Re: firewall opinions
From: JW (JustPostYourReply_at_ToThisNewsGroup.pls)
Date: 02/21/05
- Next message: Keith Miller: "Re: transparent icon text"
- Previous message: David H. Lipman: "Re: Msmsgs.exe"
- In reply to: Van: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Next in thread: Plato: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Reply: Plato: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Reply: Sam: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:35:45 GMT
just be sure to apply this advice to other areas besides firewalls (this
advice about the importance of using a combination of defenses (not only
one product that is good at only one specialty). For example, Spybot
S&D is very good at a specialty, but AdAware Plus and SpySweeper are
very good at a different specialty. Using instructions at the web site
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm lots of crapware would
never be downloaded because would be inaccessible.
another layer of defense is Not surfing the wild wild web logged in with
Administrator privileges. (surfing does not mean getting Windows
Updates.) i also go went another step, by removing all access from
Limited User accounts to the folder named \Program Files, except for
Read/Execute. so when i do surf the wild wild web using a Limited User
account, Program Files will not be replaced/corrupted by an infection or
intruder. Since antivirus programs have the same specialty, there is no
need to use multiple antivirus programs.
it's like home security. be sure to watch "It Takes a Thief" on
Discovery Channel (a very good program with advice from ex-burglars
after filmed break-ins). they do not rely on just locks, or just
sensors, or just one security mechanism. besides locks on the outside
doors and windows, they also use locks on the inside doors, and locks on
valuable paintings. besides sensors and inside sirens, they also use
outside sirens. they don't stop there either. you'll see when you
watch the show.
Van wrote:
> As usual ...... great advise and comments!!! Thanks to everyone and
> especially to you, JW!!!!
>
>
>
> "JW" wrote:
>
>
>>Hey Van, whenever you see conflicting advice on firewalls
>>(such as, (a) software firewalls are an important addition to a complete
>>multi-layer security system VS. (b) software firewalls are unnecessary
>>because hardware firewalls do everything that software firewalls do,
>>plus no Trojan can ever open a port on a hardware firewall), you really
>>have to go to a higher authority. Opinions are like armpits.
>>
>>Last year, PC World Labs partnered with German security firm AV-Test to
>>test, evaluate and compare many firewall, antivirus, and anti-spyware
>>products. Included in the test was one of Linksys' best hardware
>>firewall/router/NAT devices. Their conclusion on page 3 was that two
>>software firewalls deserved the Editors Best Buy award, but neither of
>>two hardware firewall/router devices deserved the award. Furthermore,
>>the final recommendations on page 9 stressed the importance of using a
>>combination of defenses (not any one product that is good at only one
>>specialty), including Both a software firewall and a hardware firewall.
>> you can see their article at
>>http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115939,pg,1,00.asp
>>
>>after reading this article, you will see that the test results prove
>>that (a) a hardware firewall/router does things that a software firewall
>>does not, and (b) a software firewall does things that a hardware
>>firewall does not. this is clearly why you need Both. For example, see
>>page 2 of the above article that states the following facts:
>>
>>Consider the Bagle worm, which hides its identity by injecting itself
>>into the Windows Explorer application. When AV-Test infected a system
>>with this worm, the McAfee, Norton, Sygate, and ZoneAlarm firewalls
>>asked if Windows Explorer could access the Internet.
>>
>>by comparison, a hardware firewall would not stop to ask the user for
>>approval of this outbound transmission of who knows what (maybe your
>>personal credit card or bank account number/password captured by a
>>keystroke logging program?), but would simply allow this outbound
>>transmission to go through unchecked.
>>
>>another source of facts you can go to, when facing conflicting advice
>>from those who offer nothing but opinions, is an authoritative web site
>>such as the Gibson Research Corp web site. at www.grc.com, the section
>>named LeakTest describes another vulnerability that hardware
>>firewall/router devices are Helpless to defend against.
>>
>>take the test for yourself. download their program named LeakTest.exe.
>> rename a legitimate program like IExplore.exe to IExplore.old. then
>>rename LeakTest.exe to IExplore.exe and launch it. the results are
>>clear and indisputable. a hardware router/firewall will not even stop
>>to ask you if this outbound leak of information is OK, but will allow
>>this outbound communication to pass through unchecked. ZoneAlarm will
>>stop it and ask for your approval. besides the fact that hardware
>>firewalls are inherently clueless to this vulnerability, what this also
>>means is that any kid who has read a book like Windows 101 can rename
>>any file from something like KeystrokeLoggerThatAlsoLaunchesIE.exe to
>>IExplore.exe with two simple commands.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Van wrote:
>>
>>>I've been running Zone Alarm free version on my XP home SP2 system. The ONLY
>>>thing I don't like about it, is the time it takes to load on bootup. Besides
>>>ZA, what are some of the firewalls that you folks use and recommend??
>>>Thanks ....
>>
- Next message: Keith Miller: "Re: transparent icon text"
- Previous message: David H. Lipman: "Re: Msmsgs.exe"
- In reply to: Van: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Next in thread: Plato: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Reply: Plato: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Reply: Sam: "Re: firewall opinions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|