Re: Software Firewall NAT Router or Both
From: Hairy One Kenobi (abuse_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:39:00 -0000
"Jim Watt" <firstname.lastname@example.org_way> wrote in message
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:16:51 -0000, "ClareOldie"
> <ClareOldie@nowhere.ie> wrote:
> >K2NNJ wrote:
> >> I am currently running NPF 2003 on a Dell XP machine. When I run the
> >> sygate security test I get all ports blocked. When I run a NAT
> >> router(Linksys BFSR41) without the FW ports 80 and 113 are open. If
> >> I run the FW and the router I get the same results. Ports 80 and 113
> >> are open.
> >> I have a couple of questions.
> >> 1. What should I run?
> >> 2. Can I be attacked on ports 80 and 113?
> >> 3. What does a NAT router block?
> >With the router connected the site is testing the Router not your pc.
> >Without the router its your pc that is being tested.
> >I would run both and also look at configuring the router to show all
> >When using both anything that has slipped by the router is caught by the
> >firewall. The firewall also gives application control on outbound
> Yes, you certainly need BOTH
A commonly-stated bit of "wisdom".
Taking the example of breaking-and-entering on a house, what benefit do
interior door bolts do, given that the burglar is inside the hose, with a
complete set of keys?
OK, so a decent IDS system (e.g. large, hungry rottweiler) can make a big
But how many people /really/ use them? (I can almost count them on the
fingers of one knee.. ;o)
Not to say that a SPFW isn't a way to justify (to yourself) that last
processor and/or memory upgrade..
-- Hairy One Kenobi Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion in the first place. So there!