Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk <bumens@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Dec 2005 10:55:32 +0100
Ric <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OS X has it's problems as well.
Yes, of course. Categories lesser than Windows, but it's not absolutely
secure against anything.
> http://www.sans.org/top20/#u2
> It's the first time an OS has made the Sans Top 20.
These "experts" are writing here: "MacOS includes software that has critical
vulnerabilities and Apple has a patch policy, described below, that do not
allow us to be more specific in identifying the elements of MacOS that
contain the critical vulnerabilities."
This is completely ridiculous. With every security update of Apple
you're receiving a description, which component was vulnerable for
what exactly. Just read them.
And even if Apple would not do this, our "experts" could have a quick
look onto what was patched, couldn't they?
So those "experts" are none.
Sorry, please post something substantiated, not something about evil,
which does "not allow us to be more specific".
> I used the Powerbook G4's for a couple of weeks earlier in the year.
> OS X looked but I had to spend most of the time with the hardware :(
You were unlucky with your device? Sincere condolences ;-)
> >> They can offer fine ICMP control. Firewall logs are always good a
> >> source of amusement. Logs may be sorted by source IP, source port,
> >> destination port etc.
> >Security features, please. And: for a home user, please.
> ICMP control will secure you from enumeration.
No. Or: please define "enumeration".
> Logging is like belated
> security. You can check your logs and see what you might have
> prevented if you checked your logs more often :)
Home users, please. They don't have a clue of technics, please remember
that.
> >Please think about the fact, that a home user cannot implement a correct
> >configuration. The default config will be the best one, she/he is able
> >to have. All what she/he is clicking afterwards, will be worse in case of
> >doubt ;-)
> Then maybe people should be encouraged to buy a router instead of
> using the Windows firewall.
There is no difference in security by doing this. But: why not?
> If someone has trouble configuring a PFW
> then they will have trouble configuring Windows firewall _and_ windows
> services.
Home users don't need to configure the Windows-Firewall at all. It's
there in the default config, and that's it.
With www.dingens.org, there is a one-click configuration for stopping
services with Windows 2000 and Windows XP before SP2. They have to do
one single click. And that's it.
> I'd say again that a router fits the bill but then I see enough posts
> saying "how do I configure my router?"
Only routers fit the requirements for home users, which have a sensible
default configuration. Forget the rest.
Yours,
VB.
--
Ein vision statement ist in aller Regel planfreies Gelalle einer Horde
realitätsferner Spinner.
Dietz Pröpper in d.a.s.r
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- References:
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: Recurrent question
- From: Ric
- Re: Recurrent question
- Prev by Date: Re: Kerio 2.1.5: handling fragmented packets
- Next by Date: Re: Nokia IP330 firewall
- Previous by thread: Re: Recurrent question
- Next by thread: Re: Recurrent question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|