Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)
From: aborka (aborka@hotmail.com)Date: 04/28/02
- Next message: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Previous message: Kasper Dupont: "Re: Iptables and pc client Q"
- In reply to: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Next in thread: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Reply: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Reply: Ian Jones: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: aborka@hotmail.com (aborka) Date: 27 Apr 2002 15:57:03 -0700
Hal Burgiss <hal@burgiss.net> wrote in message news:<slrnaclr1m.2f8.hal@localhost.localdomain>...
> On 27 Apr 2002 10:51:03 -0700, aborka <aborka@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe I used the wrong terms. But the task is still the same.
> > So, let's say for example I do not want to enable Evolution to connect
> > to any remote machine on port 80, but I want Mozilla to be able to do
> > it.
> > Or, when I see that an HTML email came from my boss, I want to enable
> > Evolution in that one case.
> >
> > Another example:
> > I do not want Mozilla to be able to do any ftp, even if I click on a
> > ftp link on a page. I want only gFtp to be able to do ftp. But not
> > ABCDftp or anything else.
>
> What in the world for? I just don't get the benefit of this. The only
> reason windows does this is the prevalence of trojans|virii|spyware
> calling home. I would suggest tackling these through other means in
> Linux (ie don't let this crap on your system in the first place, which
> sounds like the preferred solution IMO).
>
> > I know these are not the perfect examples but basically this is the
> > functionality what I need.
>
> In all honesty, you have rather bizarre requirements. Probably the main
> reason this stuff does not exist in Linux is because the people with the
> smarts enought to make it happen, have never found a need (yet)
> themselves. IOW, it is not a real solution to a real problem in their
> NSHO. .02
Actually you are right, I do not trust any program I put on my machine
(Windows sickness). Did you check all the source codes you execute on
your Linux machine? I did not, and do not even intend to it, that's
for sure.
Most of the people who are not Linux gurus are just downloading binary
code and install them as RPM or whatever.
Some people even download things from the Internet and execute it on
their playground machine.
I absolutely agree that this level of paranioa is very Windows like
and there is a significant difference between the honesty/transparency
of the Linux community and the Windows community.
But sooner or later this will change as more and more people will
start using Linux on their desktop, and more and more hackers and
virus writers will take their attention to Linux.
But to answer your question ... because for example I do not want
anybody to know about, make statictics, track, or do anything without
my knowledge if I open a damn HTML email with my email client (and
don't tell me to use PINE please).
- Next message: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Previous message: Kasper Dupont: "Re: Iptables and pc client Q"
- In reply to: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Next in thread: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Reply: Hal Burgiss: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Reply: Ian Jones: "Re: Per application TCP/IP traffic filtering in Linux (sort of personal firewall)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
