-=PCTechTalk=- Fixing what's wrong with computers WAS - Re: Wireless
- From: Gman <gman.pctt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:01:57 -0400
Only a tiny part of my theories have to do with Microsoft, although they are
in the absolute best position to do something about the problem since they
can practically command major changes to the hardware infrastructure if they
were so inclined. The problem with that is that if any part of the 'fixed'
chain is to weak to work as well as it should, MS would get blamed for the
failings of others even worse than they do now. So they deal with the
issues just like everyone else.
If you want a miniscule example of what 'fixing' the issues would be like,
remember back a couple of months ago when a Microsoft critical update
appeared to break the internet connection of everyone who was running
Zonealarm's firewall. That major patch was part of an internet wide repair
that was sent out by numerous companies to close up a serious flaw in the
original design of the internet's DNS service (the mechanism that converts
addresses like www.youtube.com into their actual IP addresses such as
208.117.236.74). In other words, Microsoft was not the only company issuing
a patch to allow this change to occur and MS did everything right, with one
exception.
Of all the firewalls in use today, it only affected ZoneAlarm's firewall
products. So that means it was ZoneAlarm's fault, right? Wrong! Instead,
it actually proves beyond a shadow of doubt that ZA was the only firewall
that was following the original specs for protecting DNS querries. ALL
other firewall products in existence have been using something I view as
"Lazy Rules". That is, they were already allowing DNS querries that fell
outside of the original DNS specs, which is not a very secure method of
dealing with these things. My respect for Zonealarm's approach shot through
the roof when I realized all of this.
So, why did ZA users lose their internet connection the moment that patch
was applied? It's both of their faults, but not because they were careless
about how they create their products. Instead, it was simply a failure to
communicate. MS should have contacted all firewall manufacturers to let
them know how the patch was going to affect their products. On the other
hand, there should be at least one employee at every company (computer
related or otherwise) who is responsible for keeping up with any kind of
industry news that could affect their business and products. Has someone at
ZA been aware that this major repair was about to take place, they could
have gotten ahold of the consortium that was pushing for it and asked how it
would affect their approach. They then could have pushed updates to all of
their own customers and no one would have been affected.
In defense of the involved parties, the consortium itself had decided to not
publicly release any of their information (including the presence of the
problem) for fear that crackers worldwide would try their best to exploit it
before the holes were patched. Still, MS was one of the companies within
that consortium (so they knew well ahead of time) and ZA has plenty of
non-public contacts that could have given them at least SOME warning so they
could have been better prepared.
Remember, all of the above is just a miniscule attempt to fix a relatively
tiny part of a broken system and that had disasterous effects on ALL
Windows-ZoneAlarm users. Now, imagine them trying to fix ALL of the
problems that plague us users. The mere thought scares the wits out of me.
Peace,
Gman
"The only dumb questions are the ones we fail to ask"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy" <sandy.rick@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:01 PM
Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: Wireless
> theories would probably be that Micro$oft wants us to get frustrated with
> our pcs or whatever and go out and buy new $tuff all the time.
>
> My hubby is an auto technician and deals with problems the whole time he's
> at work, so he definitely would know how you feel. And of course when you
> have certain kinds of expertise, the neighbors, everyone at doctors'
> offices, and don't forget "the relatives" all want your help. At least
> for
> the most part........nowadays anyway.......they just want to pick Mr.
> Sandy's brain because they're trying to do things themselves but can't
> quite
> get it to work.
>
> When I installed Paint Shop Pro 7 from the desktop I most definitely had
> to
> reboot immediately after...........which you would anyway, no matter where
> you install it from.
>
> Sandy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please remember to trim your replies (including this sentence and everything
below it) and adjust the subject line as necessary.
To unsubscribe or change your email settings:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
To access our Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
To contact only the PCTT Mod Squad, write to:
pctechtalk-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To join the PCTableTalk off-topic group, send a blank email to:
pctabletalk+subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » -=PCTechTalk=- Fixing what's wrong with computers WAS - Re: Wireless
