Re: 2 questions to Sygate firewall users

Volker Birk wrote:

> SPG <zamowienia3@o2.pl> wrote:
>> Sygate offers strong security as a firewall for most users.
>
> No.
>
> Sygate does install system services which open Windows. This is a security
> breach, and shows, that they never read the documentation of Microsoft for
> developing system services, and that they're understanding nothing about
> security with Windows at all.

I said for most users. I use sygate since long time and never have problems
with it. I know about examples of code that auto clicks buttons on screen,
but in real world such appliaction from Internet must pass firewall,
antivirus and webrowser like firefox which do not use activex scripts.
And such worm must support particular firewall. So separate version of worm
should be for sygate, zone alarm, kerio, norton, outpost, tiny etc...
And of course it must be manualy downloaded from website if web browser do
not supports activex.

>> adaware software and you'll be safe.
>
> This is ridiculous.

firewall+antivirus+adaware can keep box safe in general. The only ridiculus
thing here is Windows which needs all this stuff to be usable on net.
Using such software on Linux is ridiculous but definitly not on Windows.
Blame Mr. Gates, not me, for system design.

If I was so aware like you I would never plug windows box on net.
If windows do not obey standards why software written for it should?

>> Sygate will learn from you if updated
>> signatures are not available.
>
> What a b0rken concept. Don't you think, that the provider of security
> software should know MUCH MORE about security than the only one, who
> knows _completely_ _nothing_ in this game, the user?

I made rules for webbrowsers, e-mail client and said to user: click always
NO. This is not so hard to learn.

> Yours,
> VB.
Received on Fri Dec 23 20:07:40 2005