Re: Firewall

From: Jason Edwards (none_at_invalid.invalid)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:27:10 -0000

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c378f0121b17963989d78@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <335t2eF3tqeihU1@individual.net>, none@invalid.invalid
> says...
> > What's wrong with the built in firewall in Windows XP SP2 with all
updates?
>
> How about the fact that it's only a kludge, not really a firewall, and
> has already had at least one major update for it (specifically) since
> the release of SP2.

I know it has.

>
> You don't want to trust something from the OS vendor, especially MS, to
> protect your machine.

I prefer to make my own decisions about who or what I should trust.

>
> A simple NAT box, for anyone using DSL or Cable, would be the perfect
> start to border protection.

Why are you telling me?

> Sure, it doesn't block outbound, but it does
> offer inbound protection against uninvited intruders. Not to mention
> that in most cases a NAT box is also a 5 minute setup and can't be
> compromised by your typical user or a virus installed on your computer,
> as long as you leave it in the default port-forwarding config.

So let me get this straight. I install a NAT box as a firewall because it
offers inbound protection against uninvited intruders, but don't bother with
the built in firewall or Windows update or anti-virus. I then spend a few
months using IE. The NAT box can't be compromised by all the viruses and
other malware I've now got on my PC. Where did all my uninvited intruders
come from?

A NAT box may well be the perfect start to border protection but it is not
the whole story. I have come across more than a few people (Mostly home
Windows users) who think that a firewall/NAT is the most important thing but
happily surf away with unpatched IE and no anti-virus solution and no clue
about other things such as what runs at startup. Then they wonder why the
NAT box didn't prevent it.

Have a nice Christmas Leythos.

Jason

>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Norton Internet Security 2005 Personal Firewall slows down Windows XP startup
    ... > have a router. ... that a NAT device will not protect the user from - namely the user. ... personal firewall application running on a computer can work very nicely ... they can and do offer an extra layer of protection. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: How to Put Checkpoint SecuRemote Behind NAT?
    ... There are far fewer than 25 nodes behind that firewall ... > NAT does *not* provide any kind of protection other than obfuscation. ... In the case of our network, ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Router & Firewall?
    ... NAT provides a fair amount of protection for the computers behind the ... router are invisible to the Internet. ... third-party firewall you will get ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: Router & Firewall?
    ... wish to consider added protection. ... > Suppose I were to not install a firewall of any kind (or maybe just leave ... >> NAT provides a fair amount of protection for the computers behind the ... >> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: software/hardware Firewall tradeoff
    ... Leythos wrote: ... a firewall, it's a routing method. ... If you only have NAT then you don't have a firewall, but, I would rather ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
Loading