Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > > In article <433e5519@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> > > > Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > > > > So, I'll stick with what
> > > > > I'm sure of, and I'm sure that SP2 firewall is not something I will
> > > > > trust.
> > > > May I ask you to offer _one_ _single_ technical argument for this point
> > > > of view now at last?
> > > Sure, as said several times before - the SP2 firewall runs on the same
> > > PC as the user who is most likely running as a local administrator and
> > > has control of the personal firewall.
> > So you're declining any host based packet filtering on Windows, or you're
> > requesting not to work as administrator.
> > With the first I would disagree, with the second, I agree.
> > I see, you don't have technical critics on the implementation of the
> > Windows-Firewall, though.
> No, you miss the point - as usual - the firewall is breachable and even
> more so if the user is running as a Administrator. The firewall doesn't
> even block file/printer sharing in some situations based on how the user
> told the setup/install it was being used.

It blocks it _by_ _default_. So this is just wrong, what you're claiming
here.

> even Zone Alarm, if installed before
> connecting the network cable, is better than anything MS has presented.

And this is, what you're claiming (everytime), and are refusing to
offer one single argument for.

Do you know, that you're wrong, or do you have big problems with logics?

Yours,
VB.
--
MAC-Filtering bringt so viel Schutz vor "Hackern" wie Zeitungspapier vor
einer Atombome. (MAC filtering is protecting against "hackers" like newsprint
is protecting against a nuclear bomb)
- Christian Forler in de.comp.security.misc