Re: A poor man's activity check :)
From: Art Kopp (artnpeg@nowhere.com)Date: 01/06/02
- Previous message: Chet Uber: "infotec2002 Security Track - SECURITY TRAINING EVENT"
- In reply to: Frank S: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Next in thread: Ken S.: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: artnpeg@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 20:39:04 GMT
On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:32:26 GMT, "Frank S" <fsexton@qwest.net> wrote:
>Well, netstat IS a good "poor mans activity check". Unfortunately, it
>requires that you watch it constantly and, even then, will only tell you
>that you HAVE been hacked, but do nothing to prevent it.
>
>Why not get a firewall, such as TPF? TPF is like netstat on steroids, but
>with blocking capability. And speaking of "poor man"... TFP is free :-)
The only free firewall that hasn't given me problems with my new DSL
service is Sygate. But I'm not convinced I need or want one of these
free leaky firewalls which are easy for trojans to get around. I'm in
the process of reading up on the subject and trying to determine just
what I want.
>As for being "open for attack"... you are always open for attack. By
>default your ports are always open, netstat or not.
Open? They're all closed according to Sygates test site.
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Reply to address should work.
- Next message: Kevin: "Re: Router and IRC"
- Previous message: Chet Uber: "infotec2002 Security Track - SECURITY TRAINING EVENT"
- In reply to: Frank S: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Next in thread: Ken S.: "Re: A poor man's activity check :)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
