I've done a bit of reading on the net and I've read this newsgroup for
a couple of months, but I'm still unclear on the difference between
firewalls (typically ZoneAlarm) and spyware (typically SpyBot). I know
that each in each category different programs have their merits and
shortcomings, but I'm primarily curious about their generic features
and the extent to which their services differ and/or overlap.

How about popups? How about cookies? How about hidden intrusions into
my OS and applications?

For the record, I use Windows98 and IE6.

Anyone willing to shed some light on this mess ?

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

The spybot software identifies and purges spyware from your system
(software that's been loaded on your system without your consent or
understanding - one hopes)

The firewall stops incoming and outgoing traffic from contacting the
spyware and makes you aware that some program is trying to contact the
mothership.

For popups and cookies you need additional software. With
mozilla/netscape/K-meleon you only need to make the cookie file
read-only and the cookies can't be written to the drive when the
browser closes.

Web Washer will get rid of the pop-ups, cookies if you want it to,
and web bugs.

The K-Meleon (Mozilla based) browser has lots of controls and tweaks
for cookies and pop-ups and web bugs built into it. It will also
respond to the read-only cookie trick if one doesn't want to edit the
cookie file manually.

ZoneAlarm's main claim to fame is its ease of use. Once you learn
more about firewalls and how they work and what they do, I suggest you
get Kerio Personal Firewall. It is only a little more tricky, from a
users perspective, but offers lots of additional configurability.

It isn't easy to switch browsers once you become used to one or
another of them, but the Mozilla varients offer more security than IE
does. I find it easier to switch than keep up with M$'s swiss-cheese
ware, and which new vulnerability and patch needs to be installed this
week.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:01:21 GMT, tony@well.com wrote:

>I've done a bit of reading on the net and I've read this newsgroup for
>a couple of months, but I'm still unclear on the difference between
>firewalls (typically ZoneAlarm) and spyware (typically SpyBot). I know
>that each in each category different programs have their merits and
>shortcomings, but I'm primarily curious about their generic features
>and the extent to which their services differ and/or overlap.
>
>How about popups? How about cookies? How about hidden intrusions into
>my OS and applications?
>
>For the record, I use Windows98 and IE6.
>
>Anyone willing to shed some light on this mess ?
>
>T.
>========================
>Tony Roder, speaking his mind....



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

<tony@well.com> wrote in message
news:lvrlhv4bbei1s5t40ift7h1sk58l7dc8ah@4ax.com...
> I've done a bit of reading on the net and I've read this newsgroup for
> a couple of months, but I'm still unclear on the difference between
> firewalls (typically ZoneAlarm) and spyware (typically SpyBot). I know
> that each in each category different programs have their merits and
> shortcomings, but I'm primarily curious about their generic features
> and the extent to which their services differ and/or overlap.
>
> How about popups? How about cookies? How about hidden intrusions into
> my OS and applications?
>
> For the record, I use Windows98 and IE6.
>
> Anyone willing to shed some light on this mess ?
>
> T.
> ========================
> Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

Simply put a firewall controls communication into and out of your machine
while a spyware removal tool such as SpyBot (which is NOT spyware itself)
removes spyware that makes it on to your machine. Within those two
categories there are a wide range of programs that vary greatly both as to
ease of use and capabilities.

ZoneAlarm was a pioneer of the idea of firewall protection for home computer
users and is still recommended by most authorities as the best product for
the average user. Some who read this forum of course will sneer - but not
everyone is a techno-geek willing to spend hours writing rules and mucking
around in their registries. If you aren't **very** comfortable with the
Windows operating system, this would be the product that I recommend, having
tried more than a few myself.

It has been very well tested over a number of years on millions of machines
so you should experience no problems with this one. The free version is
just a basic firewall. Pro version adds capabilities like ad blocking (not
just pop-ups - all ads) and allows you to block scripts, cookies & mobile
code on a site by site basis as well as across the board. Worth every dime
since much of the newest spyware seems to be magically appearing along with
those ads even at otherwise very respectable sites.

SpyBot Search and Destroy hunts down & removes many of the nasties that
invade your machine and it is an award winner. It will search your machine
for hundreds of spyware programs and remove them for you and also contains
an "immunize" feature that will prevent well over 200 (the beta version is
over 400) known spyware programs from downloading & installing in the first
place. This is a free program. There are commercial programs - AdAware
Plus and PestPatrol (in the $45 plus annual subscription range) -
available, but I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe that
the paid version of AdAware does any better a job of ad blocking than
ZoneAlarm (and it is not a firewall) or that either program does any better
a job at removing spyware than SpyBot.

Hope that answers your questions - if not just ask.

tony@well.com wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:52 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The free version is
> >just a basic firewall. Pro version adds capabilities like ad
> blocking (not >just pop-ups - all ads) and allows you to block
> scripts, cookies & mobile >code on a site by site basis as well as
> across the board. Worth every dime >since much of the newest spyware
> seems to be magically appearing along with >those ads even at
> otherwise very respectable sites.
>
> Is it correct to say then, that once such a firewall prevents the
> intrusion of baddies, it also becomes unnecessary to use a spyware
> hunter (except to eliminate the baddies that have already infected the
> OS)?
>

Hi Tony,

No, spyware hunters are not unnecessary. There are still spyware
programs floating around that will use your browser (HTTP, port 80) to
contact their "evil mothership", and since you will have to give your
browser permission to access the Internet... the spyware will have that
permission too, and that is the point where a spyware detection /
hunter program comes in. It will detect the spyware and "destroy" it.

Spyware is more than "infecting an OS", you'll be able find it
anywhere, in your browser, in your eMail (in spam), in useful programs
(more trojan alike) and in separate programs (for instance keyloggers).

Hope clarifies your thoughts about this issue a bit: Besides a FW, you
still have to check out your system with HiJackThis, AdAware and
Spybot; perhaps it also would be a good idea to run (regularly updated)
JavaCool's Spyware Blaster to prevent spyware from being installed.

HtH
Dick

tony@well.com wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:52 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> The free version is
>> just a basic firewall. Pro version adds capabilities like ad
>> blocking (not just pop-ups - all ads) and allows you to block
>> scripts, cookies & mobile code on a site by site basis as well as
>> across the board. Worth every dime since much of the newest spyware
>> seems to be magically appearing along with those ads even at
>> otherwise very respectable sites.
>
> Is it correct to say then, that once such a firewall prevents the
> intrusion of baddies, it also becomes unnecessary to use a spyware
> hunter (except to eliminate the baddies that have already infected the
> OS)?

To prevent the intrusion of baddies, there are three things you can do.
Note: You should keep these up to date as the baddies are always moving.

Install a good HOSTS file.
http://asp.flaaten.dk/proxo/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1311
http://asp.flaaten.dk/proxo/hosts.zip

SpywareBlaster
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
Update the reference file through the online update function.

Use IE-SPYAD to add baddies to the Internet Explorer Restricted Zone.
This site has different Web sites than the HOSTS file.
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/resource.htm#IESPYAD

"Dick Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:vhm87qakn3b949@corp.supernews.com...
> tony@well.com wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:52 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The free version is
> > >just a basic firewall. Pro version adds capabilities like ad
> > blocking (not >just pop-ups - all ads) and allows you to block
> > scripts, cookies & mobile >code on a site by site basis as well as
> > across the board. Worth every dime >since much of the newest spyware
> > seems to be magically appearing along with >those ads even at
> > otherwise very respectable sites.
> >
> > Is it correct to say then, that once such a firewall prevents the
> > intrusion of baddies, it also becomes unnecessary to use a spyware
> > hunter (except to eliminate the baddies that have already infected the
> > OS)?
> >
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> No, spyware hunters are not unnecessary. There are still spyware
> programs floating around that will use your browser (HTTP, port 80) to
> contact their "evil mothership", and since you will have to give your
> browser permission to access the Internet... the spyware will have that
> permission too, and that is the point where a spyware detection /
> hunter program comes in. It will detect the spyware and "destroy" it.
>
> Spyware is more than "infecting an OS", you'll be able find it
> anywhere, in your browser, in your eMail (in spam), in useful programs
> (more trojan alike) and in separate programs (for instance keyloggers).
>
> Hope clarifies your thoughts about this issue a bit: Besides a FW, you
> still have to check out your system with HiJackThis, AdAware and
> Spybot; perhaps it also would be a good idea to run (regularly updated)
> JavaCool's Spyware Blaster to prevent spyware from being installed.
>
> HtH
> Dick

Anybody compared Spyware Blaster to Pepi's Immunize in the SpyBot S&D?

<tony@well.com> wrote in message
news:fc5mhv0e9lpmsqtv3teorc8563vuhv7ut0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:52 -0400, "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The free version is
> >just a basic firewall. Pro version adds capabilities like ad blocking
(not
> >just pop-ups - all ads) and allows you to block scripts, cookies & mobile
> >code on a site by site basis as well as across the board. Worth every
dime
> >since much of the newest spyware seems to be magically appearing along
with
> >those ads even at otherwise very respectable sites.
>
> Is it correct to say then, that once such a firewall prevents the
> intrusion of baddies, it also becomes unnecessary to use a spyware
> hunter (except to eliminate the baddies that have already infected the
> OS)?
>
> T.
> ========================
> Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

More the other way around. Once you have used the appropriate spyware
detection tools to clean the machine then the firewall will help to keep out
further infection.

"Dick Hazeleger" <Dick@post_it_in_the_newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:vhm87qakn3b949@corp.supernews.com...
<SNIP>
> Spyware is more than "infecting an OS", you'll be able find it
> anywhere, in your browser, in your eMail (in spam), in useful programs
> (more trojan alike) and in separate programs (for instance keyloggers).
>

Don't overlook the power of that miserable little gif-bot with attached
cookie LOL - and the only way to avoid those (other than accumulating a list
of offending ad servers and blocking them) is to either block all
ads/cookies or surf with graphics turned off.

K-meleon allows one to reject graphics from outside the domain you
visit. Seems that should cover the little vermin . . . what do you
think?

Web Washer claims to be able to dump the single pixel gif as well.
You can configure it to insert the gif of your choice.

Also has a neat mechanism to dump pop-ups that open when one enters
and leaves a site.

>Don't overlook the power of that miserable little gif-bot with attached
>cookie LOL - and the only way to avoid those (other than accumulating a list
>of offending ad servers and blocking them) is to either block all
>ads/cookies or surf with graphics turned off.
>



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in news:vhmb2l7tpsop3b@corp.supernews.com:


> Anybody compared Spyware Blaster to Pepi's Immunize in the SpyBot S&D?
>

If you run both, you will see a line that says. "spywareblaster will give
you much more control on activex". Seems clear that it spywareblaster is
recommended to be run on top of immunize.


Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:02:34 GMT, nemo outis@erewhon.com (nemo outis)
wrote:

>However, in actuality, a firewall - and prudence and care by the
>operator! - will only greatly reduce, but not entirely eliminate,
>spyware getting through. And so you will still need to run
>anti-spyware software such as Spybot & Adaware.

Thanks for the clarification.

T.

========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:39:43 GMT, "YK" <YKnot@home.invalid> wrote:

>To prevent the intrusion of baddies, there are three things you can do.
>Note: You should keep these up to date as the baddies are always moving.
>
>Install a good HOSTS file.
>http://asp.flaaten.dk/proxo/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1311
>http://asp.flaaten.dk/proxo/hosts.zip

I've seen this mentioned here on several occasions, but I don't know
enough to do such an installation (unless these sites have some
instructions).

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

"default" <R75/5@defaulter.net> wrote in message
news:fndmhv86m1ujroelr2utkds367adrcmfoo@4ax.com...
> K-meleon allows one to reject graphics from outside the domain you
> visit. Seems that should cover the little vermin . . . what do you
> think?

Not always. Even though I have anything from third party sites blocked I
still see these come up in the ZA privacy notification (listed as Web Bugs
that have been blocked) on about 30% of the pages I visit.

> Web Washer claims to be able to dump the single pixel gif as well.
> You can configure it to insert the gif of your choice.
>
> Also has a neat mechanism to dump pop-ups that open when one enters
> and leaves a site.

Can't comment there. I use ZA Pro for it's ad blocking capabilities - ALL
the ads. The gif-bot is part of the code that downloads the ad, so no ad,
no gif-bot - and of course no popups either. It used to be just popups that
irritated me, till I noticed that MSNBC took a couple of minutes to load
completely on a dial up connection due to the presence of 6-15 ads from a
third party server for each and every page.

"mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:vhp5rfbllmqfd8@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "default" <R75/5@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:fndmhv86m1ujroelr2utkds367adrcmfoo@4ax.com...
>> K-meleon allows one to reject graphics from outside the domain you
>> visit. Seems that should cover the little vermin . . . what do you
>> think?
>
> Not always. Even though I have anything from third party sites
> blocked I still see these come up in the ZA privacy notification
> (listed as Web Bugs that have been blocked) on about 30% of the pages
> I visit.

Hmm that sounds strange. The person who owns the site will be able to log
your ip and whatnot directly anyway, he hardly needs a transparent gif to
do it, a web-bug? For him everything is a "web-bug" :). Is ZAP doing some
kind of false positive, i.e 1x1 gifs used by the webmaster of the domain
for spacing?



>> Web Washer claims to be able to dump the single pixel gif as well.
>> You can configure it to insert the gif of your choice.

Well how about 3x1 pxels? 2x1?



Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:52 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> ZoneAlarm was a pioneer of the idea of firewall protection for home
> computer users and is still recommended by most authorities as the best
> product for the average user.
[snip]

Only by those "authorities" who don't have the first frickin' clue what a
firewall really is, or what it is supposed to do. I point you AGAIN to:

<http://www.samspade.org/d/persfire.html>
<http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html>

Please do try to understand at least some of it.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:37:19 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

> But you'd still be far better off with a
>true hardware-based firewall, provided that you could gain some clue on how
>to use it properly.

Yes, I'd like to learn more about that (and maybe some of the other
readers would too). I'm listening.... particularly since this is one
alternative that's not mentioned very often.

>I would suggest that you start with a visit Sponge's Anti-Spyware
>site at <http://www.geocities.com/yosponge/>, then simply follow the
>(8-step) step-by-step directions you will find there. They're far from
>perfect; but they'll at least get you off Ground Zero.

A suggestion I will certainly follow, thanks.

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

"Aaron" <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C2F31506D4Bunknown23@203.116.1.193...
> "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:vhq8uu5bu78s33@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > "Aaron" <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93C0C099F6E38unknown23@203.116.1.193...
> >> "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:vhp5rfbllmqfd8@corp.supernews.com:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> > Not always. Even though I have anything from third party sites
> >> > blocked I still see these come up in the ZA privacy notification
> >> > (listed as Web Bugs that have been blocked) on about 30% of the
> >> > pages I visit.
> >>
> >> Hmm that sounds strange. The person who owns the site will be able to
> >> log your ip and whatnot directly anyway, he hardly needs a
> >> transparent gif to do it, a web-bug? For him everything is a
> >> "web-bug" :). Is ZAP doing some kind of false positive, i.e 1x1 gifs
> >> used by the webmaster of the domain for spacing?
> >
> > No - not a false positive. Otherwise I would see FAR more "web bugs"
> > than I do LOL. I'll take a look at the source code next time one
> > comes up on a page and see if that sheds any light.
> >
>
> Thanks, I would appreciate learning what you find out, how in the world
> could web-bugs work if you prevent remote sites from loading gifs. Other
> active components maybe?
>

Okay, I found two things in the code on the MSNBC front page that might be
the web bug ZA is reporting. One is listed as an <img src but then calls a
cgi script bug.cgi. The other is indeed a 1x1 gif with cookie but it is
served up by c.msnbc.com rather than some third party site. This is a site
that I see web bugs blocked on every page, though I have all ads blocked &
scripts turned off to the point that I have no menu. (akamai happens to
serve the CSS for the msnbc page so if you block akamai to block ads
internet wide you also happen to turn off all the graphics at msnbc.)

I also found a number of 1 pixel wide gifs in the advertisements with
heights that matched the height of the banner ad - those I suspect are also
bugs, since there is no point whatever in making a banner ad 1 pixel
narrower than usual and then adding a "spacer" from a technical or artistic
point of view. No one other than a graphics expert actually looking for the
thing would notice that one pixel difference, particularly at the higher
resolutions that we all use these days.

Used to be web graphics were designed to display at 72 pixels per inch and
600 x 800 or less. Nowadays monitors are set to 96 and over 1000. The 1
pixel becomes so small as to be nearly invisible.

"mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:vi02cai7b0fb16@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Aaron" <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93C2F31506D4Bunknown23@203.116.1.193...
>> "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:vhq8uu5bu78s33@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Aaron" <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns93C0C099F6E38unknown23@203.116.1.193...
>> >> "mto" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> news:vhp5rfbllmqfd8@corp.supernews.com:
>> >>

>> >> Hmm that sounds strange. The person who owns the site will be able
>> >> to log your ip and whatnot directly anyway, he hardly needs a
>> >> transparent gif to do it, a web-bug? For him everything is a
>> >> "web-bug" :). Is ZAP doing some kind of false positive, i.e 1x1
>> >> gifs used by the webmaster of the domain for spacing?
>> >
>> > No - not a false positive. Otherwise I would see FAR more "web
>> > bugs" than I do LOL. I'll take a look at the source code next time
>> > one comes up on a page and see if that sheds any light.
>> >
>>

> Okay, I found two things in the code on the MSNBC front page that
> might be the web bug ZA is reporting.

Hmm, ZAP doesnt tell you for sure?


>One is listed as an <img src
> but then calls a cgi script bug.cgi.

I don't see this anywhere in the html source, but seems to me ZAP is just
keying off on the word "bug". Still it's Probably a remotely hosted cgi
script (on akamai?), I dont think you can switch that off.


The other is indeed a 1x1 gif
> with cookie but it is served up by c.msnbc.com rather than some third
> party site.

Well not sure how this qualifies as a web-bug.
If you are worried about the cookie just block it.

This is a site that I see web bugs blocked on every page,
> though I have all ads blocked & scripts turned off

I don't think you can turn off server side scripts?
So that might be a hole...

to the point that I
> have no menu. (akamai happens to serve the CSS for the msnbc page so
> if you block akamai to block ads internet wide you also happen to turn
> off all the graphics at msnbc.)

Yes, that's the whole point, the web-bug doesnt have to be a 1x1 gif, it
can be anything, any picture, or essential file that resides on another
server. Akamai for example is so integreted with the above site that
if you refuse to connect to it at all, you don't get much from the site.

Does ZAP consider the css file has a web-bug? It should, since everytime
someone logs on, the css file is pulled from akamai's servers, and they
record your ip address.



>
> I also found a number of 1 pixel wide gifs in the advertisements with
> heights that matched the height of the banner ad - those I suspect are
> also bugs, since there is no point whatever in making a banner ad 1
> pixel narrower than usual and then adding a "spacer" from a technical
> or artistic point of view. No one other than a graphics expert
> actually looking for the thing would notice that one pixel difference,
> particularly at the higher resolutions that we all use these days.
>
> Used to be web graphics were designed to display at 72 pixels per inch
> and 600 x 800 or less. Nowadays monitors are set to 96 and over 1000.
> The 1 pixel becomes so small as to be nearly invisible.
>
>



Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:36:27 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, tony@well.com
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:37:19 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
> <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>
> > But you'd still be far better off with a
> >true hardware-based firewall, provided that you could gain some clue on
> >how to use it properly.
>
> Yes, I'd like to learn more about that (and maybe some of the other
> readers would too). I'm listening.... particularly since this is one
> alternative that's not mentioned very often.
>
[snip]

Well first, the single biggest reason you want a hardware-based firewall is
so you can really put your computer(s) *behind* it. That is obviously
impossible with a software-based firwall running on the same box(es) that
it's trying to "protect". Combine that with Windows' legendary inherent
insecurity, and, well... It becomes effectively not much more than a
"tissue-paper wall". A secondary benefit is that this means there is (at
least) one less program running (and thus inevitably sucking up memory,
system resources, CPU cycles, etc. -- not to mention the potential for bugs)
on your "real" system, which is an unmitigated plus -- i.e., there's no down
side to this.

Second... As little as one-two years ago, at least most off-the-shelf
hardware firewalls were either too expensive (the pro gear) or too lame (the
consumer gear) for serious consideration by most users. So the only really
good AND cost-effective alternative was to do a "roll-your-own" based on an
old leftover '486 or somesuch running under *nix (typically Linux), then
place that single-purpose box between your other computer(s) and the 'net
conection. But this approach, while still potentially valid, requires a
fair amount of expertise in not only security issues in general, but also
*nix and the pertinent *nix apps/utilities you'd use for this in particular.
Hence, it has never been a very popular approach.

But things have changed.

Go read up on things like the D-Link DFL-80 and the NetGear FR328S or maybe
even the NetGear FR114P (which is not quite as flexible or as capable as the
other two; but it's still not bad, especially for the buck). The full
User's Guides for each of these is downloadable (in .PDF format) from their
respective manufacturer's web sites, and will give you a good idea of their
capabilities. For something around $200 (or less, perhaps much less), you
now can get a nicely packaged off-the-shelf device which not only rivals (or
perhaps even exceeds, depending) the capabilities of the typical
roll-your-own Linux-based router/firewall, it also fits on a small shelf,
consumes very little power, needs very little maintenance (other than
keeping the DENY tables current, of course), has a factory warranty, and
will in general be MUCH easier to deal with for most typical Windows users.

> >I would suggest that you start with a visit Sponge's Anti-Spyware
> >site at <http://www.geocities.com/yosponge/>, then simply follow the
> >(8-step) step-by-step directions you will find there. They're far from
> >perfect; but they'll at least get you off Ground Zero.
>
> A suggestion I will certainly follow, thanks.
>
[snip]

Good. But remember, that's still really only a stop-gap measure.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:01:14 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>Go read up on things like the D-Link DFL-80 and the NetGear FR328S

I'm on my way. Thanks.

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....