Re: Higher-End Home FW Question
From: Charles Newman (charlesnewman1_at_comcast.net.spammers.will.be.shot.on.sight)
Date: 12/11/04
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Previous message: spirit: "Re: blocking gator"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Next in thread: Duane Arnold: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Reply: Duane Arnold: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:12:03 -0800
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c23e6c51f39068989c44@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <R-mdndnbc5bilifcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>, charlesnewman1
> @comcast.net.spammers.will.be.shot.on.sight says...
> > I advocate ICS, becuase it is
> > very much like what I was taught when I was in college. They did not
> > teach about hardware firewalls, becuase we were taught that software
> > based NAT and firewalls were superior.
>
> And a lot of what you were taught in College concerning computers is
> currently out-dated, in fact, much of what it taught in College is out
> of date while it's being taught.
>
> Firewall appliances are superior for home users and unmanaged
> environments, and even in most managed environments, as the primary
> border protection device.
>
> Since we're talking about home systems in this thread, we'll talk about
> firewall software running on a system that the user is also running
> their applications from - which means that the firewall/NAT can be
> compromised easily and is also subject to daily misconfiguration by the
> user.
Well, what I am talking about is setting one computer up as an
ICS box, and then connecting client machines behind it. Tiny
Personal Firewall can sunccessfully shut down Kazaa, where your
hardware appliances cannot. Its just simply a matter of restricting
what the Socks and HTTP proxies can do. On my network, I just
simply told Tiny to not allow the application running the Socks
proxy to do outgoing connections on ports 80, and on
1000-5300. That effectively shuts Kazaa down. The only
outbound connection on port 80 allowed is on the HTTP
proxy.
Because Kazaa has no central server, there is no one
address you can use to shut down Kazaa, so the only
way is to require everything to use Socks/HTTP proxies,
and then wholesale shut down calls to ports 80 and 1000-5300
from the Socks server. I have tested this, and with those ports
blocked, there is no way Kazaa can connect.
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Previous message: spirit: "Re: blocking gator"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Next in thread: Duane Arnold: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Reply: Duane Arnold: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Higher-End Home FW Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|