| Author |
Message |
Wolfgang Kueter
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Am Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:59:57 -0800 schrieb Quaestor:
| Quote: | if I put enough of these *PLONKS* together I can write a symphony
|
Well, just write it, but be warned, nobody will come to the concert.
Wolfgang |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quaestor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
| Quote: | Quaestor wrote:
Wolfgang Kueter wrote:
Quaestor wrote:
and I used just about all of them (of course I have not used the
windows "firewall", which being a ms product is a POS).
Now it becomes really funny: If you had ever thought more than a
second
Obviously you didn't.
It's quite obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what Wolfgang and
|
if I put enough of these *PLONKS* together I can write a symphony
--
Godwin is a net-nazi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somebody.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
"GRL" <giorel@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:439aed07_1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
| Quote: | Is it possible to have at the same time two personal firewalls? I think
that it depends on the specific firewalls: for example, is it possible to
use Norton firewall and Kerio?
Thanks.
Giovanni
|
May personal firewall products will not run well together. Even if they
manage to install without clobbering each other's DLL's they may have
strange unforseen interactions in a production environment -- both of them
are hooking in to and trying to control your machines etherent activity.
Just like you shouldn't run two antivirus products for the same reason.
Volker is right about this one, use the Windows firewall carefully and keep
your patch levels up to date.
-Russ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerodo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Leythos wrote:
| Quote: | In article <gZKmf.10650$kt5.1037893@news20.bellglobal.com>,
triffid@nebula.net says...
Leythos wrote:
In article <pan.2005.12.10.21.53.41.815715@shconnect.de>,
wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
Am Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:14:23 +0000 schrieb Sla#s:
Windows Firewall only blocks incoming, it does not block outgoing.
Personal firewalls can't do that.
Personal firewalls can and do block outgoing traffic.
Only if the application generating the traffic isn't smart enough to
reconfigure, disable, or bypass the personal firewall.
So, then making a blanket statement of "Personal firewalls can't do
that" is actually incorrect in your opinion. What you should have said
was that Some personal firewalls, when improperly configured with the
OS, do not offer much, if any, outbound protection. Some personal
firewalls, of which the XP Firewall is not considered a firewall, do
provide outbound protection when properly configured and maintained.
|
Well said...
--
Kerodo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiecher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Quaestor wrote:
| Quote: | Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
Quaestor wrote:
Wolfgang Kueter wrote:
Now it becomes really funny: If you had ever thought more than a
second
Obviously you didn't.
It's quite obvious that you have no clue whatsoever what Wolfgang and
if I put enough of these *PLONKS* together I can write a symphony
|
*sigh*
Why do I keep replying to address-spoofing people anyway? They usually
turn out to be clueless and reluctant to change anything about it.
cu
59cobalt
--
"Another option [for defragmentation] is to back up your important files,
erase the hard disk, then reinstall Mac OS X and your backed up files."
--http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25668 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiecher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Kerodo wrote:
| Quote: | Leythos wrote:
In article <gZKmf.10650$kt5.1037893@news20.bellglobal.com>, triffid@nebula.net says...
Leythos wrote:
Personal firewalls can and do block outgoing traffic.
Only if the application generating the traffic isn't smart enough to
reconfigure, disable, or bypass the personal firewall.
So, then making a blanket statement of "Personal firewalls can't do
that" is actually incorrect in your opinion. What you should have
said was that Some personal firewalls, when improperly configured
with the OS, do not offer much, if any, outbound protection. Some
personal firewalls, of which the XP Firewall is not considered a
firewall, do provide outbound protection when properly configured and
maintained.
Well said...
|
.... yet still wrong.
You can configure and maintain any personal firewall as properly as you
like, it still can't prevent applications from communicating outbound,
if the applications are smart enough to reconfigure, disable or bypass
the personal firewall. Period.
http://www.copton.net/vortraege/pfw/en.html
cu
59cobalt
--
"Another option [for defragmentation] is to back up your important files,
erase the hard disk, then reinstall Mac OS X and your backed up files."
--http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25668 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfgang Kueter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:22 am Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
E. wrote:
| Quote: | Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
/me detects: Quaestor is in dire need of dried frog pills.
Catching the dried frog is the hard part.
|
Nope, getting the formula for the frog pills from nurse Johanna is.
Wolfgang |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Triffid
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:06 am Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
| Quote: | Kerodo wrote:
Leythos wrote:
In article <gZKmf.10650$kt5.1037893@news20.bellglobal.com>, triffid@nebula.net says...
Leythos wrote:
Personal firewalls can and do block outgoing traffic.
Only if the application generating the traffic isn't smart enough to
reconfigure, disable, or bypass the personal firewall.
So, then making a blanket statement of "Personal firewalls can't do
that" is actually incorrect in your opinion. What you should have
said was that Some personal firewalls, when improperly configured
with the OS, do not offer much, if any, outbound protection. Some
personal firewalls, of which the XP Firewall is not considered a
firewall, do provide outbound protection when properly configured and
maintained.
Well said...
... yet still wrong.
You can configure and maintain any personal firewall as properly as you
like, it still can't prevent applications from communicating outbound,
if the applications are smart enough to reconfigure, disable or bypass
the personal firewall. Period.
http://www.copton.net/vortraege/pfw/en.html
cu
59cobalt
|
Well said... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerodo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:03 am Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
| Quote: | Kerodo wrote:
Leythos wrote:
In article <gZKmf.10650$kt5.1037893@news20.bellglobal.com>, triffid@nebula.net says...
Leythos wrote:
Personal firewalls can and do block outgoing traffic.
Only if the application generating the traffic isn't smart enough to
reconfigure, disable, or bypass the personal firewall.
So, then making a blanket statement of "Personal firewalls can't do
that" is actually incorrect in your opinion. What you should have
said was that Some personal firewalls, when improperly configured
with the OS, do not offer much, if any, outbound protection. Some
personal firewalls, of which the XP Firewall is not considered a
firewall, do provide outbound protection when properly configured and
maintained.
Well said...
... yet still wrong.
You can configure and maintain any personal firewall as properly as you
like, it still can't prevent applications from communicating outbound,
if the applications are smart enough to reconfigure, disable or bypass
the personal firewall. Period.
http://www.copton.net/vortraege/pfw/en.html
|
Let's be *practical* though. I would say that in 95% of the cases, the
personal firewall would prevent the outbound attempt. Well, might be
99%, I don't know.
--
Kerodo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Triffid
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:21 am Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Kerodo wrote:
| Quote: | Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
Kerodo wrote:
Leythos wrote:
In article <gZKmf.10650$kt5.1037893@news20.bellglobal.com>,
triffid@nebula.net says...
Leythos wrote:
Personal firewalls can and do block outgoing traffic.
Only if the application generating the traffic isn't smart enough to
reconfigure, disable, or bypass the personal firewall.
So, then making a blanket statement of "Personal firewalls can't do
that" is actually incorrect in your opinion. What you should have
said was that Some personal firewalls, when improperly configured
with the OS, do not offer much, if any, outbound protection. Some
personal firewalls, of which the XP Firewall is not considered a
firewall, do provide outbound protection when properly configured and
maintained.
Well said...
... yet still wrong.
You can configure and maintain any personal firewall as properly as you
like, it still can't prevent applications from communicating outbound,
if the applications are smart enough to reconfigure, disable or bypass
the personal firewall. Period.
http://www.copton.net/vortraege/pfw/en.html
Let's be *practical* though. I would say that in 95% of the cases, the
personal firewall would prevent the outbound attempt. Well, might be
99%, I don't know.
|
I agree - today.
Current malware typically does not include personal firewall
circumvention code, because lack of same does not significantly impede
it's effectiveness.
If the situation changed as a result of widespread adoption of personal
firewalls, malware would adapt accordingly - without impediment as the
notion of a "firewall" process securely controlling the behavior of
other local processes is nonsense under anything less than a multi-level
operating system.
Triffid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfgang Kueter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Leythos wrote:
| Quote: | Funny, I've seen a PFW stop a virus with it's own SMTP engine as the
virus was not permitted outbound access.
|
The particular malware was not sufficiently evil enough.
| Quote: | Guess that proves you wrong again.
|
No.
| Quote: | I would not call a virus with it's own SMTP engine harmless.
|
The particular malware was not evil enough to try to attack or circumvent
the PFW. Some malware does this (sometime successfully, sometimes not),
some does not, Bugbear was quite successful in attacking or shutting down
Personal Firewalls.
Wolfgang |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiecher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Kerodo wrote:
| Quote: | Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
You can configure and maintain any personal firewall as properly as
you like, it still can't prevent applications from communicating
outbound, if the applications are smart enough to reconfigure,
disable or bypass the personal firewall. Period.
http://www.copton.net/vortraege/pfw/en.html
Let's be *practical* though. I would say that in 95% of the cases,
the personal firewall would prevent the outbound attempt. Well, might
be 99%, I don't know.
|
Might be 1% as well. Like you said: you don't know. That's why personal
firewalls can't enforce *security* the way they propose.
cu
59cobalt
--
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available."
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Volker Birk
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Kerodo <loopback@localhost.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Let's be *practical* though. I would say that in 95% of the cases, the
personal firewall would prevent the outbound attempt. Well, might be
99%, I don't know.
|
In 100% of the cases, where an outbound connection is harmless, the
"Personal Firewall" will prevent it, because it can control applications,
which don't prevent being controlled.
In exact 0% of the cases, where data is being transmitted by a dangerous
malware, whose programmer does want to do harmful things, and the
programmer is not an idiot and knows, that there are "Personal Firewalls"
in the wild now, the "Personal Firewall" can prevent this communication.
There are some cases left in between, where the programmers are dumb (and
therefore mostly harmless) or where the malware is from times, when no
"Personal Firewalls" where known.
Yours,
VB.
--
"Ich bin ein freier Mensch und werde jetzt von meinen Freiheitsrechten
Gebrauch machen - und zwar ausgiebig - natürlich nur in dem Rahmen, den
Otto Schily mir noch zur Verfügung stellt."
Wolfgang Clement am 10.10.05 als Noch-Superminister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Volker Birk
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
Triffid <triffid@nebula.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Current malware typically does not include personal firewall
circumvention code, because lack of same does not significantly impede
it's effectiveness.
|
This is a very dangerous wrong assumption, you're telling us here.
You should not only have a look onto those ridiculous "mail worms",
which your virus scanner is reporting, but onto malware, too, which
is really dangerous, and is not widespread but represents a serious
attack.
BTW: the Witty-Worm is an example for a widespread malware, which even
uses "Personal Firewalls" to spread.
Yours,
VB.
--
"Ich bin ein freier Mensch und werde jetzt von meinen Freiheitsrechten
Gebrauch machen - und zwar ausgiebig - natürlich nur in dem Rahmen, den
Otto Schily mir noch zur Verfügung stellt."
Wolfgang Clement am 10.10.05 als Noch-Superminister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leythos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Recurrent question |
|
|
In article <439ece1e@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
| Quote: | Kerodo <loopback@localhost.com> wrote:
Let's be *practical* though. I would say that in 95% of the cases, the
personal firewall would prevent the outbound attempt. Well, might be
99%, I don't know.
In 100% of the cases, where an outbound connection is harmless, the
"Personal Firewall" will prevent it, because it can control applications,
which don't prevent being controlled.
In exact 0% of the cases, where data is being transmitted by a dangerous
malware, whose programmer does want to do harmful things, and the
programmer is not an idiot and knows, that there are "Personal Firewalls"
in the wild now, the "Personal Firewall" can prevent this communication.
|
Funny, I've seen a PFW stop a virus with it's own SMTP engine as the
virus was not permitted outbound access. Guess that proves you wrong
again. I would not call a virus with it's own SMTP engine harmless.
| Quote: | There are some cases left in between, where the programmers are dumb (and
therefore mostly harmless) or where the malware is from times, when no
"Personal Firewalls" where known.
|
And there are some cases where the person posting is also dumb, but not
harmless, like you VB.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in