Re: firewalls
From: Juergen Nieveler (juergen.nieveler.nospam_at_arcor.de)
Date: 04/13/05
- Previous message: David H. Lipman: "Re: Adware"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: firewalls"
- Next in thread: David H. Lipman: "Re: firewalls"
- Reply:(deleted message) David H. Lipman: "Re: firewalls"
- Reply:(deleted message) Ian Kenefick: "Re: firewalls"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:34:58 +0000 (UTC)
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
> FireWalls protect a user from hackers and Internet worms.
Wrong. If a user installs a worm, the worm can easily disable the
firewall if it's on the same machine that the worm got executed on.
Same goes for trojans.
> Bi-directional FireWalls can also warn and/or block Trojan activities
> if a Trojan gets installed on a computer.
Unless the trojan was designed to disable/circumvent firewalls.
> If you have a Broadband Internet connection, use of a Cable/DSL Router
> that uses Network Address Tranlation (NAT) such as a Linksys BEFSR41
> act as simplistic FireWalls while more elaborate Routers may have a
> full FireWall implementation installed.
While NAT will protect against most automated worms, it won't protect
against dedicated human attackers.
Juergen Nieveler
-- Regarding security, WindowsNT is an OS with a 'Kick me' sign stuck on it's back.
- Previous message: David H. Lipman: "Re: Adware"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: firewalls"
- Next in thread: David H. Lipman: "Re: firewalls"
- Reply:(deleted message) David H. Lipman: "Re: firewalls"
- Reply:(deleted message) Ian Kenefick: "Re: firewalls"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|