Worried about being 1 of the 7++ million PC's infected/infested by the "CONFICKER" worm, per this article today @ /. (SLASHDOT)?

----

After 1 Year, Conficker Infects 7M Computers:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/30/223238

----

Ok then, so you are apparently concerned, if you have read this far already!

Well, then here is a way to test yourself to see if you are infected/infested. Click on the URL below, & just literally see for yourself, here:

----

http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/infec...cfeyechart.html

----

(And, good luck, hope you're not infested/infected (I wasn't thank goodness!)).

APK

P.S.=> ... & it truly is, as EASY as it gets (it's called the "conficker eye chart", & IF you can see all 6 pictures, then you are NOT infected, but if you cannot? It means it is quite possible you have been infected by this machination known as "conficker")... apk

NOW, if you cannot reach that site (which has happened to folks today per this exchange I had on another forums -> http://amazingtechs.com/index.php?showtopi...30&start=30 )

It only means that the testing site has been "/.'d" (too many requests by users to that server, it happens, almost like a DOS/DDOS really, every website server has limits, which yes, can be RAISED by most site admins in fact, in the board engine's config files (usually)).

Still, if you show up "infested" Guys, there are cures, such as this list:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sou...G=Google+Search



* Hope you're not, & hope if you are, you can remove it via said lists of removal tools is all!

APK

P.S.=> Onwards & upwards... apk

I HAD A GOOD QUESTION FROM A USER TODAY, & HERE WAS MY ANSWER, IN CASE YOU CANNOT REACH THIS SITE TO CHECK YOURSELF (as it may be blocked by a malware, or even yourself, via various means, instead of just being flooded by users requesting on it, effectively "slashdotting" (almost DOS/DDOS'ing) said site to check yourself vs. CONFICKER)

So... he we go as to the possibles!

FROM -> http://www.hftonline.com/forum/showthread....6049#post116049

--------------------



HOPEFULLY, it isn't, because there IS A POSSIBILITY that the site to check yourself I noted? IS BLOCKED, & blocked in your HOSTS file (make sure this is ALWAYS "READ ONLY" (write protected) attributes applied) OR via bad browser addons, or in browser filtering lists (internal to individual browsers)...

So, check it for that site being in there/those, blocked as follows (a few possibles):

I strongly DOUBT you did any of these, yourself, but... one never knows, so, here goes:

=====

POSSIBLE #1 - That the site to check yourself, is actually BLOCKED in YOUR HOSTS FILE

That file typically found under %Windir%\System32\drivers\etc, or if you moved it, check the registry for the value here ->

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters & check the DataBasePath value

(That STRING VALUE SZ stores your HOSTS file location, TRUE ONE your system will be using & you CAN move it if you like... but, so can malwares):

0 www.confickerworkinggroup.org
0.0.0.0 www.confickerworkinggroup.org
127.0.0.1 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

(ANY OF THOSE WILL BLOCK OUT SITES, GOOD SITES, or KNOWN BAD ONES, so, check your HOSTS file, first! Conficker MIGHT ACTUALLY TRY TO PULL THIS LITTLE TRICK, mind you!)

=====

POSSIBLE #2 - bad "hardcode" of a site address (which a malware might do, or, it just 'went stale' & the website found a NEW "hosting provider" & their IP addy changed - & YES: Sites DO, do this, simply because they found better prices on hosting their sites for example, OR better services, but, they usually let you know when they do)

See if you, yourself, "hardcoded it as a favorite" (which you CAN DO, to speed up access to your fav sites by avoiding the 30-x ms traveltime for resolution of domainnames/hostnames to IP addresses with remote or local DNS servers)?

Your "hardcode for speed" (as well as reliability IF a dns server you use goes down OR is poisoned (see Dan Kaminsky on this online in regards to this)), well... it can 'go stale' or change (because the website found a new hosting provider for instance, because they're cheaper or better etc. et al as noted above earlier)...

(I.E.-> You CAN "mess this up", esepcially over time, with the wrong IP address (yours may vary on what you get as a return IP address from your DNS server too, than my example here is, be aware of that too)):

----

A.) E.G.-> RIGHT IP ADDRESS EQUATION FOR HARDCODE (for me, not same for you possibly - remove any hardcodes, if any in your HOSTS file, reload it (edit & save it in Windows XP/2000/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 since they have a "dynamic PNP" loaded IP Stack) or reboot (you MUST in Windows 2000 - IP stack FULLY LOADED prior to bootup is why ONLY, not only when users request on it like in later Windows' versions)):

149.20.20.82 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

B.) E.G.-> WRONG IP ADDRESS EQUATION (something CONFICKER Might actually do in fact, IF you are "hit" by it/victim to it OR if the site you hardcoded changed hosting providers etc.):

10.1.1.1 www.confickerworkinggroup.org

(10.x.x.x, & iirc, 172.x.x.x ESPECIALLY WILL NOT GO "OUTBOUND" TO THE INTERNET, & ARE MUCH LIKE 192.168.x.x is... only for internal networks/LANS & DHCP on the last one, the others are for static internal addresses!)


HOW TO GET THE RIGHT IP ADDRESS FOR YOU, FROM YOUR DNS SERVERS YOU USE? PING THE SITE FROM A DOS CMD.EXE WINDOW PROMPT/TTY CONSOLE!

E.G.->

C:\> ping www.confickerworinggroup.org

BUT, only after you remove it from a HOSTS file & save it to reload it (or reboot after edit + save, on Windows 2000 & below). That command WILL return the correct IP address, once it is not found in your HOSTS file (IF it is @ all that is).

----

(These (POSSIBLE #1, & POSSIBLE #2A & #2B)? THEY are the ONLY 'downsides' of using a HOSTS file, it CAN be "used against you too", by malwares... so, be aware of this little tidbit too!)

=====

POSSIBLE #3 - in BROWSER INTERNAL BLOCKLISTS THEMSELVES (this too can be "misused" by malwares against you, OR, it can help you too (spybot s&d populates these along with HOSTS for example, for "the good"):

NOW, if it is NOT blocked there/THOSE above?

1.) Check your IE "restricted sites" list (IE 7-8 have easy facilities for this, in "INTERNET OPTIONS" or MSCONFIG (iirc on the latter here), & IE6 you have to search the registry for here -> HKCU,"Software\ Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Zones\4

2.) Opera has its FILTER.INI &/or URLFILTER.INI which can do the same (block sites, ONLY @ THE BROWSER (opera) level though, not globally like HOSTS do or can)

3.) FireFox/Mozilla variants also have "internal to FF/Mozilla only" blocked lists-restricted sites as well.

Any of these also can "go stale" due to sites changing hosting providers, OR, due to a malware 'bushwhacking' them...

4.) AND, CHECK YOUR IE "browser addons" (possibly even FF ones too) that are malwares possibly, because THEY CAN "intercept" calls to GOOD SECURITY SITES TOO, so check your addons for bogus ones in your webbrowsers too!

5.) ONCE ALL OF THAT IS CHECKED (hosts, browser addons, & browser block lists/restricted zones)?

CLEAR YOUR LOCAL WEBBROWSER CACHE, RELOAD YOUR HOSTS (if you use it & editing it + saving it will do that on Windows XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 or, a reboot after edit will on Windows 2000), & try the site again, once ALL OF THOSE AREAS "CHECK 'ALL CLEAR'"...

====

SO - be aware of ALL of the above, & their mechanics involved. Malware makers are, & so should you be, as a "security conscious" user of Windows systems @ least! With that all above? You SHOULD be, on this account.

Good luck!

APK

P.S.=> Odds are though, they've been "SLASHDOTTED" by too many users requesting on them, because /. is such a HEAVILY travelled/used website... especially if "NONE OF THE ABOVE", holds true... apk

A possible point noted by another user @ another forums, for those interested in securing their Windows NT-based OS PC:

FROM -> http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/showthrea...41#post13641341

----

Quote:Originally Posted by Srivas
Btw. CIS tool is not a freeware, is there any other program to benchmark your level of security?

----

It used to be free, I guess it's not now (I am taking this gent @ his word, I have not tested this by going to the download site in years, but still)... as alternates, you may use/can try:

====

1.) BELARC ADVISOR (free, & works VERY well) -> http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

or

----

2.) "SCW" (security configuration wizard) which is an addon for Windows Server 2003, possibly VISTA, & for sure Windows 7 (you add it in CONTROL PANEL, Add-remove WINDOWS components).

OR

----

3.) Microsoft ALSO OFFERS "Microsoft Baseline Security ADVISOR" ->

For Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (32 & 64-bit downloads are there):

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

For Windows 7 & Server 2008 R2 (32 &64-bit downloads are there):

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

====


... but, iirc, the latter in #3 depends on various services running!

(I am no longer EXACTLY sure which services those are anymore, but iirc, they are one that use NTLM networking based or AD services based (e.g.-> lanman/netbios type sharing being working & Client for MS networks active in your network connection, + File & printer sharing AND server service + workstation service active & POSSIBLY the NetBIOS over TCP/IP helper service as well - but, don't "quote me" on this, I just know it will not run IF you trimmed off various services...))

APK

P.S.=> ALSO, IN THIS THREAD? Well - I believe I noted SCW, but only for Windows Server 2003 earlier in this post (I did) but it exists for Windows 7 now, standard, apparently (I installed it on Windows 7 64 bit pro so it does exist for it too)...

So, there are some "alternate options/tools" to use for better security online (and speed too, especially from SCW)... apk

OK, for those of you that have "moved on" to VISTA (or Windows Server 2008 & Windows 7), as I have recently, in my now using Windows 7 64-bit here?

(For around 2++ weeks now or so, in using Windows 7 here, & doing well thusfar, @ least)

WELL - here is what I have done so far to help secure Windows 7 more:

BACKGROUND: Since this guide was originally intended for folks with a SINGLE SYSTEM online (or many via a router, but NOT "networked together" via Active Directory (or, otherwise) for File/Folder & Print Sharing for example/for instance), this too is intended for that SAME kind of "audience", albeit, in regards to Windows 7 (again - I use the 64-bit model of Windows 7 here, but this ought to be fine for 32-bit users as well)

====

Start up SERVICES.MSC (You will need this for turning on/off various services is why)

1.) Turn off the SERVER service (this also aids in making you less vulnerable to the CONFICKER bug out there too, because this service "publishes" shares on your system) - in turn in making you more secure, this also lessens another service that you DO NOT NEED TO BE RUNNING, period, when you are a "standalone single machine @ home connected to the Internet" - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically

... I also run this .cmd "batch file" on Windows 7 @ my startup (via a shortcut that loads it & runs it minimized):

echo off
NET SHARE C$ /DELETE
NET SHARE B$ /DELETE
NET SHARE D$ /DELETE
NET SHARE E$ /DELETE
NET SHARE F$ /DELETE
NET SHARE G$ /DELETE
C:
NET SHARE ADMIN$ /DELETE
NET SHARE IPC$ /DELETE
NET SHARE DFS$ /DELETE
NET SHARE COMCFG$ /DELETE
NET USE * /DELETE :REM last line is to force complete read of HOSTS file into RAM, that domainname/hostname is the last line in it... apk
ping zzzz.hostindianet.com

That removes shares (just in case, overkill yes, but still, just being safe) & FORCES my system to load my HOSTS file in its entirety too (into my local diskcache kernel mode subsystem's arrays/buffers/structures, because that is the last entry in it & pinging it SHOULD force my system to look into that HOSTS file of mine (more on THAT below, lots more) & since it is the LAST ENTRY, it will read the entire file into RAM @ that point, to do so, effectively caching my HOSTS file, right then & there) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically

----

2.) Turn off the TCP/IP over NetBIOS service (this is not needed by a person who does not have a home LAN either, or needs to share his files/folders/disks out to others remote to the system in question also, much like SERVER service above) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically

----

3.) I have also been able to turn off the WORKSTATION service as well on Windows 7, albeit, ONLY AFTER I BOOTUP & LOGON in test so far, not sure if you can DISABLE it & still logon, so... keep that in mind!

(This service deals in SMB (server message block iirc) networking)

Turning it off, like any service you don't really need, results in YOUR saving more CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O also, + even electric power really... as you're not running a program & using power, just like ANY of the above or below recommendations for turning off programs of most anykind really do (albeit, this isn't as much of a "security gain" as the top 2 above are imo) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically.

----

4.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the SSDP Discovery Service (don't need it here is why)

----

5.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the Function Discovery Provider Host Service (don't need it here is why) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically (well, in this case, POSSIBLY only).

----

6.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the Net.Tcp Port Sharing Service (don't need it here is why & this MIGHT be somewhat of a 'security risk' too, imo @ least, in leaving it "on" & running 24x7) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically (well, in this case, POSSIBLY only).

----

7.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the SSDP Service (don't need it here is why & it "ties in" with UPnP below (read that one))

----

8.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the UPnP Service (don't need it here is why & UPnP has been KNOWN to have vulnerabilities over time, in OS & in routers even, which IS noted in this guide as to how/when/where/why/what can be 'dangerous' about it...)

----

9.) I have also turned off (set disabled) the WinHTTP Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Service (don't need it here is why) - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically (well, in this case, POSSIBLY only).

----

* THAT'S THE END OF SERVICES TRIMMINGS (more on that & a GOOD SOLID CURRENT GUIDE FOR THAT? It's in my "P.S." below... for even more speed & possible security gains you get by turning off services you do NOT need possibly, running in the background when you really do NOT need them to be, soaking up CPU cycles, memory, & other types of I/O your programs you actually USE, could use, instead! Just common-sense, imo...)

ANYHOW - onto the LOCAL AREA NETWORK CONNECTION"

10.) Turn off Client for Microsoft Networking, QoS, + File & Print Sharing in your LOCAL NETWORK CONNECTION (avoiding the potential for shared disk/file/folder access even more, & do this ONLY IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONNECT TO A LAN/WAN (local or remote) for disk/folder/file sharing only, or if you are NOT part of a HOME or WORK LAN/WAN)... & really, any others, other than TCP/IP (this you need for online access).

While you are there, in your LOCAL AREA CONNECTION?

Well - Additionally, You can DISABLE TCP over NETBIOS as well in the LOCAL AREA CONNECTIONS' properties for Tcp/IP, & the ADVANCED button, then click on the WINS tab & check "DISABLE NetBIOS over TCP/IP"... &, there are a few more too, read on:

Extra protocols &/or services that Windows 7 has, such as "Link Layer Topology Discovery Mapper I/O Driver" &/or "Link Layer Discovery Responder" can also be "cranked off" & apparently to NO DETRIMENT EITHER (I have been running for weeks now without it & I am here posting, aren't I? If that doesn't say or prove it for me, not much will I guess... lol!)

I also add in OpenDNS' servers there in the DNS tab (advanced Tcp/IP properties) & their IP addresses are:

208.67.220.220
208.67.200.200

(They are a FASTER DNS system, & respond to fixes + patching faster than any other did when Mr. Dan Kaminsky found the holes & security vulnerabilities he did last yr. in the Domain Name System (DNS)).

LASTLY (though this is more of a "speedup" than a securing tip)? Try this:

Create/paste this into notepad.exe & save it with a .cmd extension (32/64-bit batchfile really, just ends in .cmd rather than .bat, as 16-bit command.com driven ones did in DOS & Windows too)

@echo off
echo Setting TCP/IP flags...
echo -----------------------
echo This only succeeds when run as an administrator,
echo when run as a user it only shows the current settings.
echo.
pause
echo.
netsh int tcp set global rss=enabled
netsh int tcp set global chimney=automatic
netsh int tcp set global netdma=enabled
netsh int tcp set global dca=enabled
netsh int tcp set global autotuninglevel=normal
netsh int tcp set global congestionprovider=ctcp
netsh int tcp set global ecncapability=enabled
netsh int tcp set global timestamps=disabled
pause
cls
echo Current settings:
echo -----------------
netsh int tcp show global
pause

Then, lastly, run it... (create a shortcut to it, & use the ADVANCED button in the shortcut to "RUN AS ADMINISTRATOR"). This is supposed to speed up & help your IPStack perform better/faster, in Windows 7. I just tried it today, seems to work ok (no detrimental effects so far @ least that is).

Anyhow: "Onwards & Upwards!"

----

11.) IF you use a "largish" custom HOSTS file? TURN OFF THE DNS CLIENT SERVICE (which is just like the ones in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, which this guide covered MOSTLY as to how to secure those)... - do NOT do this if you are part of a LAN/WAN though, you need it in those environs typically, especially on an "AD Network" on a LAN/WAN (Active Directory is HEAVILY dependent on DNS is why).

* NOW, if you do not do this (turn off the DNS cache local client service), & you use a larger HOSTS file? You will LAG, & badly... amazingly badly in fact!

(I have written MS on this, only to have it "fall on deaf ears" really, so this IS the 'workaround' for that, rather unfortunately, because I believe it can be fixed for larger HOSTS files too, by altering how much can go into the C/C++ structure for records that DNS uses, based on reference BSD designs @ least (I don't have MS' sourcecode so... well, I can only guess on their designs, though they, like most others, tended to use the BSD model to start from @ least for TCP/IP)).

----

12.) USE A CUSTOM HOSTS FILE (for BOTH added SPEED, but more importantly FOR BETTER SECURITY ONLINE):

Custom HOSTS files can literally double your speed online via blocking adbanners (good & bad ones) + having the option to "hardcode in" your favorite websites IP Addresses into a HOSTS file next to its HOSTNAME/DOMAINNAME, avoiding having to call out to remote DNS servers (many of which have been found exploitable, even the allegedly "invulnerable djbdns system", by Mr. Dan Kaminsky & others in case you are interested in specifics here on this note), saving a GOOD 30-N ms roundtrip traveltime per call to remote DNS server to resolve a URL to an IP address...

BUT, their best benefit? Even better than "double your normal internet surfing speed online" (it will get faster, read here in fact):

----

RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:

(by Mr. Oliver Day)

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

----

So reiterating this: Even BETTER THAN THE SPEED GAINS HOSTS FILES PROVIDE, ARE the SECURITY GAINS!

I.E./E.G.-> I have a pal named Jack, a PI by trade & license/degree, who used to get (no joke) 200++ viruses a week... NOT ANYMORE! He is CONVINCED, as am I, that a good current HOSTS file that blocks out known BAD SERVERS is the key here... as well as his saying literally "my intenet goes TWICE AS FAST with a HOSTS file"...

(FOR GOOD RELIABLE/REPUTABLE HOSTS FILES? There are many good ones!)

Try here ->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file

& you can use sites like Mr. Dancho Danchev's security blog to update them even more for securiity (i.e. - for the latest in listings of botnet "Command & Control Servers" or bad sites with malware on them in general, here -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ )

OR

Just use "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" instead, as it updates your HOSTS vs. known bad websites (& your webbrowser of choice's private block lists, such as IE "Restricted Zones" here -> HKCU,"Software\ Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Zones\4 or via Internet Options in CONTROL PANEL, & others like Opera maintain private .ini files (URLFILTER.INI &/or FILTER.INI) for the same general purpose))

E.G.-> Over the past 10 yrs. or so now, those sites have helped me build upt a custom HOSTS file version that has over 660,000++ entries in it, of KNOWN BAD SERVERS OF ALL KINDS...

Mine COMBINES mvps.org's & the one I built up myself since 1997, alongside all those @ the wikipedia site for HOSTS files above, that is completely free of duplicate entries (via a program I wrote & posted of here, "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++") & uses the SMALLEST + FASTEST POSSIBLE INTERNAL FORMAT for them on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (0 blocking "ip address", e.g.-> 0 www.knownbadmalwaresite.com ) OR for Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 (using 0.0.0.0 which though larger than 0, is the only thing that still works on those most modern versions of Windows)

(ODD THAT, that diff. in blocking IP address used, but the dual layer IPv4/IPv6 tcpip driver in VISTA onwards must have facilitated this, but it too, up until 12/09/2008 could ALSO USE THE SMALLER & FASTER 0 BLOCKING "IP ADDRESS", but after that "Patch Tuesday", even VISTA no longer could... so, I am not sure of WHY MS has pulled this though I have confronted them numerous times on it, repeatedly, & I noted it above also).

I mean, hey - Windows VISTA/Server 2008/& Windows 7?? They're ALL/EACHl based off Windows Server 2003 code, which still can use 0 though oddly, making for smaller & faster HOSTS files - so why doesn't MS allow this now?? Boggles my mind, but worse, is the fact they have evaded answering me on it several times (on their own forums, & on ones like SLASHDOT too + more).

----

PRACTICAL e.g. in the case of mine?

a.) Using 0 gets me a 14mb sized HOSTS file, same line entries as the ones below, just using 0 as "blocking IP address" (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 which ARE larger & thus, slower to read)...

Whereas, by way of comparison:

b.) Using 0.0.0.0 on Windows 7 is up to 18++mb in size...

c.) However, & WORST OF ALL for both speed & efficiency? 127.0.0.1, the default blocking address used, ends you up with a 22++mb sized HOSTS file!

So, as you can see? I save 30% or so using 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 (have to use THIS latter one though, on VISTA/WinSrv2k8/Windows 7 though, what a shame) in filesize & thus loadspeed of my HOSTS file, AND approximately ALMOST 50% in size vs. using 127.0.0.1 - to any "naysayers" on this account, I can only say:

"Argue with the numbers", & GOOD LUCK (you'll need it, more like a miracle really).

----

(This turning away of being able to use 0 in a HOSTS in VISTA onwards (again, wasn't always this way in VISTA mind you) is "bloated", because 0 &/or 0.0.0.0 do the same valuable blocking, & are smaller + faster to load because of the size diff.... so, "do the math" yourself, & realize also that smaller files load & parse faster (line by line, in a WHILE loop, with each line terminating in a CR+LF (carriage return + linefeed/enter keypress), & eventually when the "EOF" (end-of-file trailer record-marker) is hit signalling the end of the file & thus the read loop in the File Open/Read-Write/Flush-Close I-O cycle)...

Funniest part of all, is this: Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a legit blocking IP address in its ORIGINAL DISTRO on CD from MS: They added it LATER... & kept it all the way into VISTA, until 12/09/2008 MS "patch tuesday"... why change it now, especially when it does a GOOD THING for a great thing (hosts files)? And, ping'ing a 0 blocked site from your HOSTS file, on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 gets back a 0.0.0.0, a legit IP address (proving this is indeed, LEGIT TO USE, period... so, why did MS remove it, if it makes a HOSTS file smaller & faster?)

----

13.) Look @ your TCP/IP rules "INBOUND" tables in the "ADVANCED FIREWALL CONNECTIONS" section of your Windows Firewall (Run this command for a quick link to it -> %windir%\system32\WF.msc )

There?

Well, I have personally successfully turned off /BLOCKED an ENTIRE ARRAY OF DEFAULT ALLOWABLE PROTOCOLS I JUST PERSONALLY DO NOT NEED & I am again, here posting, just fine (after reboots & all mind you).

(ALSO - this section here? WELL - This may vary by what you yourself need to do though, so bear that in mind)...

PERSONALLY - I only left the "Core Networking" sections/lines as ALLOWED IN (& I am certain I can block out a couple of those too, but this is all what I have done "so far", successfully, only... more will come in the future I am sure on this one from myself, or others too).

----

14.) A good run of secpol.msc (using its Account Policies &/or Local Policies Left-Hand Side tree items/folders).

(& on secpol.msc, I applied "AnalogX's IP Security Policy", in the IP Security Policies section also (which I mention in this guide here earlier, & in AnalogX, & WHERE TO GET IT, with directions to install it (cake-easy) & it works great still, too!)

PLUS I added myself as an ADMINISTRATOR user to nearly EVERY category in "User Rights Assignment"! I removed AND DENIED out the following users/groups in my DENY sections (the toughest ones really) in the secpol SECURITY OPTIONS section:

DIALUP
TERMINAL SERVER USER/GROUP (I don't use OR allow this here, you may)
GUEST
ANONYMOUS LOGON (especially this one)
Remote Desktop Users (I don't use OR allow that here either)
REMOTE INTERACTIVE LOGON
IIS Users (I don't host a website here is why on this note)

(STEER CLEAR OF THE DCOM RELATED SETTINGS GUYS - I DID THAT & CAUSED MYSELF A LOT OF "PAIN" (not really - Windows7 recovery bootup from install DVD or System Repair CD let me restore from a Restore Point perfectly once, & a System Image once, & those are the only other times I redid or had to redo this system on Windows 7, which happened the first day, while I was learning more (during tuning tests like these, or checking which boards/cards still worked for me here on Windows 7)... I'd try to help YOU avoid that, though it was not bad!

I do this, this way, here... simply because I have run for the past 15++ yrs. now that way (beyond "STD. ADMINISTRATOR" or "SYSTEM" level rights even)... I do so, successfully!

& despite the 'common belief' it's 'dangerous to do'? Well... I do that, & have not gotten infested/infected since, oh, around 1996-1997 that I know of @ least, but then I know to avoid using the "main malware delivery tools" in IFRAMES + JAVASCRIPT mostly, online, & also what sites I use that have proven reputable too (which some of you may or MAY NOT wish to elect to do on the elevated ADMIN/SYSTEM-LIKE rights assigned to yourself... &, epsecially if you believe in & espouse the UAC "least privelege principal", because its theory is SOUND, but it's not always that way in practice (per folks still getting infested in VISTA, & of course, the antivirus-antispyware test I note here in THIS POST, too))

E.G.-> There, in the I gave myself every right possible under the sun almost (those who believe in the principal of "least privelege is safer" disregard this, & it's so UAC keeps "protecting you" (though it's not that great vs today's threats, it did stop 3/10 of the ones thrown @ it here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/08/0233248 , it's still NO "Cure" for a user that does not give a hoot & just downloads + opens/runs any email attachment or binary executable from online that he finds, either)

----

15.) GET MICROSOFT SECURITY ESSENTIALS (especially if you do not have a Windows 7 compliant/compatible antispyware + antivirus program)... it has been rated + reviewed VERY WELL online in antivirus/antispyware competitions-contests/ratings, & I have been using it and it is fair FAST @ scanning files/folders plus, it is VERY LIGHT & operates QUITE "transparently" too... not much lag, IF any, is perceptiable from it & it updates, daily too AND IS 100% FREE and WORKS!

----

16.) Do the "FileSystem" & "Registry Hives" ACL security tip I noted here, adding yourself + SYSTEM (& any user groups YOU are part of, & removing other users that do NOT need to be there right out)... it works for security too.

----

17.) Doing the above, on Windows? Between ALL THAT ABOVE should "do the job" & between that + running a tool like Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer 2.1.1 (there are 32 &/or 64 bit models out there now mind you too + I posted the download links to them above here earlier a couple posts up from this one)!

====

Doing ALL that to a Windows 7 System that is a "stand-alone" single system hooked to the internet only (not a LAN/WAN or home network)? You SHOULD be "OK"/Fine, for now @ least, on a secured Windows 7 setup...

(NICE PART IS, imo thusfar @ least? Well, that is that it really SEEMS you do not have to do NEARLY ANYWHERE AS MUCH as what you had to do for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 though really, for security)

... Especially since MS has really, REALLY done a GOOD JOB of securing services for instance, so you don't really have to do that step anymore as I outlined in this guide early on, for securing services & for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 for the "utmost in security" even @ the services level, like MacOS X has for example... especially since MS has even helped THOSE older models of Windows do better there, via service packs + hotfixes for them altering the "logon SID entity indentifier" services use (LOCAL SYSTEM, vs. LOCAL SERVICE or the least priveleged in NETWORK SERVICE).

ANYHOW/ANYWAYS: Well - That's my "Top 17", so far @ least, for Windows 7, for now... IF I find more?

I'll put them up for your reference (and do pay attention to points in this guide too, as more than a few STILL APPLY to Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 still too)...

APK

P.S.=> NOW - For even MORE "speed-enhancing" services tunings (the above are for SECURITY mostly, but also help you gain speed by plain jane just not running them (pretty common-sense nowadays, & generally accepted as OK, even since the days when I authored what is probably the FIRST publicly noted guide for "Speedup & Securing Windows NT-based OS'" over @ NTCompatible.com as their "Article #1", which Neowin noted back in 2001 when they finally "got wind of it", here -> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/a...--security-text & they rated it very well also))?

Well, you may wish to check out "BLACK VIPER'S GUIDE", here:

http://www.blackviper.com/Windows_7/servicecfg.htm

It's GOOD, & VERY CURRENT + ACCURATE (& flexible)!

Amazes me, that ENTIRE SITES 'sprang up' out of the guide I did ages ago & based on the SAME PREMISE as my original guide was @ NTCompatible.com (circa 1997-2002) for NTCompatible.com as their "Article #1"....

... & I am glad because spreading good information around that makes the world a better place it is just fine by me @ least... (& Black Viper's is particularly OUTSTANDING in this regards, & he "kept up on it", keeping his website running & chock full of CURRENT INFORMATION on this topic, on more current OS (I stopped doing those around the time Windows VISTA came out is why, because it has a LARGELY "self-tuning IP stack" (when I did tunings for TCP/IP networking) & by that point, I had moved onto other areas (programming MOSTLY, vs. networking/tech stuff))... apk

Per this security notification from SECUNIA.COM:

http://secunia.com/advisories/37347/

Microsoft Windows SMB Response Denial of Service Vulnerability

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

----

"Description:

Laurent Gaffié has discovered a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows, which can be exploited by malicious people to cause a DoS (Denial of Service).

The vulnerability is caused due to an error when processing SMB packets received from an SMB server.

This can be exploited to hang an affected system by tricking a user into connecting to a malicious SMB server via e.g. a specially crafted web site opened in Internet Explorer.

The vulnerability is confirmed on a fully patched Microsoft Windows 7 and reported in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2."

AND:

'Solution:

Block outbound connections to untrusted SMB servers via a firewall."

----

So, that evidence as "said & aside"? Well...

THIS OUGHT TO SERVE, "in the meantime @ least" (until a patch from MS is issued next "Microsoft Patch Tuesday" I suppose) to "FIX" that problem:

(If it works, it's by pure luck & I posted it above as more of a "speed boost" by not running a service you do NOT really need (as a 'standalone single system logged into the internet only' but not attached to a home or work LAN/WAN), but the WORKSTATION service does function to provide SMB services, & cutting it off SHOULD technically "do the job here" to protect one's self vs. this "bug/possible exploit"....

So, quoting myself from above:



I guess, now, in this case, vs. this "bug?" Well, it IS a security patch too, & not just a "speed booster"... per the bolding I just did above, where I said it's really only a 'speed boost'.

So give this a go, alongside the firewall rules table vs. outbound SMB connections, for now @ least until MS patches it, for securing AND SPEEDING UP, a Windows 7 system!

(Once more -I did WORKSTATION SERVICE stalling, albeit, only for speed, but I wager, again, by luck, it should work vs. this bug also, just because of what WORKSTATION service provides (i.e.- SMB services)).

APK

P.S.=> Some work in IE may be needed also, but, this is all I have, for now, vs. this exploit possibility thusfar, so 'turn off' WORKSTATION SERVICE (once you have logged on that is, because I am NOT 110% sure you can & still logon to your Windows 7 systems is all) & do a firewall rule for outbound SMB connectivity...

(Albeit @ this point, I am NOT sure if you can do that AND still LOGON to Windows, so only turn it off in services.msc once you have logged yourself in, & DO PAY ATTENTION TO CREATING A FIREWALL RUN FOR OUTBOUND SMB BASED CONNECTIONS, BLOCKING THEM FROM GOING "OUTBOUND" FROM YOUR SYSTEMS TOO)... apk

Good news on setting WORKSTATION SERVICE to manual, in SERVICE.MSC, vs. this new flaw in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/VISTA:



Well, good news:

Upon testing this here, & on Windows 7? You CAN still logon to your system, even IF WORKSTATION SERVICE is set to "MANUAL" startup type in SERVICES.MSC (this also holds true all the way down to Windows 2000 SP #4, as I had my pal Jack the PI test it for me upon my request, & he too can logon to his Windows 2000 rig no problems, with WORKSTATION effectively disabled (via MANUAL, not DISABLED setting, for startup type on said service)).

Thus, again, since WORKSTATION SERVICE provides & manages SMB (server message block iirc, as to this acronym's expansion) services, & the single flaw in Windows 7 &/or Windows Server 2008 are exploited thus by a flaw in SMB? This SHOULD "take care of that too", lickety-split, no "SHEET"...

APK

P.S.=> Well, now that that's been "said & aside"? 'Onwards & UPWARDS!"... OH - & again: This is for machines that are "standalone systems" hooked to the internet via a DSL or Cable router (or even dialup), or thru a home Router/modem, that are NOT "ACTIVE DIRECTORY" or otherwise (SMB/NetBIOS/LanMan networking or NetBEUI even (or otherwise)) system: You will need to keep WORKSTATION service up & running in those environs, especially for shared disk/folder/file access in LAN/WAN environs... apk

Thanks APK, This is a big read and it will come in handy for me over the next few days.

Thanks Alot

Thanks vman...



Enjoy the read, but more importantly? Enjoy the faster & SAFER online experience you'll have if you follow & apply this guide's points!

APK

Microsoft Security Advisory: Vulnerability in Internet Explorer could allow remote code execution:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/977981

The new bug in IE6 & IE7 can be patched above (allowing IE6/7 to "opt-in" to DEP (data execution prevention)) using the "FIX IT" button noted there (which applies a database of apps to support DEP apparently, inclusive of IE variants).

The original article explaining the nature of the attack is here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...ory/977981.mspx

As well as it listing what Operating System versions are affected adversely thus, there.

APK

P.S. => This is the 2nd URL's list of affected IE versions, & on which Windows NT-based OS variants also:

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Microsoft is investigating new public reports of a vulnerability in Internet Explorer. This advisory contains information about which versions of Internet Explorer are vulnerable as well as workarounds and mitigations for this issue.

Our investigation so far has shown that Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 and Internet Explorer 8 on all supported versions of Microsoft Windows are not affected, and that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6 and Internet Explorer 7 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008 are affected.

The vulnerability exists as an invalid pointer reference of Internet Explorer. It is possible under certain conditions for a CSS/Style object to be accessed after the object is deleted. In a specially-crafted attack, Internet Explorer attempting to access a freed object can lead to running attacker-supplied code.

At this time, we are aware of no attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 and Internet Explorer 7. We will continue to monitor the threat environment and update this advisory if this situation changes. On completion of this investigation, Microsoft will take the appropriate action to protect our customers, which may include providing a solution through our monthly security update release process, or an out-of-cycle security update, depending on customer needs.

We are actively working with partners in our Microsoft Active Protections Program (MAPP) and our Microsoft Security Response Alliance (MSRA) programs to provide information that they can use to provide broader protections to customers. In addition, we’re actively working with partners to monitor the threat landscape and take action against malicious sites that attempt to exploit this vulnerability.

Microsoft continues to encourage customers to follow the "Protect Your Computer" guidance of enabling a firewall, applying all software updates and installing anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Additional information can be found at Security at home.

Mitigating Factors:

• Internet Explorer 8 is not affected.
• Protected Mode in Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista limits the impact of the vulnerability.
• In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker could host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content or advertisements could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability. In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these Web sites. Instead, an attacker would have to convince users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or Instant Messenger message that takes users to the attacker’s Web site.
• An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
• By default, Internet Explorer on Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 runs in a restricted mode that is known as Enhanced Security Configuration. This mode sets the security level for the Internet zone to High. This is a mitigating factor for Web sites that you have not added to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone.
• By default, all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Outlook Express, and Windows Mail open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone. The Restricted sites zone helps mitigate attacks that could try to exploit this vulnerability by preventing Active Scripting and ActiveX controls from being used when reading HTML e-mail messages. However, if a user clicks a link in an e-mail message, the user could still be vulnerable to exploitation of this vulnerability through the Web-based attack scenario.

General Information
Overview

Purpose of Advisory: To provide customers with initial notification of the publicly disclosed vulnerability. For more information see the Mitigating Factors, Workarounds, and Suggested Actions sections of this security advisory.

Advisory Status: The issue is currently under investigation.

Recommendation: Review the suggested actions and configure as appropriate.References Identification

CVE Reference
CVE-2009-3672

Microsoft Knowledge Base Article
977981

----

This advisory discusses the following software.Affected Software

Windows XP Service Pack 2

Windows XP Service Pack 3

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems

Windows Vista

Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2

Windows Vista x64 Edition

Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2

Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service pack 2

Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems, and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, Windows Server 2003 with SP2 for Itanium-based Systems, and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows Vista Service Pack 2, and Windows Vista x64 Edition, Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service Pack 2

Non-Affected Software:

Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 and Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Vista, Windows Vista Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista Service Pack 2, and Windows Vista x64 Edition, Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 1, and Windows Vista x64 Edition Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems and Windows Server 2008 for 32-bit Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems and Windows Server 2008 for x64-based Systems Service Pack 2

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7 for 32-bit Systems

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7 for x64-based Systems

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 R2 for x64-based Systems

Internet Explorer 8 in Windows Server 2008 R2 for Itanium-based Systems

----

... apk

I picked up on some information that you guys MAY wish to know about (especially IF you use Internet Explorer (all models/versions)):

GET THE PATCH FOR IE 5.01 - IE 8.0 (on ALL Windows versions of NT-based origins (2000/XP/Server 2003/Server 2008/VISTA/Windows 7)) FOLKS!

It was issued "Out-Of-Band" (meaning MS didn't wait for "Patch Tuesday" to roll around again (2nd Tuesday of every month)).

(&, you can do that via "Windows Update" of course, but that takes MORE TIME for that to "take" typically, than nabbing it directly, here would do for you, since you can install it yourselves, directly & immediately):

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms10-jan.mspx

This isn't a joke people & it's NOT THE SAME BUG IN MY LAST POST ABOUT IE EITHER!

So, please... See here:

Widespread attacks exploit newly patched IE bug:

http://www.itworld.com/security/93670/wide...-patched-ie-bug

It's seriously being exploited, & that's only what they KNOW about.

IF you are having trouble FINDING the link to the download for this IE 5-8 patch, for most ALL Windows NT-based OS' by Microsoft?

Try this:

MS10-002 Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (978207)

Look for THAT on the page...

(There you go, per FloppyBootStomp, a moderator @ this website -> http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3511888-7.php where this security guide is also hosted, who had noted it was a bit difficult to find there, per the IE security vulnerability I noted above in my last post...)

APK

P.S.=> Well, to save you time? The DIRECT linkage is here -> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms10-002.mspx so, "have @ it" folks, & , "there ya are"... So, after all? It's YOUR MONEY & TIME folks! (that's all) - Enjoy... apk

A security vulnerability exists in, and has existed in since 1992-1993, the emulation subsystems for DOS &/or Win16 applications under 32-bit versions of Windows NT-based OS:

Microsoft Security Advisory (979682)

Vulnerability in Windows Kernel Could Allow Elevation of Privilege:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...ory/979682.mspx

----

THE "FIX":

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SubSystems

(via removing support for said subsystems by blanking out the files they point to.)

These excerpts will help you identify each component used:

The NTVDM:

16 bit DOS and older 16 bit windows applications are supported by the NT virtual DOS machine (NTVDM) which runs in the Client/Server Runtime (CSR) subsystem. Since each copy of the NTVDM is given its own thread of execution, if it fails, it will not affect the operating system or other programs.

The following components support the NTVDM:

NTVDM.EXE - Starts the NTVDM and emulated the DOS environment.

NTIO.SYS - Emulates the DOS IO.SYS system file.

NTDOS.SYS - Emulates the DOS.SYS file.

Virtual Device Driver (VDD) - Used to allow DOS to interface with system devices on various ports such as the mouse, keyboard, serial ports, parallel ports, and video devices. This component is required since DOS expects to access hardware devices directly, but cannot do so when running on Windows NT.

VDMREDIR.DLL - Redirects file system input/output requests to the Win32 subsystem.

AUTOEXEC.NT - Replacement for AUTOEXEC.BAT.

CONFIG.NT - Replacement for CONFIG.SYS.

NT always loads a PIF for MS-DOS based applications. You can create a PIF to define requirements of the DOS application such as memory needs. In Windows NT 4.0, the PIF settings can be accessed by right clicking on the DOS executable file and selecting properties. On RISC based systems, an instruction execution unit (IEU) works with the NTDVM to emulate I383 Intel processor instruction sets.

----

What this "fix" (hopefully only needed temporarily) does, is remove the subsystem for DOS/Win16 applications.

It is the ONLY "work-around" I am aware of for this until it is fixed, IF ever, and it is very similar to a recommendation that others "tear out" the POSIX subsystem for the same potential reasons: Security vulnerabilities issues.

(The only people that need to be concerned here, are those running 32-bit versions of Windows NT-based OS (NT 3.x, NT 3.5x, NT 4.0, Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008/7), because 64-bit versions of Windows OS do not have a 16-bit subsystem emulator present in them)

APK

P.S.=> Many, if not MOST, people today can do without these entries, UNLESS they have legacy applications from DOS or 16-bit Windows applications they need for "mission critical" purposes... those folks will have to leave these in place until a fix is created by Microsoft (the same can go for those who don't need this as well, but you "take your chances" until MS fixes this)... apk

To help users automate this fix for the security issue in the NTVDM DOS 16-bit emulation subsystem present in 32-bit Windows NT-based OS (all of them & since 1992-1993 no less) that was noted in my last post above, You can do this far faster/easier/simpler, by using something Microsoft themselves devised to make it easier & simpler than registry editing, see the URL below:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/979682

(It's easier/faster/simpler than wholesale disabling via renames or deletions of the files the NTVDM DOS 16-bit emulation subsystems components as shown above OR via registry edits, & thus, you can use what's in that URL above instead (and enable it again easily enough when a fix arrives IF you choose to do so as well)).

APK

Hello there..

Thank you very much for posting such a nice suggestion.
Nice work.

Thank you..

--------------------------------------------------------

Stuart Johnson

ClickSSL.com | geotrust quickssl premium, true business ssl, geo trust ssl

Stuart,

First of all - You're welcome.

Secondly - The guide's an evolution of the VERY FIRST ONE ever written for Windows (when I did the "APK A-Z Speedup & Security Guide for Windows NT based OS" which was reviewed well by the folks @ NEOWIN (a widely travelled forums) in 2001 here -> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/a...--security-text )

That's only after the folks there @ NEOWIN found it on NTCompatible.com's "articles & guides" section of their forums (where it was originally hosted 1997-2002) which the "way back machine" still shows that much (as to where it originated & when) -> http://web.archive.org/web/20010405012842/.../article1.shtml

It literally is/was "the first of its kind" in fact, for Windows NT-based OS'...

Thing is, that older guide would only take you to roughly a 67/100 of the security score on the CIS Tool test (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003) via its points/patches/suggestions... this "latest evolution"?

Well, as you can see from the screenshots here, this latest edition gets you to up to a 99/100 on the same test.

Thus, just "gonig by the numbers"? You can see, that it's gotten MUCH BETTER/STRONGER since the "original edition".

Lastly: So I hope you have read through it's entire suggestions listed here, & applied them to your system + those of others (such as friends, family & possibly clients of yours too) you know also.

Overall, to implement ALL of it, takes around 1-3 hours of your time (less if you automate certain registry hacks etc. et al), but, it's WELL WORTH IT, because it will get you YEARS (decades here actually) of virus/spyware/worm/rootkit/trojan/malware-in-general stable & secure + faster uptime.

How much so?

Well, here is a "glowing recommendation" from someone who has done all of the above, from another website that features this security guide also:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430 [xtremepccentral.com]

PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/show...8430&page=2 [xtremepccentral.com]

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" (04/2008)

"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything!"

and

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/show...8430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com

----



So, to quote Mr. Tony Stark from the hit film "IRON MAN" in 2009, per his statement about his "ARC REACTOR TECHNOLOGY"? Well... "It works!"

APK

P.S.=> In the end, I hope it does the same for you, as it has for users like Thronka above... enjoy! apk

The use of a CUSTOM ADBANNER BLOCKING HOSTS FILE (my personal one houses, as of this date, 90,000 known adbanner servers, OR sites known to bear malicious code & exploits (per GOOGLE mostly, from stopbadware.org))

Custom HOSTS files work in combination with Opera adbanner blocks & the usage of .PAC filering files + cascading style sheets for this purpose.

(As well as speeding up access to sites I often access - doing this, acting as my own "DNS Server" more or less, is orders of magnitude faster than calling out to my ISP/BSP DNS servers, waiting out a roundtrip return URL-> IP Address resolution. It may take some maintenance for this @ times, especially if sites change HOSTING PROVIDERS, but this is a rarity & most sites TELL YOU when they do this as well, so you can make fast edits, as needed (and, on Windows NT-based OS since 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA? A reboot is NOT required upon edits & commits of changes in the new largely near fully PnP IP stacks!))

For a copy of mine, write me, here -> apk4776239@hotmail.com

And, I will send it to you in .zip or .rar format (with sped up sites # UNIX comment symbol disabled, enable the ones you use AFTER you 'ping' them first from my list, & add ones YOU PERSONALLY USE to it as needed after determining their IP address via a PING of them)

OR, JUST DOWNLOAD IT HERE:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.p...mp;d=1172567412


----------------------------------------------------

Martin Lawrence

ClickSSL.com | geotrust reseller, renew ssl, 2048 bit ssl

Hello Martin (you're a namesake of a pretty famous comedian):

I take it that you are a fan of CUSTOM HOSTS file usage. If so, then you have a great defense system, & also one that also speeds you up by:

----

A.) Blocking out known bad sites &/or servers (such as botnet "command & control" servers, or bogus nameservers) to secure you
B.) Speeding you up by blocking out adbanners (which have been shown to bear malicious code over the past 1/2 decade now also @ times mind you, per "The Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus" -> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219)
C.) Speeding you up by "hardcoding in" your favorite websites also into them (which is faster than calling out to a potentially downed OR compromised (dns poisoning, look that up) DNS server as well)

----

Also, since others may find MY "personal opinion" (fact based or not) & anecdotal evidences insufficient? Well, there is also the findings of Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM as well, in his article entitled "RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE":

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

----

PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet — particularly browsing the Web — is actually faster now."

"The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

----

I have been espousing the use of CUSTOM HOSTS FILES since 1997, in my "Article #1" for NTCompatible.com (an example thereof is here -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html where a forums moderator mentions this - Albeit, he likes custom DNS servers better though, but he failed to realize & foresee that DNS poisoning would occur (see Dan Kaminsky onlhine for that, & FAR MORE, that's wrong w/ DNS servers) OR, that bugs would follow in them also (even the allegedly impregnable "DJBDNS" was found with errors, & the author of it, Dan J. Bernstein honorably paid the $10,000 for any security bugs found too mind you for the ones found in it), + lastly, DNS servers use CPU cycles like MAD over HOSTS files... period!)

Thus, as you can see?

Custom HOSTS files work wonders in those capacities for BOTH added speed & security online today (especially today, in the era of the poisoned DNS server, malware laden adbanner, & maliciously javascript coded websites & HTML emails galore (this last one ought to "strike home better" on that last note especially -> "95% of User-Generated Content Is Bogus" -> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/07/0126226 AND "Web App Scanners Miss Half of Vulnerabilities" -> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/06/1933211 ))

HOSTS files are also SUPERIOR to things like ADBLOCK (which only works for MOZILLA/FIREFOX Browsers), ala these facts:

----

1.) HOSTS files eat no CPU cycles like browser addons do no less!

2.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ) & edited too.

3.) HOSTS files aren't as vulnerable to "bugs" either like programs/libs/extensions of that nature are, OR even DNS servers.

4.) HOSTS files are a solution which also globally extends to EVERY WEBBOUND APP YOU HAVE

5.) HOSTS files are also EASILY secured well, via write-protection "read-only" attributes set on them, or more radically, via ACL's even.

6.) HOSTS files are also NOT severely LIMITED TO 1 BROWSER FAMILY ONLY... browser addons, are. HOSTS files cover & protect (for security) and speed up (all apps that are webbound) any app you have that goes to the internet (specifically the web).

7.) HOSTS files allow you to bypass DNS Server requests logs (via hardcoding your favorite sites into them to avoid not only the TIME taken roundtrip to an external DNS server, but also for avoiding those logs OR a DNS server that has been compromised (see Dan Kaminsky online, on that note)).

8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR.

9.) HOSTS files also allow you to not worry about a DNS server being compromised, or downed (if either occurs, you STILL get to sites you hardcode in a HOSTS file anyhow in EITHER case).

10.) ADBLOCK DOES NOT ALLOW A USER DIRECT EDITABLE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT BLOCKS (afaik, @ least - feel free to correct me IF I am in error here (thanks)).

----



* However - The BEST part of all is, that HOSTS files do work with things like ADBLOCK though... & in a "layered security" way, which is what this guide of mine was, all about...

Be sure to remember to write protect (apply READ ONLY attributes) to your HOSTS file, &/or even more "radically" protect them, via ACL's on the files only being allowed to say, your ADMINISTRATOR level/root/superuser accounts (so only THEY can edit them, because malwares such as QHOSTS have been known to overwrite & use a HOSTS file against you too - just something to be aware of!)

LOL - I consider the use of a HOSTS file the "arc reactor" of this guide in fact, & the "heart of my defense" actually... because again, per Tony Stark/Iron Man from the hit film once more?

"IT WORKS..."

Additionally, they are like an "arc reactor" in that you CAN make them smaller, by using 0 as the internal blocking address for bad sites & bad servers that are "malscripted"...

(Caveat, hopefully ONLY TEMPORARILY TOO, more below on why I state that too)

That use of 0 as your blocking address in HOSTS files now only works on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 though, when it used to work on VISTA even & was in Windows 2000 as far back as a service pack for it... albeit, NOT IN ITS ORIGINAL DISTRO ON CD! It was obviously added later, & with good reason - SPEED & EFFICIENCY OF ITS LOADS + BETTER SPEED OF A HOSTS FILES' INTERNAL PARSINGS RESULT!

However:

I have been in contact w/ the head of Microsoft's "Windows Client Performance Division" @ MS in Richard Russell in regards to having the ability to use the smaller, faster, & more efficient 0 blocking address again in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7 being reinstated again, via email & per discussions on /. (SLASHDOT) we have had & he is looking into w/ the Microsoft IP Stack team - He says he will have my answers by March...

See, in HOSTS, as far as using 0? Again - it used to be usable in VISTA until 12/09/2008 on MS "Patch Tuesday", but then suddenly after that? It no longer could... bad move!

Why?

Well, because parsing 0 is 6 bytes less, per each blocking line record, in a HOSTS than the next smallest in 0.0.0.0

AND

Using 0 as a blocking address in a HOSTS file is 8 bytes, per each blocking line record, less in a HOSTS file than is 127.0.0.1 (which also incurs a "loopback operation" also (ontop of being larger & slower to parse)).

----

E.G.-> Using 0, vs. 0.0.0.0, vs. 127.0.0.1 as blocking addresses in a HOSTS file yields these hosts file sizes here (so you can "do the math" & your own comparisons for filesize efficiency alone):

0 = 14mb HOSTS file size (655,000++ records long, all same as the others)

0.0.0.0 = 18mb HOSTS file size (655,000++ records long, all same as the others)

127.0.0.1 = 24mb HOSTS file size (655,000++ records long, all same as the others)

----

So, like IRON MAN (Tony Stark) in the great hit film once more? LOL, you can make them smaller, like Stark did w/ his ARC REACTOR... smaller, faster, & MORE EFFICIENT, yet yielding the exact same valuable blocking function (doing more with less IS GOOD ENGINEERING).

Pretty self-evident, & larger files LOAD SLOWER THAN SMALLER ONES DO, by far in this case (especially considering comparing 0 to 127.0.0.1, which is an approximately 61% filesize diff. alone, & nothing to "sneeze at" by any means).

APK

P.S.=> Another "true beauty" of HOSTS files use is, that even IF you "suck in" a malware of somekind, & one that attempts to "call back to mama" for orders (such as botnets do to their command & control servers)? They won't be able to, IF your HOSTS file has entries blocking the ability to talk to their "C&C" servers... bonus!

(Sure: A malware COULD theoretically use a hardcoded IP address inside of itself, but, once those are spotted? Many times they get 'shut down' & that would defeat the purpose of using a hardcoded IP address in a malware, so... typically, the malware makers use URL's & over and over again IF NEED BE, "recycling them" (which, even in the case of their hosting providers hosting them booting them out, OR, if they get shutdown? They can just sign up with another hosting provider and start again (since they own that domain name, it can be up & running again quickly enough because of that & under the SAME domainname/hostname)).

On a "side-note" - I see you have the same signature that Stuart above did... apk

the use of the hosts file has worked for me in many ways.
for one it stops ad banners, it helps speed up your computer as well.
if you need more proof i am writing to you on a 400 hertz computer and i run with ease.
i do not get 200++ viruses and spy ware a month as i use to. now i am lucky if i get 1 or 2 viruses a month.

if you want my opinion if you stick to what APK says in his article about securing your computer then you will be safe and should not get any viruses or spy ware, but if you do get hit with viruses and spy ware then it will your own fault.
keep up the good fight APK.

Will do, and thanks for the review of HOSTS files' effectiveness (as well as this guide's steps too, KingsJoker)... it doesn't get any better than that I suppose!

I'd also like to say "kudos to you" for discovering & using this guide's techniques/tips/tricks above & beyond the HOSTS file as well, + offering a testimonial to its overall efficacy also!

Plus - I liked how you "closed off" your opinion/estimation too, & in that IF you do as this guide states, + IF you catch something after applying its points, then? Then, it's most likely YOUR own fault - I'd love to tell everyone this thing's "perfect", but, new security vulnerabilities "pop up" & get discovered + used, THEN patched later unfortunately... it's a fact of life in a complex science is all!

(Plus, I can't stop "human nature" after all - & that's the hardest one! See, I do KNOW that folks will violate the "javascript abstinence" or violate the "rule/practice" it notes, of @ least only use javascript on sites they absolutely trust & where you ABSOLUTELY NEED IT (say on online banking or shopping/e-commerce websites for example, there are others too, but those "spring to mind" here first)... Using javascript SPARINGLY keeps you safe nowadays, instead of "everywhere" where it's NOT really needed for many sites!)

I say this, because well... even though javascript's handy as all get-out for many things, it's also a "double-edged sword" & most of the security vulnerabilities I have seen are delivered by malscripted javascript pages &/or HTML mails + bogusly scripted Adobe Acrobat .PDF files, & most any security vulnerabilities site bears this out for me or anyone by reading their years' long analysis (@ places like SECURITYFOCUS.COM or SECUNIA.COM for example)

Once more, in closing? Thanks for applying this guide's points, & thanks for the nice review!

Sincerely,

APK

P.S.=> Time to go enjoy a FRIDAY NITE..!!! apk

impressive work Enlightened you have have spent lot of time... thanks

Thank you.

As to time spent? Well... it was SOME time, on & off, albeit over many years - Especially since things DO & DID change between Windows NT-based OS variants over time.

(This MAY be "tough to believe" but, afaik? It appears that I actually put out the FIRST speedup & security guide like this, way, Way, WAY back in 1998 or so for NTCompatible.com, which "the wayback machine" still shows evidence of here, & it IS the oldest of its kind I can find online in fact for speeding up AND securing Windows NT-based OS' -> http://web.archive.org/web/20010202174900/.../article1.shtml & long before that too there, circa 1997-1998 iirc, such as 3dfiles.com (now majorgeeks.com) & other forums I had posted it on over time also, such as the latter noted one).

So it appears that I actually wrote the FIRST guide for Windows NT-based OS in that regards, because I have yet to find evidence of one older that predates it... if anyone can? I'll "eat those words", & gladly I suppose, because I'd be off/wrong - it's just that I have not found an older source for one predating that which I wrote above, which has grown into this one is all.

(Also, in regards to that early version of this guide? Well, later @ NeoWin, their folks noted it & liked it a lot too -> http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-inte...--security-text , & it reviewed well there as far back as in 2001 in fact also)!

So, again - This one's just an "evolution/outgrowth" of it I decided to do @ the 'tail-end' of 2007 is all (for my "New Year's Resolution" of "Do-The-Right-Thing")... it was some time, but I am glad others enjoy & use it.

It works (takes a bit of discipline w/ javascript though, for it to TOTALLY work, & patching + other things too though).

APK

P.S.=> I am especially glad, however, for those who have "latched onto" the use of a HOSTS file for gains in BOTH security (and speed), such as Kings Joker above... it works, & especially for the concept of "layered security" most of all - which again, is what this guide was ALL about (it seems to work, not only for myself, but also for others)... apk