Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Mr. Arnold wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm talking about the application on its own adding a rule to the PFW for
>>>allowing appropriate access. You won't get any queries then.
>>
>>I don't want any application having the ability to add its own rules to
>>a PFW, period. I don't care what it is.
>
>
> Then don't run as admin. Anyway else the application will be successful on
> ruining your wish.
It's been preached by me and others about admin rights and the none use
of them. I really doubt that you even follow your own preaching about it.
>
>
>>>Of course the application would have to implement this for every single
>>>PFW, and since most don't offer any interface they'd have to use their own
>>>dirty tricks (f.e. sending Windows messages, hijacking a kernel driver,
>>>...), but it's generally no problem.
>>>
>>>Considering an explicit interface being offered by Windows Firewall
>>>therefore is no security problem, but rather a sign of sanity.
>>
>>What are you talking about? Programmers are not stupid, particularly
>>hacker types. You think someone couldn't figure out a program interface
>>after hitting it numerous times to figure it out?
>
>
> You're referring to the interface the PFW itself is using internally? This
> is usually secured, for whatever it might be worth.
No program interface is secured if the the call can be made from one
program to another one exposing the interface.
The interface is only a contract between the client and server program
on how and what parameters are passed between the two to access a method
or property in the server program, which in this case the XP FW is the
server and the malware is the client program.
There are people better than you or me that can accomplish this. So,
don't kid yourself, me or this NG about it.
>
>
>>You think that information on how to access the interface is going to be
>>kept under some kind Fort Knox lock and key?
>
>
> Nah, I'd say it's a cryptographic key.
You're talking more nonsense, as I have made cryptic keys for programs.
Someone knows the keys. He or she must pass this information out or
provide the file that has the key to others that will use the key to
access a program that's using/or needs a cryptic key to be accessed.
A cryptic key is NOT iron clad security. A again, don't kid yourself, me
or this NG about this.
>
>
>>>At first, it's no PFW. And no, they don't have to know any intent, because
>>>they delegate this task to the respective software itself.
>>>
>>
>>Me, Job Blow program writing hacker who has cracked the interface, got
>>some user with the happy fingers to click on something that did the
>>install of my hacker program and I have good intentions. You come on
>>let's do some delegation.
>
>
> You're talking as if you could actually do anything against malicious
> software running with admin rights...
This is drivel from you and more nonsense, since the hacker program is
the program running with admin rights of the user that's logged on to
the machine and is the one that's being talked about above that wants to
set rules and control the BS XP FW.
Yeah, so come on down and lets do some delegations with the so called
malicious program, so that it's delegating to the XP FW program, its
interface, and is setting rules. Hell, it might not even be a malicious
program and does nothing malicious.
But the bad oh so very bad program is running and it's going to do what
it needs to do malicious or not malicious. And it's going around the XP FW.
It has come around the XP FW, because it delegated some rules to it,
because the cryptic key is known, the interface between the calling
program (the hacker program) and the server program the XP FW is known,
and the methods and properties are known for the XP FW (the server program).
And if you think that this cannot ever happen, then your bullshitting
yourself, me and this NG.
>
>
>>>>I don't want MS with some FW to be making any rules without user
>>>>permission about anything.
>>>
>>>Well, then why are you running with admin rights? With admin rights, this
>>>would hold for any PFW. And without admin rights, it won't hold for Windows
>>>Firewall.
>>
>>Come on man, why is anyone running with admin rights? Maybe, it's
>>because it's the default.
>
>
> And as long as you don't change this, you've already lost.
Man, you don't talk to me as if you know what I am doing, because you
don't.
You're talking more nonsense and you can't seem to face reality, when it
comes to the average job blow home user and security that 99% of them
are running are with admin rights.
The preach from you has been preached numerous times in this NG and
other's and yet the average job blow home user is going to run with
admin rights.
You preach to them. You stand on your soapbox and you preach to them,
not me.
>
>
>>>The same is true for all other PFWs any would be true for any
>>>implementation. Where's your argument? You're complaining about a trivial
>>>and unavoidable fact.
>>
>>I like the way you try to take the focal point away from your beloved XP
>>FW. It won't hold.
>
>
> If I pee on a hamburger, it tastes bad. That's why hamburgers are worse
> than cheeseburgers. And you claim it's the hamburger's fault.
WTF are you talking about? This is some absolute bullshit drivel from you.
You take the XP FW burger, you stick it right up your ass, smell it
after you pull it out, and then you eat it.
You go ahead and you post again you *clown*, because we all know you
will do that.
People in this NG are so tired of you and your fucking bullshit about
the XP FW or anything else for that matter.
<Plank> you and your lunatic posts about and for the XP FW, because you
and the XP FW are not a bed of roses.
