Re: XP's Firewall
- From: B. Nice <b__nice@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:29:58 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:47:48 -0600, Dan <spamyou@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
And in comp.security.firewalls you still owe us an explanation for
your claim that the windows firewall is easy to "break through".
I did not say that. I said that the Windows Firewall was overrated.
Yes, and you also said: "I remember putting
Windows Firewall through the test and it failed" and "I had users see
if they could break through the Windows Firewall and
they were able to break through it" - and we asked you to provide info
on what was tested and how.
Until you provide other info I suspect that you tested for some
outbound leaks - which is pretty silly since the windows firewall
makes no attempts to control that.
It is not as secure as the Zone Alarm firewall because it does not have
bi-directional capabilities.
Controlling outbound connections for malware already allowed to run is
a very silly idea.
You also have total lockdown capability with Zone Alarm.
Yes, is sometimes even works like that by default ;-) *SCNR*
You can see further arguments from this article.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5301625.html
When did David Berlind become a trustworthy source within windows
security? - Since he advocates outbound control running on the same
machine as the firewall is intended to protect (and furthermore within
a windows environment), I really cannot take him seriously.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- Re: XP's Firewall
- References:
- XP's Firewall
- From: B.W.
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: B . Nice
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- XP's Firewall
- Prev by Date: Re: Bin Laden Capture Used as a Lure for Malware
- Next by Date: Re: XP's Firewall
- Previous by thread: Re: XP's Firewall
- Next by thread: Re: XP's Firewall
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
