Roof Fiddler;180830 Wrote:

> "Rock" <rock@nospam.net> wrote in messag
> news:%23vv91lVTHHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl..

> > "sd321" <sd321@discussions.microsoft.com> wrot

>

> >> In the followin directory is a AdobeDownloadManager

> >

> >> \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\ESD

> >

> >> Maybe it is doing the update downloading

>

> > On this installation it's in \Program Files\Commo

> Files\Adobe\Udater

> > AdobeUpdater.exe is the file

>
> That was it! Thanks an bunch
> Now I have another question. If this is how Vista works, then doesn'
> i
> mean that outbound rules are useless as a security measure on a syste
> wher
> outbound connections are allowed by default? If a program finds that i
> can't get a connection, all it has to do is create a new .exe file an
> the
> run it, and the new .exe can get to the network. That means on Vista
> i
> order to have outbound security, you have to disallow outboun
> connection
> by default and add rules to allow connections for particular truste
> programs
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense for an outbound rule for a program to appl
> no
> to the program, but to all _processes_ started from that program? (An
> o
> course to children of that process too.) That would solve the problem
> an
> allow outbound connections to be allowed by default without allowin
> blocke
> programs to get around the rules this way

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

"Wouldn't it make more sense for an outbound rule for a program t
apply no
to the program, but to all _processes_ started from that program?

Wouldn't it be sweet being able to block a whole directory. ea
"\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\*.*

And there is an option to block services. Create a new Outbound rule
make it a 'custom' on select services. You either select predefine
ones, or enter your own (use short names). In addition, you could als
specify an IP(range) + Port(range) to shut it down completely..

--
ABoyCalledSill

- windows vista ultimate 64-bit en
---------------------------------------
- cooler master stacker 830
- asus p5b deluxe
- conroe e6600
- 2x corsair memory (twin2x2048-8500c5)
- 3x seagate barracuda 7200.10, 320gb (sata ii, 16mb)
- ati sapphire x1950 pro
- creative x-fi xtreme game
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABoyCalledSilly's Profile: http://www.vista64.net/forums/member.php?userid=137
View this thread: http://www.vista64.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3564

You're welcome.

"Roof Fiddler" <fiddler@roof.com> wrote

> "Rock" <rock@nospam.net> wrote

>> "sd321" <sd321@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
>>

>>> In the followin directory is a AdobeDownloadManager :
>>>
>>> \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\ESD\
>>>
>>> Maybe it is doing the update downloading?

>>
>> On this installation it's in \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Udater5
>> AdobeUpdater.exe is the file.

>
> That was it! Thanks an bunch.
> Now I have another question. If this is how Vista works, then doesn't it
> mean that outbound rules are useless as a security measure on a system
> where outbound connections are allowed by default? If a program finds that
> it can't get a connection, all it has to do is create a new .exe file and
> then run it, and the new .exe can get to the network. That means on Vista,
> in order to have outbound security, you have to disallow outbound
> connections by default and add rules to allow connections for particular
> trusted programs.
> Wouldn't it make more sense for an outbound rule for a program to apply
> not to the program, but to all _processes_ started from that program? (And
> of course to children of that process too.) That would solve the problem,
> and allow outbound connections to be allowed by default without allowing
> blocked programs to get around the rules this way.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]