Re: Windows 98 box is 'owned'

From: GuidoZ (uberguidoz_at_gmail.com)
Date: 10/02/04

  • Next message: GuidoZ: "Re: learning ethical hacking" 
    Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 20:16:26 -0700
To: Randy Williams <randyw@techsource.com>

    Thanks for the email Randy. I appreciate those who are good sports
    about such things. =) I think you knew better; just got the
    terminology a bit mixed up. I wanted to make sure no one got the wrong
    idea or learned something slightly incorrect from it.

    I still believe you are right in a sense - a router would be plenty
    for his mother in this situation. ;) 

    --
Peace. ~G
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:31:40 -0400, Randy Williams <randyw@techsource.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> I stand corrected!  Yes, GuidoZ is quite right; the products that I was
> mentioning were simple NAT boxes, and NOT proper firewalls.  I have fallen
> prey to my own attempt to convey complex ideas to the uninitiated with broad
> terms, please accept my apology.
> 
> RandyW
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GuidoZ [mailto:uberguidoz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:15 AM
> To: Randy Williams
> Cc: bulliver@badcomputer.no-ip.com; security-basics@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Windows 98 box is 'owned'
> 
> While these are all good points, I'd like to make a clarification on one
> thing.
> 
> > 1)  Complete re-install of the OS with the addition of both a software
> > firewall (ZoneAlarm) and a Hardware Firewall (Linksys, Dlink, etc).
> 
> Linksys, Dlink, etc are routers, not firewalls. While they function
> similar to a hardware firewall (providing NAT and blocking the systems
> behind them from direct access), they are NOT a substitute for a real
> hardware firewall (SonicWall, AlphaShield, etc) when required.
> Although, I believe a router would be plenty for your mother. =)
> 
> People frequently toss around the term "hardware firewall" (including
> vendors), applying it to ANY device that provides NAT translation. In
> my eyes, it takes a lot more then NAT to make a firewall. Additional
> protection such as SPI, Content filtering, VPN, PKI, etc make up a
> true hardware firewall.
> 
> --
> Peace. ~G
  • Next message: GuidoZ: "Re: learning ethical hacking"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: 4 PCs 1IP
      ... P.S. I've found that the router I have has a built in hardware firewall ... besides the NAT so I'm able to make complete use of it even though the nat is ... I've use a few test sites to do simple port scans and all ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
    • Re: Blackice behind NATed system
      ... If you are behind NAT, the only reason you'd need a software firewall ... from installing servers on your computer like SubSeven or the latest ... uninstall Outlook Express and Windows Scripting Host ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: Blackice behind NATed system
      ... If you are behind NAT, the only reason you'd need a software firewall ... from installing servers on your computer like SubSeven or the latest ... uninstall Outlook Express and Windows Scripting Host ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: Blackice behind NATed system
      ... > If you are behind NAT, the only reason you'd need a software firewall ... Run a good anti-virus like Norton Anti-Virus to keep them ... uninstall Outlook Express and Windows Scripting Host ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: Blackice behind NATed system
      ... > If you are behind NAT, the only reason you'd need a software firewall ... Run a good anti-virus like Norton Anti-Virus to keep them ... uninstall Outlook Express and Windows Scripting Host ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Quantcast