostile code onto vulnerable machines.

Over time the technique is only likely to get more reliable.

The researchers suggest that secure distribution of patches might mitigate against the approach by keeping patches out of the hands of hackers. But, as security watchers at the Internet Storm Centre (ISC) point out, such an approach would take away the benefits of automated patching.


And while you are at it, uninstall your antivirus software. I am sure no one is out there trying to hit your system. It is just a myth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top