Re: Why aren't there ANY firewalls?

spamdrew@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:38:27 -0500, Regis <ordsec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Most of the problem is that you're looking for a very simple solution
to realities that are pretty complex.

Actually I don't believe it to be as complex as it's made out to be.

Actually, you're wrong.

I think there is a LOT of money in making it SEEM complex though.

If you had even some basic understanding of modern computer systems or
networking communication, you'd KNOW that those matters really ARE
rather complex. There's no need to make them seem that way. As a matter
of fact, most operating systems try to make them seem LESS complex than
they actually are.

What's your goal? Block "bad sites"? Be safe at the local coffee
shop on their open wireless network?

Start with this:

The goal is to not let the computer send anything out I havn't
specifically requested to send and to only send to the destination I
specifically told it to connect to. And to recieve only from those
locations specifically requested.

Anything not specifically enabled should not happen.
That's a firewall.

And now try to enforce this on an operating system that has a boatload
of automation mechanisms. For instance: how would your supposed firewall
know that your web browsers communication was initiated by the user and
not some other application?

"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich