DNS Proxy

[Bear]

Norton ConnectSafe which combines Google’s and Norton’s content-
filtering such as pornography, crime, gambling, and so forth within
Norton’s DNS servers which block websites known to contain malware. This
gives you an additional layer of security without adding additional
burden to your system resources. It is also faster and has more valid
results than your ISP’s DNS service. Look up how to change your DNS
settings for your particular operating system or simply follow the
instructions contained on ConnectSafe.
https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/dnsForHome.do

The easy-to-set-up service has three levels of filtering:
This base-level filtering blocks malware, phishing sites, scam sites,
and Web proxies. For this level, set your DNS entries to 192.153.192.40
and 198.153.194.40.
Medium filtering adds pornography blocking. Set your DNS to
198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50.
This stringent filtering blocks a host of sites that Norton ConnectSafe
deems not family-friendly, filtering for mature content and other
family-unfriendly content. To choose this filtering, use 198.153.192.60
and 198.153.194.60.

To change your DNS in Win7 go to the Control Panel > Network and
Internet > Network and Sharing Center > Change Adapter Settings > right
click Local Area Connection - choose properties and choose IPv4 protocol
and double click it to enter your DNS data.

You can configure your router much the same way which protects all
machines connected through the router without having to configure each
machine.

Norton ConnectSafe does not provide custom white/black listings. And
with just filtering by category, there's no guarantee that all
objectionable sites or content will be blocked. Also, using the
strongest filtering setting might block sites you want to visit or that
aren't objectionable to you. Before committing to ConnectSafe, test that
the filtering isn't too restrictive.

An alternative to ConnectSafe is Dyn's Internet Guide, which also uses
site categorization. Internet Guide's filtering options are more
flexible than Norton's as it offers predefined filter lists, category
selection, and custom site white/black listings if you create a free
account with them where you can make these definitions.

You can use Dyn’s DNS settings 216.146.35.35 and 216.146.36.36 without
creating an account which uses the site categorization and pre-defined
filter lists, but you cannot create custom white/black listings without
an account.
http://dyn.com/support/internet-guide-setup/

Dyn’s DEFENSE PLAN

A Defense Plan is a tailored configuration which allows customers to add
content restrictions to their networks. A single Defense Plan can be
used for multiple networks, and users can swap Defense Plans at will to
allow or disallow particular types of content. Defense Plans have three
ways to filter content:

Defense Strategy: Similar to movie and television rating systems,
Defense Strategies are pre-defined lists of filters which block content
by level. Defense Strategies block content within their level and below;
for example, choosing PG-13 would also block R and NC-17 sites. By
default, only malware and phishing sites are blocked: the categories
Phishing, Conficker Worm, and Spyware are selected for your protection.

Blocked Categories: For a more fine-tuned approach than Defense
Strategies, Blocked Categories prevent users from accessing specific
types of content in addition to the current Defense Strategy. By
default, only Phishing, Spyware and Conficker Worm are blocked.

Tailored Filtering: This section is used to specifically whitelist
(always allow) or blacklist (always block) individual domain names.
Tailored Filtering settings override the Defense Strategy and Blocked
Category pages, allowing visitors to access sites that may be otherwise
disabled, and vice-versa.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail

 

[Dustin]

Norton ConnectSafe which combines Google’s and Norton’s content-
filtering such as pornography, crime, gambling, and so forth within
Norton’s DNS servers which block websites known to contain malware.
This gives you an additional layer of security without adding
additional burden to your system resources. It is also faster and has
more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service. Look up how to change

It can give you an additional layer of security. However, those services
could also (I'm not claiming they actually do) keep DNS record logs of
each and every single domain your IP has ever asked to be resolved.
Google probably does this...Come to think of it.

As far as faster and has more valid results.. I'm not entirely sure how
that's possible from a technical aspect. It's a shorter distance on the
wires for my ISP to talk to my network than it is for google in chicago.
Electricity is fast, but it's not instant.

In fact, it seems to me the process would be a smidgeon slower. First,
my pc must ask the great google/norton dns to resolve such and such
domain for me. Then, google must do the same stuff my ISP would be doing
to fetch me those results, after it does a quick comparison to determine
if the site I want to visit is "safe" by their determinations. Finally!
the great google/norton will send me the IP I want, if it's allowed.

The easy-to-set-up service has three levels of filtering:
This base-level filtering blocks malware, phishing sites, scam sites,
and Web proxies. For this level, set your DNS entries to
192.153.192.40 and 198.153.194.40.

Why would I want to block web proxies? blocks malware? Well, I'm sure it
tries, based on known! domain names. It's the unknown ones you should be
more concerned with.

Medium filtering adds pornography blocking. Set your DNS to
198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50.

Who's definition of pornography? What if I have a medical reason to be
looking at various tits?

This stringent filtering blocks a host of sites that Norton
ConnectSafe deems not family-friendly, filtering for mature content
and other family-unfriendly content. To choose this filtering, use
198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60.

Ahhh... Big brother. Too busy to keep an eye on your kids, have the
computer do it for you. LOL! That's worked well in the past.

You can configure your router much the same way which protects all
machines connected through the router without having to configure
each machine.

You should infact configure your router to use your ISP dns servers
followed up with opendns servers (they aren't into censorship) as
backups. While you're in the router, be sure and change that default
password to something that isn't going to be guessed easily or isn't
well known because it's on several published lists of default router
passwords by vendor.

Norton ConnectSafe does not provide custom white/black listings. And
with just filtering by category, there's no guarantee that all
objectionable sites or content will be blocked. Also, using the
strongest filtering setting might block sites you want to visit or
that aren't objectionable to you. Before committing to ConnectSafe,
test that the filtering isn't too restrictive.

Better yet, don't do it.

Dyn’s DEFENSE PLAN
*yawn*

Tailored Filtering: This section is used to specifically whitelist
(always allow) or blacklist (always block) individual domain names.
Tailored Filtering settings override the Defense Strategy and Blocked
Category pages, allowing visitors to access sites that may be
otherwise disabled, and vice-versa.

Which you can do without the need for this.

 

[Bear]

It can give you an additional layer of security. However, those
services could also (I'm not claiming they actually do) keep DNS
record logs of each and every single domain your IP has ever asked to
be resolved. Google probably does this...Come to think of it.

I for one am not concerned with that. I can't think of any way it could
harm me one bit. Of course, I don't do anything illegal.

As far as faster and has more valid results.. I'm not entirely sure
how that's possible from a technical aspect. It's a shorter distance
on the wires for my ISP to talk to my network than it is for google in
chicago. Electricity is fast, but it's not instant.

In fact, it seems to me the process would be a smidgeon slower. First,
my pc must ask the great google/norton dns to resolve such and such
domain for me. Then, google must do the same stuff my ISP would be
doing to fetch me those results, after it does a quick comparison to
determine if the site I want to visit is "safe" by their
determinations. Finally! the great google/norton will send me the IP I
want, if it's allowed.

I would think such would be rather instant or at least the same...either
way...either they send you on or notify you it's bad.

Why would I want to block web proxies? blocks malware? Well, I'm sure
it tries, based on known! domain names. It's the unknown ones you
should be more concerned with.

I'm concerned with both. Without the service, both would be unknown to
you.

Who's definition of pornography? What if I have a medical reason to be
looking at various tits?

LOL...I opt out for that option. I only use Norton's first level.

Ahhh... Big brother. Too busy to keep an eye on your kids, have the
computer do it for you. LOL! That's worked well in the past.

Yeah, and there are better tools for that anyway.

You should infact configure your router to use your ISP dns servers
followed up with opendns servers (they aren't into censorship) as
backups. While you're in the router, be sure and change that default
password to something that isn't going to be guessed easily or isn't
well known because it's on several published lists of default router
passwords by vendor.

You are speaking of setting your router to your ISP and your machine to
OpenDNS? huh?

Better yet, don't do it.

and why would you not do it?

Which you can do without the need for this.

I agree...such is for people who like to tweak and twatter. Way too much
effort for my liking.




--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail

 

[Dustin]

I for one am not concerned with that. I can't think of any way it
could harm me one bit. Of course, I don't do anything illegal.

I'm sure you aren't. You preach using the cloud as if it's a godsend.
Privacy and security are *not* primary considerations to you. You should
consider those aspects when making these erroneous recommendations. Not
all of us are so blind and trusting as you. It has nothing whatsoever to
do with legality Bear. Some of us (many likely) might not want google
knowing the name of every domain our systems resolves.

I would think such would be rather instant or at least the
same...either way...either they send you on or notify you it's bad.

You don't seem to think well in your older age then. They will either
send me on or not, I agree. However, they cannot possibly do it ANY
faster (as you previously claimed, again, in error) than my ISP could,
or better yet, the DNS server sitting beside me.

Your suggestion of it being faster isn't possible. It's not accurate,
Bear.

I'm concerned with both. Without the service, both would be unknown
to you.

Er, to you, I think you mean. Unlike yourself, no ego stroking here, I
*am* an antimalware *expert*. That's not an opinion Bear, it's a fact
with a proven trackrecord that included a paycheck.

LOL...I opt out for that option. I only use Norton's first level.

Bear...

You have yet to disagree with me. Why recommend this junk?

You are speaking of setting your router to your ISP and your machine
to OpenDNS? huh?

Uhh, no. Why would you hardcode the machine to use specific DNS servers
if you took the time to configure the router? My router can use more
than one DNS server. Hence, opendns for backups. I made no mention of
configuring individual PCs. I actually use the router, to er, route
things. The ONLY things hardcoded here are the LAN ips. All of the
machines know to ask the router to resolve things.

You don't read english well or what?

and why would you not do it?

For the reasons I already stated in my first reply as well as the ones
in this one. Hell, you don't even disagree with me.

I agree...such is for people who like to tweak and twatter. Way too
much effort for my liking.

Again... Why did you even recommend this?

 

[Bear]

I'm sure you aren't. You preach using the cloud as if it's a godsend.
Privacy and security are *not* primary considerations to you. You
should consider those aspects when making these erroneous
recommendations. Not all of us are so blind and trusting as you. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with legality Bear. Some of us (many
likely) might not want google knowing the name of every domain our
systems resolves.

Are you so foolish as not to understand that your ISP is more of a
danger to you than Google. They have a record of every single thing you
do on the web. I don't laugh in the face of privacy. I value my privacy
as much as anyone, but the Internet is NOT private. Naive people such as
you screech about privacy and pointing at Google as the enemy and that
is what I laugh in the face of. I laugh in the face of people like you
who cry about privacy and yet use the least private medium on the planet
thinking that you can outwit Google or anyone/place else and conduct
activity you wish to keep private on a medium that is not private.
Everything you do goes right through your ISP.

I make sure that what I do on the Internet does not contain anything
that is significant to warrant my concerns about privacy. I make
purchases on the Internet, but the method I use is well protected from
any significant financial harm. My identity is well insured and
protected with several layers of safety nets. No sensitive data ever is
put on any computer I use that is connected to the Interent.

Your silly campaign against Google is misdirected as any real harm will
not come from them. It will come from your own stupidity. No, I don't
laugh in the face of privacy concerns...I make sure that my privacy is
not divulged or available. You are like a little boy stomping around
acting like you have superior knowledge and yet your own statements
prove to me how little you actually understand about what you bitch
about all the time.

You don't seem to think well in your older age then. They will either
send me on or not, I agree. However, they cannot possibly do it ANY
faster (as you previously claimed, again, in error) than my ISP could,
or better yet, the DNS server sitting beside me.

Why then do you even bother to use DNS Benchmark? You think you are
clever, but you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

There is more going on than how close a server is to you. I can't
believe you do not understand that. Besides, I am not the one making any
claims that one is faster than the other...I am posting about the
features and claims made by others.

The important factors to me are not who is faster...you yourself should
know that and while the benchmarks show one faster than the other, in
most cases the difference in not very significant - usually not even in
terms of a few seconds. The important factors are about DNS accuracy and
the additional services provided that your ISP doesn't provide and you
should know that both Google and Norton have a better ability to filter
known malware sites than your ISP which /is/ what the point of this post
is about. At one time, I was willing to give you the benefit of the
doubt about your claims of expert knowledge, but you quickly
demonstrated that you do not understand as well as you think you do and
mostly try to center on minor points to carry out your trolling desires.
That is what I see you do the most of...and you are not even very good
at that...no sophistication at all.

Your suggestion of it being faster isn't possible. It's not accurate,
Bear.

Then why do you even suggest using DNS Benchmark. Symantec on that
program shows to be faster than Cox and Cox faster than Google when I
run it, but do you understand the time difference. I don't think it is
enough difference to be discernable, But again that is not the point of
what you are doing. It is what you are using to try and carry out your
trolling, I'll repeat, the speed differences are insignificant in most
cases. If you don't know that than you are stupid, but I think you know
that and you are trolling.

Er, to you, I think you mean. Unlike yourself, no ego stroking here, I
*am* an antimalware *expert*. That's not an opinion Bear, it's a fact
with a proven trackrecord that included a paycheck.

You say that all the time...it's all you have - and yes it is your
ego-driven self pumping need to do so. Dissecting malware has little to
do with any of the subject matter discussed here or anywhere else unless
the topic of dissecting malware comes up. None of that is needed or used
by 99% of the people utilizing the net. They want to protect themselves
and/or recover from malware as best they can, NOT DISSECT IT. You could
be the foremost expert in dissecting malware after the fact and yet
still be reduced to using the same tools everyone else uses to try and
protect themselves from it. That is what these discussion are about. If
you had a magic tool that no one else had, you would be rich. You have
no edge on prevention. You have no edge on recovery. Sure, you can
likely clean a machine better than others, but such skill is not needed
except for those ill prepared end-users who have no clue how to cover
their asses or protect their data or recover from malware. That is
actually rather easy to do and no expert is needed. Education of the
clueless is needed if they are even willing to learn and practice the
rather easy techniques to achieve it,

You talk about facts. The facts are no one can secure there systems well
enough. That fact means you have to be able to recover and protect your
data. You don't have to dissect and clean to do that and that is a fact.
So your dissecting skills are not needed. People developing programs and
tools that try to prevent need people with those skills. It doesn't help
anyone else. IMO, scanners and those tools are only good to try and
determine if your system has malware so one could take action to recover
to a known clean state. The fact is the only sure way to do that without
spending many hours of investigation is to restage or even better to
have a good image to use. I've been dealing with this since computer
have been available for home use to understand this. I think you know it
too, but where would that leave your ego!

Bear...

You have yet to disagree with me. Why recommend this junk?

See there you go. It is not junk. Google and Norton as well as others do
have the capability to identify and warn you of at least the known bad
actors which is better than what you ISP does. It is a good additional
layer of protection which also does not add to system resource usage. A
win win. Your comment again surprises me and clues me that you have no
clue.

Uhh, no. Why would you hardcode the machine to use specific DNS
servers if you took the time to configure the router? My router can
use more than one DNS server. Hence, opendns for backups. I made no
mention of configuring individual PCs. I actually use the router, to
er, route things. The ONLY things hardcoded here are the LAN ips. All
of the machines know to ask the router to resolve things.

You don't read english well or what?

I wanted clarification for what you were suggesting and I hoped you
weren't stupid enough to mean setting the router with one and your
machine with the other. BTW, wheter the router or the machine is set
makes little difference. The main benefit of setting the router is all
machines connected to that router benefit. If you only have one machine
connected to the router or even a couple, setting the machine is fine
and accomplishes the same thing. BTW, your computer routes too...so your
condescending tone is stupid and trollish.

For the reasons I already stated in my first reply as well as the ones
in this one. Hell, you don't even disagree with me.

You are wrong. Are you saying there is no benefit to using Norton's or
Google's or OpenDNS DNS setting and yet you use them...good grief
Dustin, can't you see your own contradictions.

Again... Why did you even recommend this?

LOL...so you admit to using it and wonder why it is recommended to use.
Anyway, answered above. I don't usually take this much time to reply to
these trollings, but you need to be opened up.

Why do you use OpenDNS? Dustin? hellooooooooooo?



--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail

 

[James E. Morrow]

Are you so foolish as not to understand that your ISP is more of a
danger to you than Google. They have a record of every single thing you
do on the web. I don't laugh in the face of privacy. I value my privacy
as much as anyone, but the Internet is NOT private. Naive people such as
you screech about privacy and pointing at Google as the enemy and that
is what I laugh in the face of. I laugh in the face of people like you
who cry about privacy and yet use the least private medium on the planet
thinking that you can outwit Google or anyone/place else and conduct
activity you wish to keep private on a medium that is not private.
Everything you do goes right through your ISP.

<snip>

My ISP is Cox. Cox has no business reason to log data beyond what is
required for network administration. Google on the other hand is a data
miner. They, as their principal business activity collect aggregate
and sell data to advertising clients. That frankly is the business they
are in, day in and day out.

I recommend that Google users log into their accounts and turn off
their search history. Otherwise it will be sold to advertisers wishing
to customize your search advertising experience to their advantage.
Also it would be wise to enter into your HOSTS file the following
entries.

# [Google.com]
127.0.0.1 ajax.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 apis.google.com
127.0.0.1 id.google.ca
127.0.0.1 clients1.google.ca
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

One can use Google, but is would be wise not to be used by Google.

 

[Dustin]

Are you so foolish as not to understand that your ISP is more of a
danger to you than Google. They have a record of every single thing
you do on the web. I don't laugh in the face of privacy. I value my
privacy as much as anyone, but the Internet is NOT private. Naive
people such as you screech about privacy and pointing at Google as
the enemy and that is what I laugh in the face of. I laugh in the
face of people like you who cry about privacy and yet use the least
private medium on the planet thinking that you can outwit Google or
anyone/place else and conduct activity you wish to keep private on a
medium that is not private. Everything you do goes right through your
ISP.

My ISP is charter. You're welcome to do a google background on them.
They tend to stand for the customer. They don't have a record of every
single thing I do on the web, only what I allow to go thru via
plaintext. In other words, I use and believe in encryption. While it's
true that my ISP can see where I come and go, they aren't always privvy
to the conversation that takes place.

I'm not naive Bear. I've been around a long time, seen and done many
things. I know what I'm doing. It's you who's being educated, here.

I make sure that what I do on the Internet does not contain anything
that is significant to warrant my concerns about privacy. I make
purchases on the Internet, but the method I use is well protected
from any significant financial harm. My identity is well insured and
protected with several layers of safety nets. No sensitive data ever
is put on any computer I use that is connected to the Interent.

That confirms you're naive and not intelligent enough to properly secure
a network so that it could contain sensitive data and actually be used
as intended in the modern world. Your identity isn't insured. You're
actually well known in various other non computer related circles.

Plus, you don't really make any sense here. You make purchases, so at
some point, your computer has to know your CC information. Isn't that
sensitive data to you?

Your silly campaign against Google is misdirected as any real harm
will not come from them. It will come from your own stupidity. No, I

I have no campaign against google moron, I still use their email
services. In fact, it's still the search engine I prefer. I like to read
the dmca takedown notices they provide instead of the results. The
notice usually has just what I was looking for. heh.

don't laugh in the face of privacy concerns...I make sure that my
privacy is not divulged or available. You are like a little boy

Not true. Your identity is known as well as your less than stellar past.

stomping around acting like you have superior knowledge and yet your
own statements prove to me how little you actually understand about
what you bitch about all the time.

You keep saying this. Every single time I ask for a reference, you don't
provide it. Where do you come off with this shit anyway Bear? I'm not
acting, lol. Fact is, compared to you, I do have superior knowledge of
the IT industry. No ego, no opinion, just a fact. Do you know why it's a
fact and not an opinion Bear? I can back the statement up.

Why then do you even bother to use DNS Benchmark? You think you are
clever, but you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

Cite contradiction(s).

There is more going on than how close a server is to you. I can't
believe you do not understand that. Besides, I am not the one making
any claims that one is faster than the other...I am posting about the
features and claims made by others.

At what point did the original post change from whoever wrote it to your
comments concerning it? The original post claims it's faster than your
ISP. Unless your ISP dns servers are overloaded, that wouldn't normally
be the case. As such, what you posted is a puff piece.

The important factors to me are not who is faster...you yourself
should know that and while the benchmarks show one faster than the
other, in most cases the difference in not very significant - usually
not even in terms of a few seconds. The important factors are about
DNS accuracy and the additional services provided that your ISP
doesn't provide and you should know that both Google and Norton have
a better ability to filter known malware sites than your ISP which
/is/ what the point of this post is about. At one time, I was willing
to give you the benefit of the doubt about your claims of expert
knowledge, but you quickly demonstrated that you do not understand as
well as you think you do and mostly try to center on minor points to
carry out your trolling desires. That is what I see you do the most
of...and you are not even very good at that...no sophistication at
all.

DNS accuracy? When did we begin a discussion on DNS accuracy? What
exactly is DNS accuracy Bear? Norton is ONE antivirus company, just a
single one. They are no better/worse than sophos, mcafee, trend, etc
these days in so far as detection ability. I know that my ISP scans
things outbound. If I use their DNS servers, I can be rerouted to a page
telling me such and such site is malicious, click to visit here if you
know the risks.

In my case, for what I do, I'd prefer the systems aren't filtered. I can
handle the raw net. Bear, I'm not quick to make claims I can't backup.
Despite your attempt to talk down to me again, ho hum, I am an expert in
this field. You might not like it, but it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Then why do you even suggest using DNS Benchmark. Symantec on that
program shows to be faster than Cox and Cox faster than Google when I
run it, but do you understand the time difference. I don't think it
is enough difference to be discernable, But again that is not the
point of what you are doing. It is what you are using to try and

If you'll go back to the beginning, I didn't say the speed difference
would be much, just that some of the claims mentioned weren't accurate.
You went off on a tangent from there.

carry out your trolling, I'll repeat, the speed differences are
insignificant in most cases. If you don't know that than you are
stupid, but I think you know that and you are trolling.

If by trolling, asking you pointed technical questions related to the
content of your post that you don't seem to be able to answer, then
okay, i'm trolling.

You say that all the time...it's all you have - and yes it is your
ego-driven self pumping need to do so. Dissecting malware has little
to do with any of the subject matter discussed here or anywhere else
unless the topic of dissecting malware comes up. None of that is

Are you high? this is anti-virus. Discussion of malware analysis is
indeed welcome and on topic here. This isn't a product announcement
newsgroup like alt.comp.freeware.

There was nothing egotistical in what I wrote, I disputed your comment
and provided evidence supporting my position.

needed or used by 99% of the people utilizing the net. They want to
protect themselves and/or recover from malware as best they can, NOT
DISSECT IT. You could be the foremost expert in dissecting malware
after the fact and yet still be reduced to using the same tools
everyone else uses to try and protect themselves from it. That is

Your percentages are likely off by a considerable margin. I've met many
fine malware experts. And many others who aren't but wish to learn more
about the bug that affected them.

I don't know how many people use the tools I published to help in the
study of malware, I tend to write my own tools and use them Bear. I do
use some of the freely available ones as well, but I'm perfectly capable
of removing the said nasty completely by hand if need be. I don't have
to wait for such and such program to come up with an update to detect
something. That's an advantage of being an expert, Bear.

You may berate the antimalware utility I wrote all you like, but it does
demonstrate expertise in malware study. Analysis, detection and removal.
It's written completely by hand from scratch. Uses it's own database
engine which I designed. The entire system is mine. I borrowed nothing
from no-one. I studied over 13,000 samples at the time known to it.
That's thousands of hours of reverse engineering.

I don't have to be coddled like you, Bear.

what these discussion are about. If you had a magic tool that no one
else had, you would be rich. You have no edge on prevention. You have
no edge on recovery. Sure, you can likely clean a machine better than
others, but such skill is not needed except for those ill prepared
end-users who have no clue how to cover their asses or protect their
data or recover from malware. That is actually rather easy to do and
no expert is needed. Education of the clueless is needed if they are
even willing to learn and practice the rather easy techniques to
achieve it,

I've never claimed to have any magic tool. I understand the math behind
the technologies in use and know there will never be a magic bullet to
end the malware problem. It's an inherent side effect of computers,
Actually. Malware are programs too.

You can mitigate the risks of it tho. As far as being rich, Lol... Money
isn't what motivated me to do this stuff. I gave my app away for free,
no strings attached. I know people have used it and made money when it
helps them. I'm glad to have assisted, even if only in a digital
fashion.

I don't know how things are where you live Bear, but many small
businesses here don't even have a sound backup procedure in place. By
the time I'm notified of a problem with a new client, it's usually a
data recovery job. People around here tend to get what you would say is
full use out of the hardware before it's replaced.

You talk about facts. The facts are no one can secure there systems
well enough. That fact means you have to be able to recover and
protect your data. You don't have to dissect and clean to do that and
that is a fact. So your dissecting skills are not needed. People
developing programs and tools that try to prevent need people with
those skills. It doesn't help anyone else. IMO, scanners and those
tools are only good to try and determine if your system has malware
so one could take action to recover to a known clean state. The fact
is the only sure way to do that without spending many hours of
investigation is to restage or even better to have a good image to
use. I've been dealing with this since computer have been available
for home use to understand this. I think you know it too, but where
would that leave your ego!

Not true Bear. Unauthorized access and unauthorized code execution can
be prevented under some conditions. You're quick to dismiss the
disection (its reverse engineering) skills I have... why is that?

It's a matter of knowing your vulnerabilities and properly securing
them. What if the data is mixed in executable format? Like a .doc file
for example. You would do what if their file was virused? Delete it? try
to use somebody elses tool to disinfect it? (We'll make this fun, it's
new and unknown to everyone).

I'd be able to remove the offending "code" and give the clean file back.
If it's in alot of their files, I could even write a tiny app to
automate the process. No waiting for someone from norton or whoever to
get back to me.

I think having a sound knowledge base is a good thing in this industry.
You and I seem to disagree on that.

I've noticed you're quick to take a shot at me about an ego or
something, but you're the one often reminding us how long you've been
doing this. You seem to be easily offended when conversing with me and
constantly bring up the superiority issue-- It makes me wonder...

Do you feel inferior Bear?

bad actors which is better than what you ISP does. It is a good
additional layer of protection which also does not add to system
resource usage. A win win. Your comment again surprises me and clues
me that you have no clue.

I'm a malware expert, idiot. I don't need an "additional layer" of
protection to get in my way. Buy a ****ing clue, dude.

I wanted clarification for what you were suggesting and I hoped you
weren't stupid enough to mean setting the router with one and your
machine with the other. BTW, wheter the router or the machine is set
makes little difference. The main benefit of setting the router is
all machines connected to that router benefit. If you only have one
machine connected to the router or even a couple, setting the machine
is fine and accomplishes the same thing. BTW, your computer routes
too...so your condescending tone is stupid and trollish.

I don't see why you feel the need to try and talk down to me, Bear. I
don't care about opinions, only facts. In fact, one could configure an
individual workstation to use a DNS server that the router wouldn't use,
for testing or other internal configuration needs. Wouldn't be stupid in
any event. It would be serving a specific purpose in that configuration.

I made no condescending remark, You misunderstood basic english and
chose to make a smartass remark. You won't be giving me an education in
computers Bear, no matter how hard you try. I've been at this since I
was a kid, I know the field well. The only way you'll get better than I
already am is after I'm dead and you stick with it.

You are wrong. Are you saying there is no benefit to using Norton's
or Google's or OpenDNS DNS setting and yet you use them...good grief
Dustin, can't you see your own contradictions.

Another basic english problem has reared it's ugly head. I haven't got
the best grammar, but damn, Bear.. It's not impossible to read.

openDNS is exactly that, it's anticensorship. Not exactly the same as
the google/norton ones you were raving about. I make use of opendns and
occasionally google as well as my ISP and sometimes, my own dns server.

I think you need to buy a dictionary, Bear.

LOL...so you admit to using it and wonder why it is recommended to
use. Anyway, answered above. I don't usually take this much time to
reply to these trollings, but you need to be opened up.

admit to using what? I use opendns, ****stick. I've never said it's
faster or better than the ISP's or my own. Sheesh. it's not a primary
dns tho, so it's never actually used.

Why do you use OpenDNS? Dustin? hellooooooooooo?

As a backup! dns server with no 'filtering' turned on. In this case, so
I can resolve a domain if my isp or something else has a problem.
Without DNS working, short of remembering a shitload of IPs, I'm dead in
the water. Redundancy moron, redundancy.

 

[Bear]

My ISP is Cox. Cox has no business reason to log data beyond what is
required for network administration. Google on the other hand is a data
miner. They, as their principal business activity collect aggregate
and sell data to advertising clients. That frankly is the business they
are in, day in and day out.

I don't think you are up on the regulations for ISP's.

 

[Bear]

I'm not naive Bear. I've been around a long time, seen and done many
things. I know what I'm doing. It's you who's being educated, here.

I've been around longer than you

 

[Bear]

Plus, you don't really make any sense here. You make purchases, so at
some point, your computer has to know your CC information. Isn't that
sensitive data to you?

I use one time accounts...ever heard of them.

 

[Dustin]

I've been around longer than you

So has the house I live in. Your point?

 

[Dustin]

I use one time accounts...ever heard of them.

Doesn't matter. At some point, you had to enter the CC information,
billing address, etc. I think you meant to say you don't store sensitive
material on your computers, not that they've never seen any. Right?

 

[Bear]

So has the house I live in. Your point?

I know what I'm doing

 

[Bear]

Doesn't matter. At some point, you had to enter the CC information,
billing address, etc. I think you meant to say you don't store
sensitive material on your computers, not that they've never seen any.
Right?

No, the service is via my Bank. I've never entered a fully functional
Credit Card in the last several years. I did so for many years without
any problems, but times have changed enough to the point where I think
it is a bad idea to use any form of financial transaction on the net
that could lead to theft. It was a bad idea ever, but I liked shopping
online more than shopping in stores...research is better, selection is
better, find better prices and products and all that good stuff. You go
into a store and only have available what they stock in most cases.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail

 

[James E. Morrow]

I don't think you are up on the regulations for ISP's.

I am quite aware of the new law, the Protecting Children From Internet
Pornographers Act of 2011. It does not protect children, but it does
allow law enforcement to much power to snoop. This is a different
subject than the one discussed in this thread. You have been accusing
ISPs of snooping. This is government snooping and it is evil!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/how-the-new-8216protecting-
children-bill-puts-you-at-risk/590

or

http://tinyurl.com/3dbqcos

 

[Bear]

I am quite aware of the new law, the Protecting Children From Internet
Pornographers Act of 2011. It does not protect children, but it does
allow law enforcement to much power to snoop. This is a different
subject than the one discussed in this thread. You have been accusing
ISPs of snooping. This is government snooping and it is evil!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/how-the-new-8216protecting-
children-bill-puts-you-at-risk/590

or

http://tinyurl.com/3dbqcos

But that is only part of the point. Why worry about Google's
capitalistic endeavors when there is much more to worry about from your
ISP...regardless of who prompts it. To think that your ISP does not have
/all/ of /everything/ you do is naive. What can or might be done with
that information is far more threatening. They have policies, and all of
your activities, and any court order can obtain it. Not just what you
speak.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail