Re: Recurrent question

In article <40dr6mF19hmiuU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, usenet-2005
@planetcobalt.net says...
> Kerodo wrote:
> > In article <43a164e9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bumens@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
> >> Kerodo <loopback@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Yep, just because something isn't perfect 100% of the time doesn't
> >>> mean it's useless.
> >>
> >> "Personal Firewalls" aren't "not 100% perfect". They're completely
> >> useless because of being superseeded by the Windows-Firewall,
> >
> > That's completely ridiculous. They do entirely different things.
>
> No. Both filter inbound connections. That can be done reliably. The
> Windows Firewall prevents applications from listening on ports. That can
> be done reliably as well. Personal Firewalls try to prevent applications
> from communicating outbound. That cannot be done reliably. Which is why
> the Windows Firewall is sufficient.

The key to your argument is the word "reliably". So it depends on what
exactly you mean by that. It goes back to that AV being useless
argument. By your definition of "reliably" then all AVs are useless too
because they don't catch 100% of the threats and hence are not
"reliable". Yet we still use them don't we? Why? Because they will
and do catch a high percentage of the threats. And catching most is
better than catching none.

Also to say that the reason why Windows Firewall is sufficient is
because Personal Firewalls can't catch all outbound, is another
illogical and silly argument. What does one have to do with the other?

I would say that the Windows Firewall is not sufficient because it makes
no attempt to try to catch outbound. Some attempt is better than none.
Why do you think people "try" at things? Nobody is perfect, yet we keep
trying simply because some success is better than none, and to give up
entirely is unacceptable. You would have everyone give up the attempt
to catch outbound simply because it might be difficult at times.

--
Kerodo
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Recurrent question
    ... >> applications from communicating outbound. ... Which is why the Windows Firewall is sufficient. ... Security needs to be reliable otherwise you don't have security. ... Because they are reliable in the scenarios they are made for. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Mcafee Startup
    ... and the Windows firewall only ... I've become convinced, however, that outbound protection is ... monitors outbound traffic is more apparent than real. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Mcafee Startup
    ... and the Windows firewall only ... I've become convinced, however, that outbound protection is ... monitors outbound traffic is more apparent than real. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: blocking ports?
    ... If you mean "outbound" access you can not do that with the Windows Firewall. ... You can however create an ipsec filtering policy or use a third party ... > Hi folks, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: I might bite bullet on SP2..but!
    ... Windows Firewall will automatically allow all outbound connections, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)