"DougNews" <DougNews@Doesn'tWork.net> wrote in message
news:BK_Ka.13723$2D1.3817024@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
accessing web, news, email, ICQ...


????

Clive

That's good - scvhost is a virus/trojan component (as compared to svchost -
a Windows component).

OK, seriously, at some point we have to trust some programs - whether it is
the firewall or Windows or.... By allowing this and minimizing services in
XP, you have tightened up security of the OS. Maybe you have a rule set to
allow DNS, DHCP (if needed), etc. through separately from the svchost
(Generic host...) settings. While I agree that we should usually deny
access first and allow it later as needed, this is the one case I usually
let go and tighten the OS services themselves.


"Clive" <c5d@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AJ%Ka.8469$Pk2.60429372@news-text.cableinet.net...

And that is the problem. One stops svchost.exe for some reason. It's not
svchost.exe that wants access to the Internet. It's a sub-component program
like a dll (possible Trojan program) that is using svchost.exe on its behalf
to get out.

So one stops svchost.exe this time and one doesn't know what really wants
access to the Internet.

Then one lets svchost.exe have access to the Internet for some other
possible legit reason.

What happened to that other reason svchost.exe was stopped?

Duane

--
The protection of the machine is a process and not a given!

And that is why proper firewalls include application DLL authentication or
component control, isn't it? Your point is correct for firewalls that don't
have controls over components but Sygate (and ZAP) does, which is the one of
concern to the original poster.

"Duane Arnold" <notme@notme.com> wrote in message
news:cjhLa.41712$Fy6.12534@sccrnsc03...

Nothing against Tiny but the answer is NO.

Duane

--
The protection of the machine is a process and is not a given!
"joe" <joe@joe.net> wrote in message news:3F05890F.D211D3D8@joe.net...