John2g
Qui Tacet Consentit
Premium
join:2001-08-10
England
1 edit | reply to jvmorris
Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online
Probably why the AtGuard Forum was successful. I always had the highest regard for Eli/debeli, the WRQ employee, who seemed to have a lot to do with the development of AtGuard. Happy Days!
--
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| Yes, indeed, and its the presence of one memorable debeli post near the end that convinced me. What I've seen so far looks legit.
Now, if someone could find Tom (who was Austrian as I recall) or "AtGuard", maybe these guys could extend the historical archive. I think CrazyM is still a mod over at Wilder's, isn't he? He may know where to get an archived copy of David Stockbridge's NNTP newsgroup, also.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
elanplus2
join:2005-12-21
Seattle, WA | David's been kind enough to send me his NNTP newsgroup posts. I am in the process of getting them converted to our forum format.
I am not familiar with Tom's AtGuard archive. If anyone has any leads, I will try to track it down. |
|
John2g
Qui Tacet Consentit
Premium
join:2001-08-10
England
1 edit | reply to jvmorris
Tom Rapid was an Austrian policeman, as I recall. |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to elanplus2
That's great! And tell the old curmudgeon I still hate his guts! 
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to John2g
said by John2g  :Tom Rapid was an Austrian policeman, as I recall. Tom Rapid, yes, that sounds right.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| reply to elanplus2
said by elanplus2 :David's been kind enough to send me his NNTP newsgroup posts. I am in the process of getting them converted to our forum format. I am not familiar with Tom's AtGuard archive. If anyone has any leads, I will try to track it down. What I want to know is whether you managed to 'convert' David into posting into an HTML-based forum?  I kinda miss His Royal Grouchiness. 
I don't think anyone knew (or was ever willing to divulge) just who "AtGuard" was; I always thought he might have been another WRQ employee that simply didn't want to let go of a good thing. I think someone once gave David a fairly complete list of the "Unofficial AtGuard Users Forums", which David then hosted on his List of Lists. If that got lost, then the provider should be identifiable in the NNTP newsgroup postings -- or CrazyM may have them.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
Thomas M
join:2005-06-06
Germany
| What a wonderful "Retro"-thread
said by jvmorris :I don't think anyone knew (or was ever willing to divulge) just who "AtGuard" was; Yes, the moderator "AtGuard" was a real mystery! I also believe, he/she might have been a former programmer of WRQ...
Well, after upgrading my machine to Win2k I finally switched to "Look n' Stop". Not the perfect firewall. But I like it, since it is slim & tight as AtGuard was in the good old days
Thomas |
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| It is rather interesting how situations change, isn't it?
When I first became concerned about firewalls back in 1999, I was on a dial-up connection with a single PC. From there I progressed to a dial-up connection supporting a local LAN (which relied on Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) software). Amazingly, I found that AG still worked fairly well in this situation (but it did miss a few things) while installed on the gateway machine. There was, however, the little matter of doing some customization to Microsoft's default setting for ICS, at least at that time.
Later on, I got an SMC Barricade 7004 ABR. It was (and is, I think) one of the few NAT routers that supported dial-up connections. Between its NAT functionality and rudimentary firewalling, it pretty much eliminated a lot of the unsolicited intrusions that I had devoted excessive time to for years. Unfortunately, the 7004 ABR worked quite nicely, but logged very little of the traffic it was stopping. I felt suddenly very 'left out' on knowing what was happening 'out there'. (I didn't have a spare box to stuff into a DMZ.) All of my software firewalls pretty much went quiet at that point. (AG, NIS/NPF, Sygate, TPF/KPF) Indeed, at this point, what I refer to as PSFs (Personal Software Firewalls), became much more discriminating and (in that sense) much more useful in what I saw in their logs.
Indeed, everything I subsequently saw fell into one of three categories:
• Something I'd installed (on one or more of the PCs here) trying to initiate an outbound communication. Mostly these were innocuous, but every now and then, . . . .
• An indication that one of the kids had changed the configuration on one of their PCs and that was consequently trying to do something on the LAN that I didn't want being done on the LAN.
• An indication that one of the kids had gotten sucked into installing something on one of their PCs that I will kindly describe as crapware, if not downright malware.
So, the 7004 ABR Router itself was a big bonus in cutting down on maintenance and management activities. It also picked up some attempted WAN intrusions that looked quite innocuous when I had been relying on AG on the ICS host machine. (Indeed, these were about the only thing the 7004 ABR ever logged!)
When I changed my connection from dial-up to DSL, I ended up with a new, combination DSL modem/NAT router/hardware firewall (it was part of the package) and things actually got quite boring as far as the installed PSFs were concerned. (And that was probably a good thing as Symantec started distributing buggy LiveUpdates for the single version of NIS that I was still running.)
Now, the PSFs are primarily for intra-LAN security purposes here. If I had a laptop that got connected sometimes here and sometimes at work or travelled, it would most definitely have a PSF on it. (And one of those will be coming into the mix rather shortly, I suspect.) Similarly, if our machines had multiple Internet connections -- some dial-up, some via a LAN DSL connection, some via a LAN cable connection, and especially any relying on wireless LAN connectivity, you can bet your bippy it's not going to get used here until it's got a PSF installed.
That's almost enough pontification for the moment -- with one exception: I'm now starting to look for something that will integrate logs from various PSFs (I use a different PSF on each box) and the hardware firewall on the NAT router. (I see another development project coming. )
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
