Re: FIREWALL CHECK



On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:05:31 -0400, +Bob+ <uctraing@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Nonsense. Not all malware is sharp enough to avoid firewall detection.
Not all malware infections are lost cases.

No. But no matter what, that has to be always the default assumption.
Unless you have a baseline and can identify exactly what has been
changed you are basing your security on hope.

Repair is possible quite often.

Repair is possible if you're very skilled. It's certainly not a job
for Mr. Average. If you rely on running a few anti-tools in order to
declare a system clean as soon as the symptom seems to be gone, you're
on a very slippery slope.

The earlier the problem is detected, the higher the probability
for repair. There are enough malware schemes that don't avoid the
firewall that it is worth using one. PERIOD.

If you allow even poorly coded malware to have a ball on your
computer, your defenses are non-existing anyway.

Museums have sophisticated security systems. Nonetheless, criminals
get through them and steal valuable items fairly consistently. Do the
museums throw up their arms and say "we won't bother with an alarm
system since there are _some_ people who can beat it". No, they
install a security system that keeps out the large majority of
potential thieves, recognizing that no system is perfect.

The real and the virtual worlds don't easily compare. This has lead to
a variety of bad analogies. Yours is just yet another one.

THat's why so many of their machines get infected.

No, unsafe browsing and relying on Phony-Baloney Ware such as 3rd party
software (so-called) firewalls aka Illusion Ware gets you in hot water.

The fact that some people have an illusion of safety does not negate
the increased security offered by an outbound firewall.

The possible increase in security from an outbound firewall must as a
minimum outweigh the drawbacks. For me that's a very easy assessment
to make.

An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems.

Relying on this layer is precisely what gives you this false sense of
security.

There's a difference between relying and utilizing.

One shouldn't utilize a security measure one can't rely on to a very
high degree. Especially not one which has a serious impact on the
system it's trying to protect.
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: FIREWALL CHECK
    ... Not all malware is sharp enough to avoid firewall detection. ... effectiveness in relation to monotoring outbound traffic as a security ... unsafe browsing and relying on Phony-Baloney Ware such as 3rd party ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.security)
  • Re: Windows Security Center damaged
    ... This one runs four different "command-line" scanners, ... In the Security Center, ... I'm sure that some malware caused that ... ETrust Internet Security Suite includes a firewall. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Windows Security Center damaged
    ... In the Security Center, ... I'm sure that some malware caused that ... It looks like you recommend having 5 to 6 tools, ... ETrust Internet Security Suite includes a firewall. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • RE: HELP! Did I mess up during system recovery?
    ... Hi K.I,m not an expert but i have wrasstled with viruses and malware many ... have to start your security manually because the startup is off.Once you are ... after I installed Explorer 8 are being stored in the new oops folder titled ... downloaded Windows critical updates/patches (didn't install at ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • How To Utterly Destroy The Security By Obscurity Myth
    ... The Financial Times tries spreading some Apple Mac security FUD ... Take the number of known malware in the wild for Mac. ... verifiable data there are 2036x more malware for Windows than Mac. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)