 
Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | ok... I will believe it when I see it. | |
|
 | 
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| Re: ok... said by Stewy85  :
I will believe it when I see it.
Or see it when you believe it. (depending on point of view.) | |
|
| | |
| | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: ok... said by Plasticman :
How long should I hold my breath before I see it work....
Plasticman
Asphyxia isn't pretty. | |
|
| 
raydog1
Feel Secure
Premium
join:2003-07-10
La Vergne, TN | I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do. Microsoft has to start somewhere. . . | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Anti-MS Whiners quote:
if they release a more sophisticated firewall application they'll be slammed for invading the turf of firewall vendors
I don't see how this could be considered a legitimate complaint. Linux and other operating systems have had these capabilities for years. A good OS-based firewall is only one part of the solution when it comes to network security. It could never by itself take the place of a hardware firewall.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
|
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: Anti-MS Whiners said by pnh102 :
quote:
if they release a more sophisticated firewall application they'll be slammed for invading the turf of firewall vendors
I don't see how this could be considered a legitimate complaint. Linux and other operating systems have had these capabilities for years. A good OS-based firewall is only one part of the solution when it comes to network security. It could never by itself take the place of a hardware firewall.
The legal world is a scary place. | |
|
| |
| 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| They got slammed for integrating HTML interfaces into the OS; which really didn't cut into anyones business (Netscape was selling servers at the time so you could argue MS was helping them out by making it trivial for a computer newbie to fire up a browser). Now they're potentially going to cut into the profits of several companies and you don't really think they're going to have any problems?
I think this is a great idea; but I also think MS is opening themselves up to another anti-trust lawsuit. I feel bad for Microsoft; at this point no matter what they do they're going to PO someone.
--
Infogrames != Atari | |
|
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: Anti-MS Whiners said by Combat Chuck :
They got slammed for integrating HTML interfaces into the OS; which really didn't cut into anyones business (Netscape was selling servers at the time so you could argue MS was helping them out by making it trivial for a computer newbie to fire up a browser).
Actually, around 1993-4 (if I remember the date right) I was on a conference call to Microsoft about long overdue patches to Microsoft mail (remember that fiasco?). After some hemming and hawing, the Microsoft rep finally told us that our 6 months overdue patch would not be forth-coming since the programmers had been pulled for the kill Netscape program. Now that was not an exact quote from her, but the words "pulled", "programmers", "kill", and "Netscape" are in the right relationship. To put this in perspective, I worked at a 25000 (yes 25K) person facility that was desperately trying to get 'wired'. Even if only half of that got wired, that is a lot of $$$ to tell to get lost for a feud. But you can see it worked.
And yes, I still am a M$ user since I have a family who does not want the slightly more difficult alternative, and I work for the US Gov that Microsoft finally got wise to and paid political payola to the powers-that-be.
Oh, and Netscape was as easy to bring up as IE after that. The only difference was, one came with your Microsoft package and was labeled free, and the other you had to look for and was listed as being free only for certain people like students.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: Anti-MS Whiners So microsoft was anticompetitive based on something a phone monkey told you?
This at a time when many people refered to the world wide web as "Netscape".
Point is netscape didn't lose money and probably actually gained money because Microsoft made it so home users didn't have to worry about downloading a browser. You can't claim somebody undercut your business when in fact you are giving away the item for free.
--
Infogrames != Atari | |
|
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Anti-MS Whiners said by Combat Chuck :
So microsoft was anticompetitive based on something a phone monkey told you?
This at a time when many people refered to the world wide web as "Netscape".
Not the common phone monkey, several layers up in the hierarchy. I was the monkey, the Microsoft rep and one of our managers were doing the talking with input from us trench workers. But even if a common phone monkey knew about what was going on, that a promise to at least one major client was not only broken, but destroyed to work on a certain project, then I guess that might be a slight clue as what was going on. Microsoft can not stand competition, at any any cost.
You are right in what appears to be your hidden point. They did not do anything outright illegal, at the time. And no contracts were broken because although Microsoft mail did not scale as promised, it worked as specified on paper. And everyone knows that an American's verbal contract is not worth anything, especially from big business and lawyers.
said by Combat Chuck :
Point is netscape didn't lose money and probably actually gained money because Microsoft made it so home users didn't have to worry about downloading a browser. You can't claim somebody undercut your business when in fact you are giving away the item for free.
That is where you are wrong. Did you ever read or fill out a Netscape agreement back then? Only if you were a select group like a student could you use it for free. If you were not, then you were suppose to pay. I know I did not since I was a student. It was 'honor-ware', which many people interpret as 'free-ware'. It was sometime after the advent of the Microsoft browser and the fact that free and present outweighed cost and have to get, that Netscape woke up to the fact that although they were better, they were outclassed in the market and went free.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
onliners450
Net Addicted, Period.
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Lebanon, CT
| Slam them regardless.hehe quote:
if they release a more sophisticated firewall application they'll be slammed for invading the turf of firewall vendors,
So?They can afford to get slammed.They can afford anything.This is a good move IMO.Hell had there been such a firewall included I would not have renewed my ZA updates.
--
And now for something completely ridiculous, but true. | |
|
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Lancaster, CA
edited
| The Customer is always WRONG said by The Article Above:
If Microsoft releases an OS without a firewall (or a feeble one), they're knocked for poor security; if they release a more sophisticated firewall application they'll be slammed for invading the turf of firewall vendors, and flaws will only enforce their image as security-dysfunctional.
That hit it right on the nail, this is exactly why Microsoft is having trouble with security these days.
To little control and MS isn't doing what it needs to protect the customers.
To much control and they are invading out "privacy".
You guys need to make you up your damn minds.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 12:41:50] | |
|
| 
The Lighter Side
@bellsouth.net | Re: The Customer is always WRONG Invade the OS, Let them know you are there, then cover your traks : flash the Bios when you leave. heh heh . | |
|
| |
|
easymoney862
join:2002-06-08
Dallas, TX |  Worthless Firewall
| |
|
| Sunburn
join:2000-10-05
Denver, CO
| Re: Worthless Firewall said by easymoney862 :
Any type of firewall they could add to the already bloated OS would not be anywhere as good as the other Firewall programs on the market.
What makes you such and expert and how the hell would you know? | |
|
| gnubeest
Gnu
join:2001-10-28
Nashville, TN
| It doesn't have to be, and MS doesn't want to get into the firewall business. Heck, the firewall built into XP is plenty good enough without outbound filtering, unless you open every attachment and download every file you can get your hands on sans AV. The problem is, that's most people.
We don't need pressure on OS vendors for more security -- we need education, instead of the paranoia, ignorance, and misinformation that's spread around in the media. The tech media isn't immune, either.
I use a dedicated Linux box as a firewall, and I don't use IE. Not everyone has that luxury. The more complicated you make security, the fewer the end-users that will actually bother. Remember, there's a lot of people out there who are still baffled by their antivirus software. | |
|
| markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| said by easymoney862 :
Any type of firewall they could add to the already bloated OS would not be anywhere as good as the other Firewall programs on the market.
Since when is winxp bloated?
You must of never tried a Linux distro.. | |
|
| | hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Worthless Firewall let's see a baseline win2k sp4 install with no third party software and all patches 877 megs..and that is not including ht garbage put in program files and loads of other palces..
Linux..fully functioning system i ahve installed averaging 500 megs....where's the bloat? not Linux.
--
God Blesshttp://www.faithwalk.org | |
|
| | | |
| | | 
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
edited
| I fit an operating Linux distro on my USB disk. ~53mb almost. Some people can do much less.
--
If it can be smoked, its prolly not going to be good for you.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 18:16:18] | |
|
| | | | |
| | 
Lloydr
Seawolf
join:2001-11-27
Milton, FL
clubs:
| lol hm thats an interesting statement markopoleo "you must have never tried a linux distro"
well those 1-2gb linux distro installs you see come with more than just an os...and you can choose to install as much or as little as you want.....i've even got a few linux distros that fit onto a 1.44mb floppy.... you call coming with apache http server, ftp server, dns server, a REAL firewall, ssh server, etc that you can all install by choice bloated? or ftp client, your choice between usually 3-4+ browsers, 2+ email clients, ssh client, tons of arcade games, icq/aim/yahoo/etc messenger clients of your choice, etc....all that you can choose to install or not......you call that bloated? LMFAO get real dude, get your ignorant head outta ur a$$ and think before u make ignorant comments like that linux distros are bloated..... tell that to my linux systems ya noob | |
|
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs: | Going to be a big headache I taught a bunch of people about windows update and how to use sygate personal firewall. Now, I am either going to have to teach them how to turn the new MS firewall off or how to use the MS firewall and remove sygate. | |
|
| 
chlen
Ethically Challenged
Premium
join:2001-01-16
Albany, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Going to be a big headache Im a Unix guy but i ran win2K sp4 with no spyware, intrusions, viruses, popups, and spam , for over a year now. It can be done. just norton corporate anti-virus, carefull where i leave my email address, and I used Mozilla with things like global java-disabled, and security and ssl keys on. It is still a fast box, and will continue to serve up warcraft3 and any other game as long as the hardware stays good enough. Its not really about the OS..
UNIX user are ,NOT, All!!!, but tend to be way more tech savy and smarter. To use linux/unix/bsd you have to care a lot about your pc.
Configure it right and keep a strict file structure as well as organization table.
--
.edu OC-3 fiber line. GigE enabled. 10,000kbit/s/10,000kbit/sec. " Find me in the future; which is fiber optics | |
|
IcyFire
Flammable Ice
join:2001-05-30
Somewhere |  I'll Pass
| |
|
|
onliners450
Net Addicted, Period.
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Lebanon, CT
| Re: I'll Pass said by IcyFire :
I never use the XP built in firewall, So enhancing it is pointless to me, I'll continue to use my router and zonealarm for my firewall, Even at that Why would you want to use the XP firewall when theres Superior free alternatives?
I will continue to use my ZA Pro and Router as well but if the thing is going to be in my OS I'm going to try it out.
Until it is out it's all speculation anyway.They may actually copy some other vendor's work quite well and it will work.
--
And now for something completely ridiculous, but true. | |
|
| 
Teriwyn
Neko Girl
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Germantown, MD
| Don't you see...? You are not the person targeted by this. Mom and Pop, who use the computer just for a little bit of email and don't know a lick about protecting themselves... they are the ones who are targeted. Free firewall? Only the security conscious know where to get a free firewall, and they are not the ones who are targeted.
Yes, there are superior free alternatives. But if the user doesn't know to use them, or how to use them, then those superior alternatives are useless.
Personally, I won't use it. But that doesn't mean it's not a good move (if implemented right). | |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | who cares? I dont see the point of ANY software firewall. If you're on cable you probably have a hardware firewall anyway, so is this really needed? And dialup users arent usually used and drones for attacks, so most dont need to worry...... | |
|
| 
Doppelbock
join:2000-08-20
Oceanside, CA
| Re: who cares? Most hardware "firewalls" are just routers with NAT enabled, not true firewalls. They do a good job of blocking incoming traffic but by default aren't set up to block outgoing traffic at all.
It can be much simpler to setup a free software firewall on the computer instead of trying to configure outbound filtering on the router. The software firewall also has the advantage of being able to recognize applications and changes to them e.g. if a trojan modifies one of my programs and uses it to get out to the Internet my Tiny software firewall picks up the fact that the application has changed and blocks it unless I allow it to go out (such as when I've upgraded an application myself).
Why care about blocking outbound traffic you ask? Simple, because if you unknowingly get a trojan on your box you won't know that it's sending out traffic unless you do one of two things: set up outbound filtering on the router or configure a software firewall on your box. | |
|
| | 
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: who cares? said by Doppelbock :
Why care about blocking outbound traffic you ask? Simple, because if you unknowingly get a trojan on your box you won't know that it's sending out traffic unless you do one of two things: set up outbound filtering on the router or configure a software firewall on your box.
Or, just use an anti-virus program. A router plus an up to date anti-virus program is all you need. Software firewalls are nothing but an annoyance to me. | |
|
|
|
TexasGuy
49 States And Texas
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Houston, TX
| Can it beat Tiny firewall? I have Tiny 4.5 and I'm super happy with it. If only it wouldn't f* up every 3 months with firewall complete reinstall. But I could move to MS it it will be that good.
--
Who drank has died, who drinks will die. Is he immortal who is sober? | |
|
NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | Router I say No S/W FireWall is safe use a Good H/W Router  | |
|
Rothan Tik
Destroyer of worlds
Premium
join:2000-11-07
Danvers, MA | Any idea? On the download size its gonna be?
--
Ä l-2 Ä | |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| After reading the comments up to now... Having been a paying corporate customer with the company called Microsoft since the 80's, I have to say that my impression is that they only innovate for three reasons.
1. Someone is getting too big in the market.
or
2. The public gets too noisy (like now).
or
3. An opportunity to lock people tighter to Microsoft.
And when they do innovate they tend to copy other prior work and modify it to be proprietary in use if at all possible. Then release bug fix after bug fix until either it works the best or (usually) there is no substantial competition for that innovation.
Look at IE, it was developed as a "Netscape killer" (term personally heard from a Microsoft rep on the phone). Once Netscape was effectively killed, how much REAL innovation has it seen (not counting things like active-x which are designed to lock you in or to lock it to windows to counter lawsuits)?
Or if they can't compete, buy out the opposition and ruin them.
So give M$ a few more releases on this security stuff (as long as people keep crying and ZA and Symantic et al stay viable), and they will have a decent firewall. After all, all they have to do is pull programmers off of another problem and throw them at this one, they have enough of them. And have done so in the past.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| jethrogump
Premium
join:2001-03-02
Mesquite, TX |  Re: After reading the comments up to now...
Your telling nothing but the truth.
Two Gold stars for you. | |
|
|
koveman
join:2002-01-23
Phoenix, AZ
| DMZ I would rather put my entire network in the DMZ than trust M$ with security. Of course I would also rather lose a limb than run XP. My hardware firewall seems to keep my NT4 machines safe enough. When is the next service pack for NT4 coming out anyway? I wonder if it will have a firewall.
Hahaha. | |
|
MoviePhreak9
.
join:2002-07-17
India
| What a Joke! HAHAHA:
This is so funny because MS said that the 1st firewall would stop MS03-026 (RPC/DCOM 1) and MS03-039 (RPC2/DCOM2/Heap corruption). and now they say that it will stop MS03-043.....I have just tested it and the MS fw is shit....it doesnt block anything.....i bet this firewall will be exploitable in a few days. lol ..... kiddies un4tunately are going to own 90% of xP comps if this is true 
--
:: Global-Dimension IRC Network :: check out my channel, #warezpunks; It's on the best net: G-D #desi, the no 1 Desi chan | |
|
|
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: What a Joke! said by MoviePhreak9 :
I have just tested it and the MS fw is shit....it doesnt block anything.....
You sir, are a complete moron. Microsoft's Windows XP firewall does exactly what it's supposed to do, and it does it quite well. | |
|
| |
GenBlood
@attbi.com
| Re: What a Joke! The firewall opinion build into WinXP Pro is a good
start. In my opinion you should be using a other system
to be doing the firewall protection. There is a good GPL
package called Smoothwall you can setup with a older system
with 2 or 3 nics depending on the config you want to setup.
It will keep the worms out and an hackers too. It does
other things too. You might want to check it out. The URL
is »www.smoothwall.org . | |
|
|
MoviePhreak9
.
join:2002-07-17
India | wow, someone hasnt really tested it. I MEAN LOCALLY. REMOTELY i havent tested it.....locally its shit even w/ NAT | |
|
| |
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: What a Joke! said by MoviePhreak9 :
locally its shit even w/ NAT
What the hell do you want it to do? Stop you from attacking your own computer? Please... | |
|
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
| So whats the default on this thing? Last I checked, Microsoft XP didn't put the firewall in the user's face, much like Zonealarm, Kerio and Sygate do.
By default, its pretty much a dead piece of junk. Third party apps are better.
I think I know why they may have disabled the firewall shipping. Maybe they were thinking that it'd cause too many support issues, or something.
Because, as most of us know, there are iditots out there. Look at the last two wtj that were spreading. Simple practices could have prevented the massive spread of all that crap.
But I guess we'll have to wait and see what Microsoft does with their updates.
--
If it can be smoked, its prolly not going to be good for you. | |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| XP firewall quote:
The "new" firewall (it's really simply being revamped to more closely resemble ISA Server) will apparently ship with "on" being the default (the previous incarnation required users to activate it).
When creating an XP connection the firewall is by default on. Unless they are reffering to the NIC firewall which is off be default. Any changes would make the XP firewall. The only configuration it offers is off or on. Not much functionality built into that.
--
For the memory of Johnny Cashhttp://www.maxolasersquad.com | |
|
| 
iDonDon
join:2001-12-21
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Re: XP firewall As said before the built in for the person who doesn't even know what a firewall is, And it's more than enough for the average home user (hiding ports), and it gives you the option to open and close ports. And the average home user doesnt need a h/w firewall, waste of money because if you are being directly targeted and not mass target your gonna get hacked any way firewall or not.
When the firewall is released yes it will be targeted and shut down, but if you have ever caught an virus or been hacked it shuts down any firewall and anitvirus that you have(a good that is), but anyway back to the topic, which if they dont include a firewall they will be critisized for security, and if they do they called an monopoly, so the point is either way they more they going to be critisized so the decided to include which to me is a step in the right direction(even if it is taken as a joke it's still a start!) Sorry for the spelling and runons I didnt bother proofreading! DonDon
--
iDonDon | |
|
| |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: XP firewall I support them releasing the built in fire-wall. I was just commenting that the article reads that by default it's off which is not true. By default the firewall is on. I was also noting that the XP firewall doesn't have much customisability (is that a word?) and so pretty much anything will be better.
--
Tall blond dark and mean Rough and tough and strong and leanhttp://www.maxolasersquad.com | |
|
|
|
|
An Improved MS Firewall?
·
