Re: PC Tools Firewall Question
- From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:18:38 GMT
louise <louise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
So I tried Kerio 2.1.5 which is light and "to the point".
And has known vulnerabilities. I rest my case.
I added the rules you suggested about port blocking and all is
running beautifully and taking minimal resources.
And messing up your network connectivity.
I'm passing the Shields UP tests on both my desktop and my portable.
Ehm... and you don't consider this as a *bad* thing?
What doesn't have "known vulnerabilities" -
Known and unfixed vulnerabilities that are not going to be fixed,
because the product is out of support.
the same applied to Sygate, as I understood it.
Aside from Sygate having a serious design flaw: the same applies to any
software that isn't supported by its vendor anymore.
Blocking the ports doesn't appear to have messed up my network
connectivity at all - what "mess" are you referring to?
My experience with personal firewalls as well as what I hear from users
of personal firewalls is that many of them will sometimes fsck up the
network connection(s) for no apparent reason.
Why is it a "bad" thing to pass the Shield UP test?
It's not a bad thing per se. However, Steve Gibson doesn't really have a
clue when it comes to network and computer security, so his conclusions
and recommendations usually are misleading, to say the least. "Shields
UP" is okay if you can distinguish between fact and superstition.
However, in that case you'd probably be using something else (like nmap)
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."