Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise
From: Lars M. Hansen (badnews_at_hansenonline.net)
Date: 10/03/04
- Previous message: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- In reply to: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- Next in thread: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- Reply: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:16:05 -0400
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:12:37 GMT, chris@nospam.com spoketh
>
>NAT isn't a firewall. By default, though it prevents incoming
>connections without an existing outgoing connection (which arn't
>blocked).
I never claimed that it was. However, that fact remains that many people
do refer to these types of cheap routers as "firewalls", and since the
OP doesn't specify what sort of "firewall" he has, we're left to
speculate.
>
>
>> * Software or personal firewalls could potentially have a rule clash,
>>one where Skype is allowed to make any outbound connection and one where
>>all access to a give IP address (or range) is denied. In this case, it
>>appears that the wrong rule wins (the allow-rule) rather than the more
>>restrictive (and correct) deny rule...
>
>The Windows XP SP2 firewall doesn't block outgoing connections and in
>fact has some connections open by default. Some personal firewall
>software is just as useless.
>
Again, I never claimed that it did.
Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
- Previous message: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- In reply to: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- Next in thread: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- Reply: chris_at_nospam.com: "Re: Slippery intruder -- please advise"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|