Bob Janes wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> WV-Mike wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me if data entered in Excel or Access can be imported into
> MySql?

If you have data in the right format it is easy to use phpmyadmin to
import it to your database.
I also have written clips to take info from an excel spreadsheet and
simply enter it into wordpress one entry at a time.  This is better
because one entry into wordpress may make entries in three or four
different tables as there are interrelationships.

At 10:56 PM 1/1/2008 , you wrote:

>Bob Janes wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > WV-Mike wrote:
> >> Can anyone tell me if data entered in Excel or Access can be imported into
> > MySql?
>
>If you have data in the right format it is easy to use phpmyadmin to
>import it to your database.

I am not too swift on this stuff right now, but will have to be at some point.

>I also have written clips to take info from an excel spreadsheet and
>simply enter it into wordpress one entry at a time. This is better
>because one entry into wordpress may make entries in three or four
>different tables as there are interrelationships.

I think for nowI will just put up my dads material as simple web pages.

I do not want to take the chance of doing a bunch of work related to PHP
MySQL and then have it be for nothing.
Thanks,
-Mike
http://epicroadtrips.us/



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED !!

Please click on National Geographic link to cast a VOTE
for Blackwater Canyon as America's next National Park!


See full story in May 2004 Edition of
National Geographic Adventure Magazine
on sale at news stands now.

Voting link also available at Friends of Blackwater
http://www.saveblackwater.org/
Help make the vision of Blackwater Canyon National Park a reality.

Please forward this e-mail to your friends, and encourage them to vote for
Blackwater Canyon in the
National Geographic Adventure Magazine Poll
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0405/parks_poll.html
for the next National Park in the United States.











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

snip
>
> I think for nowI will just put up my dads material as simple web pages.
>
> I do not want to take the chance of doing a bunch of work related to PHP
> MySQL and then have it be for nothing.
> Thanks,
> -Mike
> http://epicroadtrips.us/
>
Overcome your fear and get it into a cms (in this case wordpress).  I
love wordpress almost as much as notetab itself.  It allows you to
manipulate, work on layout free of content, etc.  Go for it!

At 09:47 AM 1/2/2008 , Don - HtmlFixIt.com wrote:
>snip
> >
> > I think for nowI will just put up my dads material as simple web pages.
> >
> > I do not want to take the chance of doing a bunch of work related to PHP
> > MySQL and then have it be for nothing.
> > Thanks,
> > -Mike
> > <http://epicroadtrips.us/>http://epicroadtrips.us/
> >
>Overcome your fear and get it into a cms (in this case wordpress). I
>love wordpress almost as much as notetab itself. It allows you to
>manipulate, work on layout free of content, etc. Go for it!

Hi Don,
I am not sure WordPress will work for me.
I will need many fields for data entry and it looks to me like WP is
limited to what is available from the Dahsboard.

But, I don't really know much about this.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi
I still think you should try a single column down one side for say your bird
types ,first page what's going on then click on bird type or do it by day
you then scroll to which ever day one wants each page would have the goings
on of that day or say bird. ?
     THANKYOU DAVE M

----- Original Message -----
From: "WV-Mike" <notetab@...>
To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NTO] MySql question(s)


> At 09:47 AM 1/2/2008 , Don - HtmlFixIt.com wrote:
>>snip
>> >
>> > I think for nowI will just put up my dads material as simple web pages.
>> >
>> > I do not want to take the chance of doing a bunch of work related to
>> > PHP
>> > MySQL and then have it be for nothing.
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Mike
>> > <http://epicroadtrips.us/>http://epicroadtrips.us/
>> >
>>Overcome your fear and get it into a cms (in this case wordpress). I
>>love wordpress almost as much as notetab itself. It allows you to
>>manipulate, work on layout free of content, etc. Go for it!
>
> Hi Don,
> I am not sure WordPress will work for me.
> I will need many fields for data entry and it looks to me like WP is
> limited to what is available from the Dahsboard.
>
> But, I don't really know much about this.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

WV-Mike wrote:
> At 09:47 AM 1/2/2008 , Don - HtmlFixIt.com wrote:
>> snip
>>> I think for nowI will just put up my dads material as simple web pages.
>>>
>>> I do not want to take the chance of doing a bunch of work related to PHP
>>> MySQL and then have it be for nothing.
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Mike
>>> <http://epicroadtrips.us/>http://epicroadtrips.us/
>>>
>> Overcome your fear and get it into a cms (in this case wordpress). I
>> love wordpress almost as much as notetab itself. It allows you to
>> manipulate, work on layout free of content, etc. Go for it!
>
> Hi Don,
> I am not sure WordPress will work for me.
> I will need many fields for data entry and it looks to me like WP is
> limited to what is available from the Dahsboard.
>
> But, I don't really know much about this.
>
> -Mike
>

Well Mike,

I don't know your context, but WordPress and many other CMS systems
allow custom variables, so you can create the fields that you need.

Don

At 02:01 PM 1/4/2008 , you wrote:
>Well Mike,
>
>I don't know your context, but WordPress and many other CMS systems
>allow custom variables, so you can create the fields that you need.

Okey-Doke.
Will keep looking into this.
-Mike



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Matt Clark wrote:
> Dennis Hays wrote:
>
> I use NoteTab Pro as my preferred environment while
> composing my ebooks. It's far easier for me to just get the prose out, do
> some grammatical editing, and then, when finished, import the text file
> into some "layout program."
>
> What layout program would you recommend? I don't do heavy graphics stuff and
would want a fairly simple, and cheap one.
>
> Matt Clark

We should definitely go off topic with this and I'll copy that list.

Please everyone help us in discussion over there (like I'm the off topic
police or something anyway ;-)  ).

Anyway, word, wordperfect and open office all are pretty rich featured
for layout.  One of them is free at http://openoffice.org

I have no specific experience in ebooks or publishing in this context.
I know that when I edit books for print the publisher requires us to use
   word and the change tracking feature.  That is actually a helpful thing.

On the other question: just open open office and then click on file,
open (be sure "all files" is the selected filtering with the drop down)
and open the file you wish.  It will open in that program and then you
can add formatting, but when you are done, save it under a different
name with the proper extension.

Don

Dennis Hays wrote:
> I use NoteTab Pro as my preferred environment while composing
> my ebooks. It's far easier for me to just get the prose out, do
> some grammatical editing, and then, when finished, import the
> text file into some "layout program."
>
> What layout program would you recommend? I don't do heavy
> graphics stuff and would want a fairly simple, and cheap one.

To my mind there is one and only one answer to that question, especially
and even more so for the kind of people who like NoteTab and prefer it
to the pointee-clickee M$-Word junk: TeX

Axel

Hello,
Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1), noticed
it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a separate
firewall installed.
I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should I
install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
Will appreciate your opinions.
Many Thanks
Mordechai
m.mordechai@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I immediately disabled the Windows firewall and installed ZoneAlarm.  I
don't think you can run another firewall with the one in Windows.


--- "M.M." <m.mordechai@...> wrote:

> Hello,
> Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1),
> noticed
> it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a
> separate
> firewall installed.
> I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should
> I
> install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
> Will appreciate your opinions.
> Many Thanks
> Mordechai
> m.mordechai@...
>



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

It's fine for in-bound security, but does little to nothing for things
like worms or compromised programs that contact the Internet from your
machine.  So if that's important to you, you can add something else like
Comodo, as an example.

M.M. wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
> Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1), noticed
> it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a separate
> firewall installed.
> I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should I
> install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
> Will appreciate your opinions.
> Many Thanks
> Mordechai
> m.mordechai@... <mailto:m.mordechai%40gmail.com>

One of my customers was using Zone Alarm, and it was a pain in the
proverbial.

He is happy with XP Home Windows FireWall on his laptop.

I run Windows FireWall on my 2003 server for my cable connection, and XP Pro
FireWall on the laptop I connect my cellular Internet modem to.  I've never
had problems with them.

Regards, Dave S

----- Original Message -----
From: "sisterscape" <sisterscape@...>
To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [NTO] XP FIREWALL


>I immediately disabled the Windows firewall and installed ZoneAlarm.  I
> don't think you can run another firewall with the one in Windows.
>
>
> --- "M.M." <m.mordechai@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1),
>> noticed
>> it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a
>> separate
>> firewall installed.
>> I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should
>> I
>> install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
>> Will appreciate your opinions.
>> Many Thanks
>> Mordechai
>> m.mordechai@...
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Mordechai,

Brian is right when he says:
---------------
It's fine for in-bound security, but does little to nothing for things
like worms or compromised programs that contact the Internet from your
machine.
---------------

so when...

On 10 Jan 08 08:04 "David Smart" <smartware.consulting@...>
said:
> One of my customers was using Zone Alarm, and it was a pain in the
> proverbial.

You have to ask a bit more.

Windows Firewall is utterly painless. It just sits there doing what it
was designed to do and requires no training by the user.

ZoneAlarm, or any full firewall that handles both inbound and outbound
traffic, will, initially, appear to be a pain. Dialogue boxes will
appear constantly warning you of activity and asking you for a
decision about how to handle this type of traffic in the future.
Perhaps that was the pain for David's client?

Even after initial installation it will recognise every software patch
and program update, and assume that it is an infected program and
require confirmation that you are aware of the change. If you're
computer/network naive then it can present you with questions that are
meaningless gobbley gook, and you'll stab at them wildly never knowing
whether you "played safe" or have done something "dangerous".

> He is happy with XP Home Windows FireWall on his laptop.

Whether David's client is better protected by a badly set up ZoneAlarm
or by the "incomplete" Windows Firewall will depend entirely on the
nature of the traffic passing between the Computer and the rest of the
internet.

> I run Windows FireWall on my 2003 server for my cable connection,
> and XP Pro FireWall on the laptop I connect my cellular Internet
> modem to.  I've never had problems with them.

Never having "problems" is pretty meaningless.  It will depend
entirely whether you would recognise a problem if you saw one.

For example. the kind of software that "invades" a computer and then
acts as someone else's proxy, so it's your machine that's doing the
dirty to everyone else on the internet is, by its nature, designed to
remain invisible, and cause "no problems" on the host computer. That
doesn't mean there's not a problem for the rest of the world.  This
kind of program can come in attached to an e-mail and appear to a
firewall (Windows or any other firewall) as legitimate traffic.
(That's why you need effective anti-virus software running to stop
this kind of thing.) Once in, Windows Firewall will not detect its
precence, but it will sit there doing its worst.

In the days of dialup connections the activity that these programs
generated was obvious to the user.  There'd be, for example, constant
requests to connect to the internet, or on-line activity would appear
to run very slowly.  However, in the days of high-speed always-on
broadband connections, such activity will be indetectable by the
average user.

So it all depends on what you, or others, do on your computer as to
whether Windows Firewall is sufficient for your needs. Unfortunately,
it's one of those Catch 22 questions, because, unless you understand
the issues you can't setup a full firewall properly and if it's not
set up right then it's not doing the job it was intended to do.  If
that's the case, you might just as well stick with Windows Firewall.

Greg

At , you wrote:
  > Hello,
  > Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1),
  > noticedit has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a
  > separate firewall installed.
  >
  > I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should I
  > install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
  >
  > Will appreciate your opinions.
  > Many Thanks
  > Mordechai
  > m.mordechai@...

Mordechai,

Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the "EXPERTS" that test
software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be
united against the use of "Windows Firewall".

  From the never-ending number of reports of security holes in the
Windows OS I tend to believe the "EXPERTS".

·············································
ºvº SL-01-73 -created- 2008.01.10 - 00.30.12

  Measure of SUCCESS:
  At age 50 is.....
"Having money."
  ¤ ø ¤ hrs ø hsavage@...

I will comment on this particular comment, just for the benefit of the
group.

Keep in mind, that most firewall programs have vulnerabilities, whether
they are based on the security of the OS or a problem with their code in
specific.  Even Zone Alarm falls prey to both, so if you aren't in a
habit of keeping Windows XP up to date on patches, your firewall will
fall prey to attacks from OS vulnerabilities over and over anyway...so
by using another firewall you aren't ensuring better protection if you
happen to be lax with updates - and I've seen that plenty.

What most experts agree on is that they wish Windows XP's firewall took
care of outbound connections, and it really doesn't.  It attempts to
prevent you against being attacked by other machines on the Internet or
network, etc.

There is something that is also very important to mention when it comes
to every single firewall out there: "most people mis-use them", and
that's me, quoting myself.

I've gone to countless service calls, businesses, end users, etc. where
people have their machines so botched up because of things that they
have denied through their firewall.  Rules for stopping parts of the
TCP/IP stack, rundll32.exe when it needs legitimate access, print
spoolers for network printer access, etc.

They deny so much "stuff" (because its use is unknown to them) that they
end up crippling the performance and functionality of their PC's.
Therein lies the reason (in many people's opinions, including my own)
that Microsoft continues to deny making a firewall that analyzes
outbound traffic.  If you are unsure of the connection, most people
"play it safe" and block it.

Take this for what it's worth, but it's worth keeping in mind when
making a decision on what to do for your firewall situation.

hsavage wrote:

> Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the "EXPERTS" that test
> software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be
> united against the use of "Windows Firewall".
>
>  >From the never-ending number of reports of security holes in the
> Windows OS I tend to believe the "EXPERTS".

FWIW, I've had good luck with both Panda Internet Security 2008
and Norton Internet Security 2008. Installing either of them will
automatically give you the option to disable the Windows XP
firewall (do it) so there aren't two potentially conflicting
firewalls at work. I used to use ZoneAlarm, but became less than
thrilled with later versions, starting about two years ago.

Scott

Brian Binder wrote:
>
>
> I will comment on this particular comment, just for the benefit of the
> group.
>
> Keep in mind, that most firewall programs have vulnerabilities, whether
> they are based on the security of the OS or a problem with their code in
> specific. Even Zone Alarm falls prey to both, so if you aren't in a
> habit of keeping Windows XP up to date on patches, your firewall will
> fall prey to attacks from OS vulnerabilities over and over anyway...so
> by using another firewall you aren't ensuring better protection if you
> happen to be lax with updates - and I've seen that plenty.
>
> What most experts agree on is that they wish Windows XP's firewall took
> care of outbound connections, and it really doesn't. It attempts to
> prevent you against being attacked by other machines on the Internet or
> network, etc.
>
> There is something that is also very important to mention when it comes
> to every single firewall out there: "most people mis-use them", and
> that's me, quoting myself.
>
> I've gone to countless service calls, businesses, end users, etc. where
> people have their machines so botched up because of things that they
> have denied through their firewall. Rules for stopping parts of the
> TCP/IP stack, rundll32.exe when it needs legitimate access, print
> spoolers for network printer access, etc.
>
> They deny so much "stuff" (because its use is unknown to them) that they
> end up crippling the performance and functionality of their PC's.
> Therein lies the reason (in many people's opinions, including my own)
> that Microsoft continues to deny making a firewall that analyzes
> outbound traffic. If you are unsure of the connection, most people
> "play it safe" and block it.
>
> Take this for what it's worth, but it's worth keeping in mind when
> making a decision on what to do for your firewall situation.
>
> hsavage wrote:
>
>> Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the "EXPERTS" that test
>> software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be
>> united against the use of "Windows Firewall".
>>
>> >From the never-ending number of reports of security holes in the
>> Windows OS I tend to believe the "EXPERTS".
>
>

I use Linux with its own open source iptables firewall on the internet.  I
don't use my Win beyond my LAN.  (that's, for 4 to 5 years now or longer, my
personal solution to the Win internet security issue).

For emailing and web browsing my friends use the Linux of their dual boot
machine -- and its other OS is Win XP for use but except for rarely if ever
on the internet.

For their Win XP laptops and the one mentioned XP desktop, my friends just
some weeks ago installed Norton 2008 internet security suite and have had no
problem with it whatsoever.

For several or more years now, my friends have been using Norton -- in 2007
the Norton they purchased came with virus protection and its own personal
firewall which we used (turned off the XP built in firewall)

In 2006 the Norton they purchased was for virus protection only though it
also monitored and notified if and which firewall is on or off.  I set up
this Norton on his XP laptop and I installed Zone Alarm and turned off the
builtin XP firewall.  This setup lasted them without incident through 2006
up to the begin of 2007.

What originally prompted my friends to increase their security is his Win XP
laptop got (very -- as in totally, no longer useable anymore) severely
compromised when using just the builtin Win XP firewall.  That was 2005 or
2006 when they first then subsequently bought the Norton.

Same laptop got very severely (wasted, again) compromised in 2007 (yes it
had the mentioned Norton on it then).  Though they wouldn't admit to it --
they have a teenage son.  I think the son and his teenage friends were
turned loose on this laptop on the internet -- without any adult
overseeing.  I fixed it, saved their data, restored from a previous disk
image file, copied back their data, updated the Norton.

The only difference after that is "users of the laptop *must* get involved
here" (I let 'em have it, bang).  They were more cautious/careful -- got
them through the remainder of 2007 without another incident.  (just because
it has Norton on it is not a panacea).

Given if the users are educated enough and cautious enough, it is probable
that the builtin XP firewall would or could suffice.  But I think this a
tall order due the huge amount and the height of sophistication of phishing
and social engineering taking place all of the time these days.  All it
takes is one little slip up by the user -- which could get something
illegitimate installed that would then begin making outbound requests from
within -- the builtin XP firewall is now useless, totally worthless, at this
point.

Another point to mention is running with user versus administrator
privileges.

My friends are not at all much computer literate.  I set up a user and asked
them to try it to see if it would do everything they need.  They (very busy
people) just take the easiest path -- faster and easier to use the default
administrator account rather than try something new.

Due that lack of cooperation on their part and my time constraints, they
still run all their XP machines with admin privileges.  (I'm certain that
this admin privilege contributed to their mentioned 2007 contamination).

--
Alan.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jan 10, 2008 11:15 AM, Alan C <acummingsus@...> wrote:

Another point to mention is running with user versus administrator
> privileges.


Theoretically, if a user is not allowed to install software (not even to a
user area of the disk) *and* if the user is not whatsoever allowed to change
any web browser security related settings.

Then, if the administrator (with a very secure admin password) had
adequately and sufficiently and securely enough "set up the machine for this
user" then the built in XP firewall should suffice alright (for this user)
given this case scenario.  *And* that the administrator rarely, if ever,
logs on (does so only when needed for sys maintenance).

Linux is natively already oriented towards just such a case scenario as what
I just mentioned.  Windows, on the other hand, for ages, ran contrary to my
mentioned case scenario.

Bill Gates for the longest time said "people want usability over security".

Thus the (Win) default account being the administrator privileged account.

AFAIK the native Linux firewall does just what (the same as) the built in
Win XP firewall does.

I think a person would need to purchase commercial software for their Linux
so as to get the type of checking that (for instance) Zone Alarm does
(monitoring of applications that might seek to do outbound request).

Linux is natively locked down like my mentioned case scenario whereby
"nothing illegitimate can get installed" and therefore there will be no
illegitimate outbound requests which makes it so that there is no need to
monitor apps that potentially can do outbound requests.

Perhaps I've been partially in the wrong by not (not enough anyways)
attempting to admin my friend's Win XP so as to make their Win comply with
my mentioned case scenario or what I've termed as the "Linux is natively
locked down."  (takes too much time [need to learn etc.] is the excuse so
far for not making their Win to be like my mentioned case scenario or Like
Linux with respect to the security model).

--
Alan.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alan C wrote:
>
> AFAIK the native Linux firewall does just what (the same as) the built in
> Win XP firewall does.
>


This remark re WinXP native firewall and Linux firewalls may be a bit
confusing, but maybe you mean something quite different than what the
message appears to say.

The firewalls in the Linux distributions I know of come with a set of
preconfigured rules that regulate both incoming and outgoing traffic. In
other words, they are two-way firewalls and Windows' own firewall, in XP
at least, is not. This the reason why I have immediately switched it off
and use a proper (software) firewall instead, in my case Agnitum Outpost.

Cheers,
Gerard
--
Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
2312 ZD Leiden
Netherlands
inboxgen@...

On Jan 13, 2008 6:52 AM, Gerard Huijing <inboxgen@...> wrote:

> Alan C wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK the native Linux firewall does just what (the same as) the built
> in
> > Win XP firewall does.
> >
>
>
> This remark re WinXP native firewall and Linux firewalls may be a bit
> confusing, but maybe you mean something quite different than what the
> message appears to say.
>
> The firewalls in the Linux distributions I know of come with a set of
> preconfigured rules that regulate both incoming and outgoing traffic. In
> other words, they are two-way firewalls and Windows' own firewall, in XP
> at least, is not. This the reason why I have immediately switched it off
> and use a proper


?


> (software) firewall instead, in my case Agnitum Outpost.


What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not
even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall).

I use Slackware and Debian.  And I maintain a CentOS 4.6 box for my friends.

Ok, I should have limited my comment in my former post, more specifically to
"Linux distros that I myself use" because what I said now absolutely
applies.

proper?  I definitely agree with you on that one for Win XP but not for the
Linux distros that I use.

What's "proper" is what's needed according to the overall or bigger picture
context.

Perhaps you missed my point?

My point was: if it's not even possible for something illegitimate to get
installed -- then -- there will never ever be any illegitimate outbound
requests therefore a "proper" firewall in this case is one with
characteristics just like the native Win XP firewall since in this (Linux or
*maybe* a tightened Windows system) case there is no need, not ever, to
monitor for potential illegitimate as to the or any outbound requesting sort
of apps

IOW (due the overall or bigger picture construct, I used the Linux (*distros
that I use*) security model as an example) if there can't be, not even the
possibility of illegitimate outbound then there's no need to monitor (using
firewall) for something that cannot happen.

Greater separation of user versus root or administrator.  Run all the time
as a "user".

User is not privileged enough to install software nor alter any www related
security things.

User can't do anything but use.  For anything else, root or administrator
must be logged onto. (as in separate accounts to log onto, each of the
mentioned separate account with drastically different in the way of
privileges or the amount of power of what is allowed to do).

So, once again, what sort of firewall is needed is dependent upon how tight
or how loose you are, security wise, in the mentioned overall or bigger
picture.  That was the point that I was attempting to make.

But my intention here is not to advocate that "thus and such requires the
use of (whatever)"

But, to me, (mainly, anyways, the intention or point that I attempt here to
get across) that the concept of computer security that there are many many
components or ingredients that can make for and which can also make for the
lack of computer security.  (a software) Firewall is *only one* of such
components or ingredients.

Even the built in Win XP firewall "monitors" outbound -- it does so for the
purpose to only allow back in what had been initially requested from within
-- oh, well, too bad if it was an "illegitimate outbound request that was
initiated from within (no protection)"

So, such built in XP firewall monitors outbound and inbound.

So does your mentioned Agnitum.

The difference is that the Agnitum also monitors for the potential of
"illegitimate requests that are outbound requests that are initiated from
within".

--
Alan.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alan C wrote:
>
>
> What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not
> even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall).
>
> I use Slackware and Debian. And I maintain a CentOS 4.6 box for my friends.

Fedora, and openSUSE. I have used several other distributions in the
past (ZenWalk, Vector among others)
I will stick to the first two: they have a configuration file that
regulates inbound and outbound traffic.  It is configured on the basis
of choices offered by the install program. ("Do you want this machine to
provide ftp services?" etc.).

If I tested my service ports  after I had installed (which I alway did),
e.g. with Gibson Shields Up, the report would be with SUSE: all ports
stealthed (DROP) except 113 (IDENT) which was closed (REJECT). ICMP echo
requests from outside to the firewall were rejected. I could choose to
stealth 113, and change the other rule: DROP the pings). I always did
that too. Mine is a stand alone PC and I had no problems (although the
documentation says that changing these settings can have adverse effects).

When you install SUSE or Fedora that configuration file (essentially a
script for iptables) is also generated. On those grounds I would say
that a firewall is in place to start off with.

> proper? I definitely agree with you on that one for Win XP but not for the
> Linux distros that I use.

I used "proper" because I have read so many criticisms of the XP
firewall saying exactly that: "Yes, indeed XP has its own firewall but
it's not a *proper* one: it only monitors inbound".

>
> What's "proper" is what's needed according to the overall or bigger picture
> context.

I quite agree.

> Even the built in Win XP firewall "monitors" outbound -- it does so for the
> purpose to only allow back in what had been initially requested from within
> -- oh, well, too bad if it was an "illegitimate outbound request that was
> initiated from within (no protection)"

Precisely! It's the unnoticed illegitimate ones I am worried about.
Thank you for the more precise description of what is going on in XP
firewall BTW.

Your point was, very much in a nutshell: the situation WinXP plus native
FW is comparable to Linux 'sec' with some essential qualifications
regarding the whole implementation of the OS, which make Linux so much
safer to start with.

I quite agree, again. I know that the situation in ArchLinux or FreeBSD
is like the one you have in mind. You have to install and configure your
firewall yourself, from scratch.

I quite enjoy trying to figure out iptables rules myself (after all I
can only screw up my own PC), but I am also very happy that openSUSE and
Fedora give me some safe settings to start off with.


Cheers,
Gerard





--
Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
2312 ZD Leiden
Netherlands
inboxgen@...

On Jan 13, 2008 2:29 PM, Gerard Huijing <inboxgen@...> wrote:

> Alan C wrote:
> >
> >
> > What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not
> > even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall).
> >
> > I use Slackware and Debian. And I maintain a CentOS 4.6 box for my
> friends.
>
> Fedora, and openSUSE. I have used several other distributions in the
> past (ZenWalk, Vector among others)
> I will stick to the first two: they have a configuration file that
> regulates inbound and outbound traffic.  It is configured on the basis
> of choices offered by the install program. ("Do you want this machine to
> provide ftp services?" etc.).


Red Hat 8.0 was my first Linux.  Then  Red Hat 9.0.  Then Fedora Core 1 and
2.

Then I tried Slackware 9.0 or 10.0.  I liked it.  But then I hated it.  But
then I liked it.

It was all about how much Unix/Linux acclimated I was back then.

Near 2001 'till now be near 7 years since I first began my Linux foray.

Since Slackware 10.2, Slackware has been my first go to distro (it's
Slackware 12.0 now) (I no longer have the hate periods -- it's now all "I
like it").

It a very fun distro to customize to your own personal liking. (lots of
community support for this distro).  Once got (grasp) Slackware, am now
acclimated to the Unix/Linux way.

Slackware ships without a firewall.  I use:

http://www.slackware.com/~alien/efg/

(rather powerful, loads many security related kernel modules).

I also use:

http://firehol.sourceforge.net/

I once used a Debian package of that one on Debian.

Debian is just for practice -- to keep me on my toes.  I boot it only about
20% of the time.  Slack gets the other 80%.

My friend's CentOS gives me some akin the direction of Fedora/Red Hat.
After a while (no rush) I may put Debian or Slackware on my friend's box (so
I don't have to scratch my head about CentOS things when I work on it).

<snipped>

I quite enjoy trying to figure out iptables rules myself (after all I
> can only screw up my own PC), but I am also very happy that openSUSE and
> Fedora give me some safe settings to start off with.


I stay away from iptables rules (never end up with enough time to dedicate
to it so as to learn it).  I'm thankful that many various configurator tools
for the task exist.

--
Alan.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have tried several firewalls since I have had a computer and I have
never found one I liked. Someone recently mentioned one I had not heard
of called "comodo". I looked for it, downloaded it, and installed it.
It began to give me problems from the moment I installed it, but I
thought I could live with that.
Then I discovered that I could not call IE7.  I tried everything I
could think of and finally uninstalled comodo and IE7 was available to
me again. I won't install comodo again.
Can anyone recommend what you consider an excellent firewall that you
have some control over? That is, can you tell it what to allow? Or do
all firewalls have their own rules that you must live by if you are
going to use them?
By the way, I am running two computers - one running XPPro and the
other running XPHome. (I also have a new laptop running Vista - just
learning to use that.)
Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks.
Bruce

Hi
I bought Norton just the firewall comes with add remover goes a far degree
of control manual or automatic updates no problem also check the page below
out .
http://kadaitcha.cx/firewalls.html
     THANKYOU DAVE M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Meyers" <oldguy1166@...>
To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: [NTO] Why I hate Firewalls!


>I have tried several firewalls since I have had a computer and I have
> never found one I liked. Someone recently mentioned one I had not heard
> of called "comodo". I looked for it, downloaded it, and installed it.
> It began to give me problems from the moment I installed it, but I
> thought I could live with that.
> Then I discovered that I could not call IE7.  I tried everything I
> could think of and finally uninstalled comodo and IE7 was available to
> me again. I won't install comodo again.
> Can anyone recommend what you consider an excellent firewall that you
> have some control over? That is, can you tell it what to allow? Or do
> all firewalls have their own rules that you must live by if you are
> going to use them?
> By the way, I am running two computers - one running XPPro and the
> other running XPHome. (I also have a new laptop running Vista - just
> learning to use that.)
> Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks.
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

ZoneAlarm is free for individuals and very customizeable as to what you allow or
disallow...
http://www.zonealarm.com/store/catalog/products/sku_list_za.jsp

Also, Windows has a firewall you can download too.  Poke around microsoft to
find it.

Mr Phillip

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave <dmc43959@...>
>Sent: Jan 16, 2008 9:02 PM
>To: ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [NTO] Why I hate Firewalls!
>
>Hi
>I bought Norton just the firewall comes with add remover goes a far degree
>of control manual or automatic updates no problem also check the page below
>out .
>http://kadaitcha.cx/firewalls.html
>    THANKYOU DAVE M
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bruce Meyers" <oldguy1166@...>
>To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:48 AM
>Subject: [NTO] Why I hate Firewalls!
>
>
>>I have tried several firewalls since I have had a computer and I have
>> never found one I liked. Someone recently mentioned one I had not heard
>> of called "comodo". I looked for it, downloaded it, and installed it.
>> It began to give me problems from the moment I installed it, but I
>> thought I could live with that.
>> Then I discovered that I could not call IE7.  I tried everything I
>> could think of and finally uninstalled comodo and IE7 was available to
>> me again. I won't install comodo again.
>> Can anyone recommend what you consider an excellent firewall that you
>> have some control over? That is, can you tell it what to allow? Or do
>> all firewalls have their own rules that you must live by if you are
>> going to use them?
>> By the way, I am running two computers - one running XPPro and the
>> other running XPHome. (I also have a new laptop running Vista - just
>> learning to use that.)
>> Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks.
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mr. Phillip Sand Hansel II
http://philliphansel.com

To All,

Can anyone recommend a search engine that I can incorporate into one of my
websites to allow users to find relevant pages. For example, my site will
eventually have several hundred vehicles of all makes, models, and years
available for rent. I want to provide a way for the user to search through our
site for those pages that fully describe the target vehicle(s). Possible
search argument might be "1947 Cadillac convertible". The "hits" should be
links to the main pages that describe the three or four vehicles that match
the criteria.

Thanks for the help.

Ray Shapp

Ray Shapp wrote:
> To All,
>
> Can anyone recommend a search engine that I can incorporate into one of my
> websites to allow users to find relevant pages. For example, my site will
> eventually have several hundred vehicles of all makes, models, and years
> available for rent. I want to provide a way for the user to search through our
> site for those pages that fully describe the target vehicle(s). Possible
> search argument might be "1947 Cadillac convertible". The "hits" should be
> links to the main pages that describe the three or four vehicles that match
> the criteria.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Ray Shapp
>
There are lots of ways.  You can put google on it.  If you are using a
CMS, like wordpress for example, you will have the data in a database
and it will be easily searchable.  That is a great way to go, especially
as you will undoubtedly be adding/deleting vehicles as you go.  You
should be able to even use custom fields if you wish and then use drop
downs by brand etc.

Where is the website, I'd enjoy having a look.

Hello,
Recently I am assembling a new computer for my grandson (9 YO) and installed
*Windows xp pro+sp2, media player 11* and some other programs to make him
happy.
While testing the PC, (still not connected to the Internet, but it will be),
I copied some
Flash games (some self-made) but could not play any of them in the IE or in
the
Media player.
In IE got that "security bar" with so-called "my security settings"
(actually they are MS
settings), somehow I managed to bypass those settings, but the media player
still
refuses to play them ("security").
Once I had the OS with sp1 and was happy with that, but MS stopped
supporting
systems with sp1, so now I am in trouble, as a matter of fact some features
are new to me.
May I have some advise (detailed please) how to turn-off those annoying
security settings, in IE and in the media player, at least while not
connected.
Will appreciate your answers.
Thanks
Mordechai
m.mordechai@...

P.S. Current PC, which this mail is printed, is still SP1, not for a long
time.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mordechai wrote:
>Hello,
>Recently I am assembling a new computer for my grandson (9 YO) and installed
>*Windows xp pro+sp2

>May I have some advise (detailed please) how to turn-off those annoying
>security settings, in IE and in the media player, at least while not
>connected.

This is detailed.
http://www.phdcc.com/xpsp2.htm

I'm not sure which of the options there will fix the Flash problem.
Anyway, I recently moved from 2K to XP SP2. I changed the Local
Machine security level in Internet Options first thing I did, and
that of course took care of things. I don't know if that's advisable
or not, but I just can't be bothered...

Lotta