f'ups set to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Gerald Vogt wrote:
> On Nov 25, 10:34 am, "Poprivet" <popri... [at] devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Gerald Vogt wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 8:31 pm, "Luis Ortega" <lort... [at] ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> It is actually also a bad idea to install more then one software
>>> firewall on a computer.
>>
>> No, it's a bad idea to RUN more than one firewall at a time. Have
>> fun removing XP's firewall if that's how you operate.
>
> Why do you want to remove the XP firewall? Installing more then one
> (i.e. two or more) software firewall on a computer (i.e. in addition
> to the XP firewall) is not really useful.
>
>> The software firewall to do its "job" deeply
>>
>>> integrates/messes with the Windows system.
>>
>> Actually, what it does is sit and monitor what goes in/out
>> (sometimes only in), compare it against its rules, and send messages
>> appropriately to/from the system. It does not "integrate" into the
>> OS.
>
> Exactly. It does not integrate. That's why it is so difficult to
> uninstall that stuff afterwards???
No, not really. If your questions are serious, I'll go thru here and give
you what I have experience and knowledge with, so maybe that'll help.
"Integrate" means to essentially become a part of. However, I do
understand that the term is used very loosely by many people. AV sw looks
into, and captures, system communications in order to monitor and function.
Depending on what you've asked it to do, some of those can be more than just
inserting itself in between your internet connection and your email client
of browser, which is where most of the detection is done.
>
> A software firewall wants to provide security. For that it must
> establish itself somewhere deep in the OS to prevent evasion or the
> ability to turn it off quickly.
>
>> In general, the only way to
>>
>>> get properly rid of an installed (single) software firewall on a
>>> Windows system is to reinstall the system.
>>
>> Blatantly untrue and misinformed information here. It occurs to me
>> that you
>
> Why exactly do you need additional tools available from Symantec to
> uninstall Norton completely from your computer?? Is that untrue?
No, it's definitely true! There are some silly reasons and some good
reasons for it. The silly reason is that you might want to reinstall it in
the future and that way it preserves all your settings and things should you
reinstall it to "fix" a file corruption or whatever. But if your aim is to
get it off your computer, it's a pia. The good reason is that the way
theyve chosen to install files and where to put them isn't tracked well by
XP nor Norton, and can be a very considerable amount of data. This is some
of the "bloatware" that people often refer to, but only a piece of it. The
"big deal" is that Norton creates a LOT of files "on the fly" and only
Norton knows the best way to rid a system of everything so that it won't
interfere with anything later. Sucks, and I hate it, but that's how it is.
FWIW, the methodology Norton uses isn't particular to them; many other
applications do the same thing for basically the same reasons. IMO it's
mostly because of the rush to market, inability to be sure of MS's various
proprietary areas and what it's doing, and a few others but I'd be
rationalizing and want to stop here with that thought.
In reality, this "tool" should have been part of the installation but if
you notice, Norton (and others) must look at your installations to be able
to give you the correct tool to use. So, it's obviously not something
simple and is widespread. I think really, in Norton's case, it's a matter
of rush to market after having coded themselves into a corner over the years
and of course, when Symantec bought Norton, the problem only got worse
because the Norton SW coders didn't go with it and they had to relearn it
from scratch.
So now they have a mess to work themselves out of.
OTOH, I find the products bug free and fully functional so I've stuck
with them since I have a well managed and maintained system. I've never had
any serious problems with Norton (I use SystemWorks) and the only reason I'd
leave them would be over money. Which is an event in progress; their virus
subscriptions are getting pretty expensive and considering the other
protections I have, I may forego Norton when my subscription is up next
year.
As for bloatware, it probaby is, and as for slowing down a system, there
is only one part of their apps that I've noticed slows anything down; that
is their GoBack. It works wonderfully and I used it to great advantage
until I got backup imaging applications running, after which I dispensed
with it. It did slow down boot and shut-down times although I never noticed
any other delays it caused. Others will tell you differently but in my
circle of friends and acquaintances, we all have pretty much the same
experiences.
>
>> are doing no more than parroting what you think you have read and
>> have little to no experience in such matters. OR, you refuse RTFM
>> and can not, will not do things correctly. All the good ones come
>> with perfectly readable, understandable, concise information and
>> instructions, including removal instructions. Failing that, you can
>> always go online to their site and get the information again should
>> you lose track of it.
>
> There is an uninstaller available. That does something but not
> everything. Why again does it happen to so many people that there
> networking still does not work correctly after they have uninstalled
> ZoneAlarm? The stupid uninstaller forgot to remove the proxy setting
> in the internet settings... Hic. It was just not built to be
> uninstalled.
I can't answer that one because I don't have any issues with it. I use
ZoneAlarm Pro after using the free version for a long time, and never had
issues with it. The proxy I use is a very simple one, and my LAN is small,
so maybe that has soemthing to do with it. I'd probably start at ZA and if
there's any good reason for it, I'm sure they have it covered there. I've
no idea whether it's a Norton or a ZA issue so ... can't say anything here.
>
>> Otherwise you may see all
>>
>>> kinds of issues after the uninstallation plus usually not everything
>>> is gone after the standard deinstallation from the software wizard.
>>
>> Not "everything" is "gone" after almost ANY uninstall of almost ANY
>> software. There are some good and some not so good reasons for that
>> but I'll not go into them because I can feel the hardness of your
>> skull from here.
>
> O.K. What was exactly the good reasons why some uninstallers forgot to
> remove the proxy setting in the internet options which prevented
> people to use the internet after uninstallation?
As I've said above, I have no experience with that. My most recent removal
of Norton was a few weeks ago in order to try out the free NIS my ISP was
offering, but it also wanted me to remove ZoneAlarm before it'd install, so
that that says there IS some truth to what you're alleging. But if it's not
Norton's proxy, I wouldn't expect it to fix anything that ZA did and vice
versa. It does however, appear to be covered in the documentation. I read
that I should uninstall ZA, but didn't, and NIS just refused to install
until I did uninstall it. AFter the install, I reinstalled ZA and all was
fine.
Again though, I see the same things in other applications and not always
explained or recognized. Norton at least controlled the sitiation with NIS
2007. I had no issues at all uninstalling it and reinstalling my
SystemWorks 2006.
So, that's the extent of my experience there. Sorry.
>
>>> Now make the math: you have already installed two firewalls on your
>>> computer. (The Windows XP firewall is part of the OS that's why it
>>> does not cause issues here).
>>
>> That's not what you said earlier, and it's not correct. You have
>> little to no knowledge of the SP firewall and/or other software
>> firewalls and probably even less on hardware firewalls.
>
> What is your problem? Do you have anything else to say except
> personal insults?
I simply believe that inconsistancies and misinformation are bad, very bad,
in a public place because too many newbies will hook onto the one they like
the best and remember that instead of the more accurate assessments. I
think I've said a LOT other than insults, and if you find them personal, you
need a slightly thicker skin. I'm gentle by many standards but I do say
what I think and mean what I say. If I'm wrong then so be it; I'm not
afraid to say so, and if you're actually reading this, I guess I was wrong
and apologize for that. I felt that the misinformation needed to be pointed
out, in particular, and wanted it to stop.
>
>> Twice you have messed up the system with
>>
>>> an installation of a software firewall. Both try to hook into the
>>> system to do their job and to make them fixed into the system so
>>> that other malware does not accidentally removes the firewall
>>> software.
>>
>> Patently untrue. Your misinformation is outdone only by your
>> ignorance of reality. Please adjust your brain.
>
> If it does not fix itself deeply in the OS as they do they can
> obviously very easily circumvented.
Hmm, that's a sort of semantics thing I think, depending on what one
considers the meaning of those words in that context. What you mean is
probably correct as far as it goes. It's not the "deepness" but the logic
and points of the application's connection that are important, along with
what it does with such information of course. But I'm rationalizing,
something I abhor, so ... <g>
>
>>> It is even now impossible to say whether any of those two firewalls
>>> operates correctly if turned on. Norton may well have removed some
>>> of the hooks which ZoneAlarm installed which ZoneAlarm did not
>>> notice. Or well, maybe ZoneAlarm noticed some of those changes and
>>> reverted them back removing Norton hooks...
>>
>> Again you have no idea what you're talking about but love the little
>> buzzwords you found somewhere and are trying to parrot here.
>
> Do you have any arguments except personal insults?
>
>>> learn a little about computer security and how to keep your computer
>>> secure by what you DO instead of what you INSTALL. It is not so
>>> complicated and still human beings are more intelligent than some
>>> piece of software. It is possible to run a computer without any
>>> firewall running and without getting infected with malware. But
>>> obviously, this last statement does not sell good that's why you
>>> find a lot of opposite (well sponsored) statements.
>>
>> Wow, that's so full of misinformed content and reasoning that even
>> your attempt at rationalizing failed to anyone with even a modest
>> idea of the reality of this situation.
>
> No argument. Personal insult. What are you trying to say:
>
> * A software is more intelligent than a human being?
No, but it's more reliable, consistant and usually much more dependable.
>
> * It is more effective to use some security software then to learn
> something about security and to be careful while in the internet?
>
> * It is not possible to run a computer securely connected to the
> internet without any antivirus and firewall?
Not really. Within minutes, the "noise" of the internet is likely to
discover one or more of your open ports and start testing them. One can
literally become infected with a virus or spyware within minutes of
accessing the internet without some sort of protection in place, especially
considering all of the "noise" looking for you are covert in nature and
aren't going to announce themselves. You'll find very, very few
recommendations to EVER connect to the 'net without some sort of protection
installed. If fact, if you find such a site saying you can connect safely,
get the hell away from them; they are likely already probing you. It can
ruin a good afternoon of rebuilding a system.
There's a little hype involved, but if you'd like to see what's happening on
your machine and who can see what in and on it, visit grc.com and let them
run a few tests on you ports. In my current configuration, I'm fully
"stealthed", meaning no one on the 'net can see me in any way. That's the
target to shoot for. It's a free service, and pretty good. There are
others also but I like grc.
>
> ...
>
>>> At the current stage I doubt you will be able to get any of those
>>> firewalls removed from your system without damage to the system...
>>
>> It's very obvious that what you think is irrelevant to anything,
>> probably in most of your life in fact, not just this one
>> circumstance. First you have to learn to recognize reality, then
>> you need to get some education about things you wish to profess,
>> acquire a few interpersonal skills, and then gain some experience.
>> Then you might be close to getting ready to respond to the OP's
>> question, which you have not answered clearly.
>
> The amount of personal insults and the lack of argument in your post
> makes me thinking your lack a few interpersonal skills and some
> experience.
Very possible, and a fair shot! I obviously could/should have chosen my
words much better than I did. My apologies if you felt attacked; it wasn't
really my intent nor was it deserved; but I guess Freud was at work.
>
>> Thanks for the entertainment; I needed the break. But I meant what
>> I said here; you really aren't ready to respond to questions on
>> newsgroups. Quit being a parrot and face reality; only then will
>> you actually understand the pros and cons of what you've been
>> attempting to make others think you know.
>
> You are the parrot here. You just write what everybody else repeats
> all the timing withing thinking.
>
> "You must install AV. You must install PFW."
>
> That of course is not entertaining but boring.
>
> Face reality. It is possible without AV and with PFW.
No idea where PFW came from; that's a product I don't use but is still a
viable firewall.
If you're really sans firewall and antivirus software, you're going to
understand soon enough; that's about all I can say.
I do apologize if you felt attacked.
I'm more than willing to discuss things amicabley.
If you're just trolling though, I'm done.
Cheers,
Pop`
>
> Gerald
