Re: sygate and shields up
From: Volker Birk (bumens_at_dingens.org)
Date: 09/12/05
- Next message: Bena: "what intrusion detection information should and shouls not be shared ?"
- Previous message: Nellie: "Re: sygate and shields up"
- In reply to: Nellie: "Re: sygate and shields up"
- Next in thread: Volker Birk: "Re: sygate and shields up"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 12 Sep 2005 07:46:24 +0200
Nellie <Nellie@from.is.invalid> wrote:
> My point being that that (in my example) there is no way to
> differentiate. Security by obfucasion/doubt, no certainty. Unlike your
> 'definite' <shrug>.
> > The WAN connections don't
> > use ARP at all usually anyway, but some point2point protocol.
> I think I am/we are thinking of two distinct setups/talking at cross
> purposes.
Yes. Aren't we talking about boxes, which are connected via Modem, DSL,
$WHATEVER to the Internet, and "protected" by the "stealthing" feature
of a "Personal Firewall", so their IP-address is "hidden"?
I just wanted to explain, why this cannot work.
Of course, it is possible to completely hide an host in a network - just
_never_ send anyting to any other host, use the connection read only.
That includes, do not "load" webpages, do not send or receive E-Mail with
this host.
In such a scenario, the host is invisible to the rest of the network.
Sometimes, one is doing this for sniffing purposes, for example.
Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
- Next message: Bena: "what intrusion detection information should and shouls not be shared ?"
- Previous message: Nellie: "Re: sygate and shields up"
- In reply to: Nellie: "Re: sygate and shields up"
- Next in thread: Volker Birk: "Re: sygate and shields up"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|