Re: Almost no user really needs a firewall (was: [OT] Updates of Firefox and Mozilla)
From: keme (kemesixtwonullsix_at_start.no)
Date: 04/06/05
- Next message: BillW50: "Re: What should I know about SBC DSL?"
- Previous message: Julio: "Re: Chicken and egg issue with Cookie based login?"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Almost no user really needs a firewall (was: [OT] Updates of Firefox and Mozilla)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:48:28 +0200
Mike skrev i meldingen <13e251tv603122g6t5vp6fc15lnsv98pdr@4ax.com>...
>On 2 Apr 2005 09:32:31 -0800, "LightningWolf" <kc2lto@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Why don't we use a real firewall? Like a hardware type. That is all I
>>run, never bother with Software firewalls.
>
>Ummm... what do you think the "hardware firewall" runs inside?
>
>If you guess "software firewall" you would be correct.
>
>
... But that software runs on (more or less) dedicated hardware. That's the
distinction. I.e.: A "software firewall" is software only, and runs on your
production computer. A "hardware firewall" is running on hardware separate
from your production computer.
They have mostly the same functions, but some functional differences: "Soft
FW" can distinguish between programs and give them differentiated network
access, but essentially serves only the computer on which it resides. "HW
FW" serves (protects) the network, but cannot distinguish between different
programs accessing the net.
And both types are "real"...
- Next message: BillW50: "Re: What should I know about SBC DSL?"
- Previous message: Julio: "Re: Chicken and egg issue with Cookie based login?"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Almost no user really needs a firewall (was: [OT] Updates of Firefox and Mozilla)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
