How many scanners do I need?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by KF4BUS, Sep 25, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DrSeltsam

    DrSeltsam Guest

    >I know that at least with past versions of ZA port 53 is under certain circumstances/certain
    >operating systems not blocked, because DNS doesn't work on some computers if it is blocked. I
    >don't remember, but I think it was only for UDP port 53, and I think it was only for inbound (as I
    >say, I don't remember for sure, but it was a fairly limited set of circumstances). However, given
    >that what the vast majority of users have listening on port 53 is their operating system's DNS
    >client, I fail to see how this translates into a way to circumvent ZA. Are you saying there is en
    >exploitable bug in the Windows DNS client?

    Nope. Tested it. Using windows 2000 sp3 with a za 3.x version (doesn't know which exact - maybe its outdated) and did a connect to a computer with remote port 53. There was no warning.

    >Also, as you imply, with ZA Pro and ZA Plus, you can configure the firewall to block port 53 as well.

    but then you can not solve domain names i think :eek:).

    >The socket layer is but *one piece* of ZA's security. If you "kick out" this layer to try to initiate a
    >new connection, ZA will block you.

    Ok. I tried it. Coded a simple service application, start it, terminate all za stuff in memory and kicked the layer out. Not problem to connect :eek:). Maybe this is fixed.

    >>Third za can be circumwent using its own protocol stack.

    Sorry, bad english. If you use an own protocoll stack you can circumwent ZA. Tested it a few time ago. But i am not sure if 2.x or 3.x - sorry.

    >Here I confess my own ignorance. I have heard this phrase before, and I'm not sure if it refers to
    >loading of a bad dll (which ZAP can protect against by notifying the user when a new or changed dll
    >loads), or something else. I know I've heard the developers here (Zone Labs) talk about this, so I
    >suspect you are talking about something else.

    Nope - doesn't mean a "bad dll". I mean something diffrent ;o). Patching the process directly.

    >Where did you get the idea that ZA doesn't do stateful packet inspection or monitor other protocols
    >besides TCP or UDP?

    Sorry, bad english ;o). I mean ZA doesn't monitor ACK Packets, Echo Replys and so on that can be used for a communication :eek:).

    >>Sixth za doesn't check if the user realy clicks on the "permit" button ;o).
    >Is this the same thing as the "process injection" you were mentioning before?

    Nope. Every button, window, label and so on of an application has a so called handle. Events like keystrokes, mouse clicks are send by so called messages. You can emulate such messages using PostMessage/SendMessage. So you can emulate a click on the permit button of ZA. ZA doesn't check if the user did a real click or if the click was emulated.

    I will redid a test using a new za 3.x version with all updates if you want. Or i will code a "new leak test" if the people are interested in. Started one a few time before - the next generation leak test - but never finished it.
  2. Thanks for the additional detail. I haven't been actively involved in reporting exploits and exploit attempts in quite some time, so I'm kind of out of the loop on a lot of this. I know that much of this is either actively under investigation or fixed -- but I don't know what might be news to our developers, so I've forwarded this to them.

    If you do retest with the latest ZA or ZAP, I'd appreciate knowing the results. However, I don't spend much time on newsgroups and similar fora (I'm only here now because someone notified me of this thread and notified me again whern there was a response to my post), so I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me with any additional information.

    Thanks again,

  3. Sorry, the DG UI asked for my e-mail address, but I didn't realize it's not displayed on the message.

    If you don't know it already, it's

    Oh, and Hi Jan, thanks for the welcome. :)

  4. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Jul 1, 2001
    The Netherlands
    Thanks for dropping by, Rebeccah.


    By all means: please post your test and test results over here! ;).


  5. eyespy

    eyespy Registered Member

    Feb 20, 2002
    Oh Canada !!
    I'm all ears and eyes on this one ! :rolleyes:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.