From: "Geo." 

You agreed with their examples of web and ftp, yet for me these might be
critical services. But for someone who is only using their computer to
browse and do email there are a whole host of services they can consider
non-critical.

You don't seem to make any allowance for that.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb4555{at}w3.nls.net...
   No.

   We started this silly discussion when you interpreted the statements you
attributed to symantec "Turn off and remove unneeded services"
and "many operating systems install auxiliary services that are not
critical" to mean any service which you would like to turn off
regardless of whether it is needed or not which you described as " me
shutting down all those extra services".  Somewhere in there you tried
to define "critical" with the laughable "The best way to
find out if a service is critical or not is to manually stop it and see if
anything breaks, if nothing you need breaks then I guess it's not critical
huh".

   I agreed with symantec and wrote "There is nothing wrong with disabling
unnecessary optional services".  This isn't what you do.  What you do
you wrote above which is to disable things you do not understand and look
to see if you are able to perceive an effect that you would call a break.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45eb2d2f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Didn't we start by you saying symantec's words didn't mean what they mean?

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb1331$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Duh!  If the words had exactly the same meaning and connotations then
we
  wouldn't likely have different words.  If you and geo would like to play
  word games instead of discussing the actual content go ahead.

  Rich

    "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
  news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...

    ?
    Not true.

    Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be critical.
    Says my grandmother.

    ...

    ---
    M.



    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See
    http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.

    Rich

    "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
    news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...

    unneeded != not critical.


    ---
    M.


    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       unneeded == unnecessary == optional == not critical.

    Rich
    "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Hmmm... "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not
critical", I don't see the term
    "unnecessary optional" in there at all Rich.

    Would you say the dns client service is unneeded, auxiliary, not
critical?
  I
    certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you argued
  with
    me about it. See your idea of unneeded and mine are vastly different. To
  you
    unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything you
can
    shut down without breaking the functionality you need.

    I would think the security guys at Symantec (the ones who made that
    recommendation) would think like me and judging from the size of their
    products lately, management and the programmers think like you.

    That would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the same
  time
    get exploited as a virus entry point..

    Geo.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion,
absolutely.
    There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary optional services.
What
    you do is flailing.

    Rich

      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...
      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...

      >>   Now you are trying to read more into what symantec wrote.

      Or perhaps I just have a better understanding of that line of thought.

      Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5