Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 "+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message news:fm9194d16tt8oom1geb6953n8s4ipi3juk@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:01:16 -0400, "Mr. Arnold" <MR. > Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >>> at all (windows firewall).</span> >> >>Once again, will someone tell this person what outbound packet filtering >>means, which Vista has outbound packet filtering. What he is talking >>about >>is application control, which are two differnt things and is snake-oil.</span> > > Vista's outbound filtering needs manual configuration and is well > beyond the scope of anyone who doesn't have serious training.</span> Any personal FW/packet filter that has outbound packet filtering, the user faces the same problem using the solution effectively and need serious training. They don't know how to do it. So what's the difference in some 3rd party solution and Vista's packet filter/ FW, none. <span style="color:blue"> > Application filtering is not snake-oil and does have value. It's also > possible for average users to actually turn it on an have it work. ></span> 99% of clueless average users have no idea as to what is happening with it, it takes a lot of hand holding because I have been there holding their hands and it's worthless. Quote
Guest Mr. Arnold Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 "Root Kit" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:igc1945ilu2jq6brb1m7gusj5i1vc6hhe1@4ax.com...<span style="color:blue"> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:01:16 -0400, "Mr. Arnold" <MR. > Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote: ><span style="color:green"> >> >>"+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message >>news:8e6194tfd4b07ms82r6gqi0qmup24qnbee@4ax.com...<span style="color:darkred"> >>> >>> But the point be argued here is having an outbound firewall vs. none >>> at all (windows firewall).</span> >> >>Once again, will someone tell this person what outbound packet filtering >>means, which Vista has outbound packet filtering. What he is talking >>about >>is application control, which are two differnt things and is snake-oil.</span> > > Okay. There is a big difference between outbound packet filtering and > application control. Neither are reliable counter measures against > malware allowed to run.</span> The job of a real FW, which I don't consider some 3rd party personal FW/packet filter or even Vista's FW/packet filter to be a FW is not to stop malware. A FW's job is not to stop malware running on a computer. A packet filtering FW router, FW appliance or host based software FW running on a secured gateway computer jobs are not to be stopping a malware program running on some computer. <copied> What is a firewall? A firewall protects networked computers from intentional hostile intrusion that could compromise confidentiality or result in data corruption or denial of service. It may be a hardware device or a software program running on a secure host computer. In either case, it must have at least two network interfaces, one for the network it is intended to protect, and one for the network it is exposed to. And for those that don't know what two network interfaces means for a computer running a host based FW, it means the the computer must have two network interface cards (NICS) in them with one NIC protecting from the network it is protecting from, and the other NIC protecting the network it is protecting. A firewall sits at the junction point or gateway between the two networks, usually a private network and a public network such as the Internet. The earliest firewalls were simply routers. The term firewall comes from the fact that by segmenting a network into different physical subnetworks, they limited the damage that could spread from one subnet to another just like firedoors or firewalls. A firewall examines all traffic routed between the two networks to see if it meets certain criteria. If it does, it is routed between the networks, otherwise it is stopped. A firewall filters both inbound and outbound traffic. It can also manage public access to private networked resources such as host applications. It can be used to log all attempts to enter the private network and trigger alarms when hostile or unauthorized entry is attempted. Firewalls can filter packets based on their source and destination addresses and port numbers. This is known as address filtering. Firewalls can also filter specific types of network traffic. This is also known as protocol filtering because the decision to forward or reject traffic is dependant upon the protocol used, for example HTTP, ftp or telnet. Firewalls can also filter traffic by packet attribute or state. That is FW technology, and the Vista FW/packet filter or some 3rd party personal FW/packet filter are NOT FW(s). Quote
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:46:27 -0400, "Hank Arnold (MVP)" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Kayman wrote:<span style="color:green"> > > > > And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... > > </span> > > Including yours??? ;-)</span> All generalizations are false (including this one). -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup Quote
Guest Hank Arnold (MVP) Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Ken Blake, MVP wrote:<span style="color:blue"> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:46:27 -0400, "Hank Arnold (MVP)" > <rasilon@aol.com> wrote: > <span style="color:green"> >> Kayman wrote:<span style="color:darkred"> >>> And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... >>></span> >> Including yours??? ;-)</span> > > > All generalizations are false (including this one). > </span> As Captain Kirk said to the robot: "Everything I tell you is a lie!"............ :-) -- Regards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services Quote
Guest Kayman Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:46:27 -0400, Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > Kayman wrote:<span style="color:green"> >> >> And 99.99% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot... >> </span> > > Including yours??? ;-)</span> Well, in this thread I haven't made up any stats, I think style_emoticons/ Quote
Guest Kayman Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:05:31 -0400, +Bob+ wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:50:09 +0700, Kayman > <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote: > <span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> I agree that some programs can work towards beating your outbound >>> firewall - but on a practical basis, it catches quite a few. Some is >>> better than none. </span> >> >>What is there to 'catch'. Since malware already has/is manipulating your OS >>the game is lost[PERIOD]! >> </span> > > Nonsense. Not all malware is sharp enough to avoid firewall detection. > Not all malware infections are lost cases. Repair is possible quite > often. 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. </span> We are talking about 3rd party software (so-called) firewall) and their effectiveness in relation to monotoring outbound traffic as a security meassure! <span style="color:blue"> > 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. </span> Read above in-line response! <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> THat's why so many of their machines get infected.</span> >> >>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.</span> > > The fact that some people have an illusion of safety does not negate > the increased security offered by an outbound firewall. </span> Google is your friend! <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> An outbound firewall is one more layer that can help identify problems.</span> >> >>Relying on this layer is precisely what gives you this false sense of >>security.</span> > > There's a difference between relying and utilizing. </span> Yes, employing cd and re-installing the OS. <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >>Educate yourself, Google can assist. >>BTW, ever wondered why nobody responded to your WLM query?</span> > > No, I've been spending my "wondering time" puzzling over how someone</span> Spend your "wondering time" on educating yourself; Make it a habit checking credentials of authors writing articles/messages in advertisement sponsored publications and take commercial messages with a ton of salt. (Amazing how a bit of online research makes me sound like an expert... :-) <span style="color:blue"> > becomes such a condescending, know-it-all, dick head like you.</span> You don't know me, if you group me in some arbitrary fashion, it is your own inability to see clearly; Not my issue! Unlike you, I can claim to walk away from this pointless quibble knowing what I am doing. This is me, granting you whatever last words you feel might make you whole again. Have a wondeful day :-) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.