Re: Compentant Security in

Re: Compentant Security

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:45:29 EDT

dumbTNtech : Say what you will, I've been doing ISP support for four years now and I haven't seen the ICF keep anyone offline. I have seen Zone Alarm suddenly block ALL incoming and outgoing traffic for no apparent reason. Then it's a real pain to remove. The ICF in WindowsXP seems to do a very good job. The only situation where it's not helpful is when you have a trojan on your system letting someone or something in. Of course, that never happens to anyone here.......
--
"Don't try to explain computers to a layman-easier to explain sex to a virgin." -R.A. Heinlein

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:08:55 EDT

keyboard5684 : iptables, a Linux thing. Completely off base. We are not talking about complex firewall operations (which in my opinion the FreeBSD ipfw is far superior to a simple iptables function in linux), we are talking about Windows firewalls.

Zone alarm compared to the Windows firewall that is built in. In my eyes the Windows firewall is better because it shuts up. I do not think you should have to watch a firewall, it should just do its job. How many people go through there firewall logs and actually do something about it?

PIX firewall can track and customize matching/action on every field of the frame. Even a Cisco router can do what you stated without the firewall feature set. Checkpoint firewall can do it all to. I can go on and on about how many different firewall setups are better but since you learned how to write an iptable rule congrats.

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:54:47 EDT

SpitefulCrow :

said by Rhobite :
Even the older one lets you open ports individually.

Ooh wow, opening ports. That's so great.
iptables supports connection tracking and customized matching based on almost every field in the packet/frame.

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:31:32 EDT

Rhobite : Even the older one lets you open ports individually.

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:27:17 EDT

Steve :

said by keyboard5684 :
Windows firewall allows you to modufy it to "open ports" or do what you wish.

The one in XP/SP2: yes. The older firewall really sucked (even though it did what it claimed).
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:37:00 EDT

keyboard5684 : Windows firewall allows you to modufy it to "open ports" or do what you wish.

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:59:28 EDT

Steve : Yay for firewalls that have more than two users

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:43:07 EDT

SpitefulCrow :

said by Steve :

said by SpitefulCrow :
Yay for system boot procedures that load firewall code and rulesets before any kind of network interface is brought online. :D
/linuxrave
Yah for XP Service Pack 2, which does the same thing

Yay for firewalls that give the user more control than "On" and "Off". /linuxrave

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:28:41 EDT

Steve :

said by SpitefulCrow :
Yay for system boot procedures that load firewall code and rulesets before any kind of network interface is brought online. :D
/linuxrave

Yah for XP Service Pack 2, which does the same thing

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:08:13 EDT

SpitefulCrow : Yay for system boot procedures that load firewall code and rulesets before any kind of network interface is brought online. :D
/linuxrave

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:48:39 EDT

pcscdma : at least this hasn't turned into a fight between Microsoft and Linu$ Torvald$' wares.
--
Be patriotic or I'm reporting you to Ashcroft.

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:56:26 EDT

Transmaster :

said by navalpatel :
At least ZoneAlarm is somewhat competant at what it is designed to do... compared to say anything that Microsoft may make (i.e. Windows firewall).

Don't compare the lame Windows Firewall as it is now with
what in included on the SP-2 Beta it works as well as any software firewall I have used.
--
»www.gobpl.com

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:31:42 EDT

dave :

said by Rhobite :
Please give a specific example of what the Windows firewall fails to do. The only thing I can think of is that during startup there's a brief period of exposure before the firewall kicks in. I agree that this is a small problem but it's fixed in SP2.

...and it's not clear that ZA does not have the same exposure (see Security forum posts passim).

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:24:53 EDT

Rhobite : Please give a specific example of what the Windows firewall fails to do. The only thing I can think of is that during startup there's a brief period of exposure before the firewall kicks in. I agree that this is a small problem but it's fixed in SP2.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:13:01 EDT

Steve :

said by dave :
There's one in every crowd, huh?

at least he didn't spell "Microsoft" with a $

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:08:05 EDT

Combat Chuck :

said by navalpatel :
At least ZoneAlarm is somewhat competant at what it is designed to do... compared to say anything that Microsoft may make (i.e. Windows firewall).

No, XP's firewall did exactly what it was designed to do; block unsolicited incoming connections. It just didn't do what you wanted it to do; block outgoing connections.
--
Japan-- Now with 30% more climbable telephone poles!!

Re: Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:03:10 EDT

dave :

said by navalpatel :
At least ZoneAlarm is somewhat competant at what it is designed to do... compared to say anything that Microsoft may make (i.e. Windows firewall).

There's one in every crowd, huh?

... and it's strange how they usually can't spell.

Compentant Security

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:47:40 EDT

navalpatel : At least ZoneAlarm is somewhat competant at what it is designed to do... compared to say anything that Microsoft may make (i.e. Windows firewall).