  mfeenySweeper51Premium
join:2000-06-03
Detroit, MI | router and sygate with all the problems out there ya just cant be safe enough. but any protection you can get is definitely better than nothing. i dont understand why people dont use them. maybe too much trouble, huh? | |
|
 |  PathfinderDazed ConfusedPremium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Re: router and sygate Quite frankly I think the %40 number is understated. I think it is far more than that.
--
support the Hunley | |
|
| |
| | pierce2
join:1999-09-22
Santa Cruz, CA | better get used to the feel of slime... I hope you thoroughly secure your system then. The particular 'worm' this article describes does port scans looking for 'microsoft networking', if it finds it, it tries to use various exploits on the 'null session' to gain a list of shared resources and usernames, then it tries to 'crack' their passwords via brute force dictionary attacks. If the worm 'cracks' an account on your system, it can install a copy of itself, which then goes looking for other suckers to infect.
the only way to prevent this sort of hacking is to have SOME sort of firewall protection that blocks outside port connections. this can be a cable/dsl 'router' like a Linksys, or it can be a software firewall such as Zone Alarm, or even the one built into Windows XP.
This 'null session' is the same thing that the Windows "Network Neighborhood" uses on a LAN to browse servers. it should *NOT* be made visible to the public internet. | |
|
| | |
| | | | | Re: I just dont like the 'feel' I'm with you on this one. I tested my firewall a while back so I would know for sure if it was going to be a bottleneck. I set up a web server on the wan port and a client on the trusted port and let it rip. The HTTP proxy was able to pass over 49Mbits/sec. with full packet inspection enabled. Granted, this isn't a run of the mill Linky router but it's still by personal home firewall. Besides, who's got a fast enough circuit where they're going to see a noticeable difference anyway? | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | You're bound to get hacked at some point. Noone ever plans for it. Be sure to have your important files backed-up.
Your IP is more than likely exposed and some jerk/hack WILL eventually see it -from a trusted resource or not. Do yourself a favor, get some protection. If you don't now, you will at some point. | |
|
| |  ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH | said by dnoyeB:
I prefer to connect naturally and only use trusted resources 
I am not the typical computer user. I don’t use IE, all scripting is turned off, I don’t run stuff downloaded off the Internet. I still have a firewall, it is a simple Linux based firewall to keep others out.
In the past two hours I have seen seven attempts to connect to my firewall. These are blind attempts because it won’t even respond to pings.
With this information I do not understand why anyone would run a system without a firewall.
BTW the system running the firewall is an old 486 that someone was throwing out and I can still max my connection. | |
|
| |  bcoolPremium
join:2000-08-25
The Ozarks
|
"I just don't like the feeling"
that's what a guy said to my poor young daughter who's now in her second trimester. I say bullhockey!!
--
"in flagrante delicto"
[text was edited by author 2002-12-17 19:08:16] | |
|
| | Fudus
join:2001-12-02
philippines
| said by dnoyeB:
I just don't like the feel.
They block my flow.
They hinder my speed.
I don't get the same responsiveness.
I prefer to connect naturally and only use trusted resources
I agree entirely.
You shouldn't be allowing anything that might compromise your security on your computer.
Plus it takes up resources I'd much rather use on something else which is actually useful.
[Edit: spelling]
[text was edited by author 2002-12-18 01:22:07] | |
|
| wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | Re: router and sygate said by mfeeny:
with all the problems out there ya just cant be safe enough. but any protection you can get is definitely better than nothing. i dont understand why people dont use them. maybe too much trouble, huh?
Possibly too much trouble for folks who don't know better. FWIW, I'm running an SMC router and Zone Alarm... Unlike the router, Zone Alarm can block *outgoing* stuff...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
| | | I agree and disagree. Unsettling isn't it. With all the threats out there today(maybe worse in the future)I think not just any protection but the best protection you can get. The worse that could happen is a little less memory but it's better then someone using you for an attack(Denial of Service)or finding out everything about you and using it against you. Just my opinion.:)
--
Proud member of BBR Team Starfire and Team Helix-Find me here | |
|
IcyFireFlammable Ice
join:2001-05-30
Somewhere |  There no excuse not to have one
It only takes a few mins to d/l Zone Alarm, there's really no excuse for such ignorance. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: There no excuse not to have one said by IcyFire:
there's really no excuse for such ignorance.
Agreed. If you can afford to pay $50 a month for a broadband connection, you can easily afford to buy a cheap NAT/firewall box.
--
DRM == Doesn't Read MP3s | |
|
 JaimePremium
join:2001-06-03
Huntington Beach, CA |  No software firewall for me
--
Chat with the BBr CS/UT/BF clan | |
|
|  beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium
join:2000-05-06
Eastern PA | Re: No software firewall for me said by Jaime:
I see no use for one for myself. I think my linksys router does a fine job and most importantly I use common sense, something that is lacking with most computer users, when I don't open attachments with .exe or .vbs etc.. Also I scan my files with a trojan detector.
ditto here except I go one step further.. my windoez boxes are safely hidden behind a NAT router and the only box I keep on the DMZ is my sparc running Solaris.
maybe I'm pushing my luck but since 1995 not a single Sun box under my control has successfully been hacked / penetrated. Simple common sense in configuration I suppose. making sure any possible source of penetration is secured helps also.
I would never let a Windoez box run naked on the net.. too many damn holes :-/ | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Safe Computing ??? Is this any different then safe sex... I think not if you wrap the other thinker why not wrap your pc also after all im sure it has all your pertainent information in it. I believe people just don't understand what they get themselves into and im also sure the people who don't use such tools are also the people who complain their pc slows down or better yet their connections become unusable.
Reminds me of nimbda and some other viruses like code red who took down servers and home users alike because some where foolish enuff to not wrap their connection  . Atleast in the pc world you can fix your mess up by reloading in the real world their isn't any going back from VD's | |
|
| | | Re: Safe Computing ??? said by BosstonesOwn:
Is this any different then safe sex... I think not if you wrap the other thinker why not wrap your pc also after all im sure it has all your pertainent information in it. I believe people just don't understand what they get themselves into and im also sure the people who don't use such tools are also the people who complain their pc slows down or better yet their connections become unusable.
Reminds me of nimbda and some other viruses like code red who took down servers and home users alike because some where foolish enuff to not wrap their connection . Atleast in the pc world you can fix your mess up by reloading in the real world their isn't any going back from VD's
Thats different.
With sex you have to go out and find a person to FU*K.
With no-firewall, someone will find you and FU*K you.
murdok610 | |
|
| | Firewalls only help get rid of the symptoms. The real disease is insecure software, and users who just don't practice good security online. I am pretty sure that if users just did a Windows Update every now and then and steered clear of executable attachments they'd be much less likely to be compromised. | |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Viruses, worms and Trojans.....OH MY I have:
1. NAT firewall
2. Software firewall
3. Loud barking dog
////////// | |
|
|  guycad$In Search Of Free SpeechPremium
join:2002-05-02
Pompton Lakes, NJ | Re: Viruses, worms and Trojans.....OH MY I have:
1. IPTABLES firewall
2. Four barking dogs.
 | |
|
| | | | Re: Viruses, worms and Trojans.....OH MY
1. A single computer not connected to a home network.
2. Dynamic IP (and yes I reset my modem to get that new IP regularly).
3. ZoneAlarm
4. Clock alarm (to wake me up in the mornings and ... er... reset my modem for a new IP)
5. A cat that snores
6. A picture of a barking dog.
I AM SET!!
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | | | Re: Viruses, worms and Trojans.....OH MY [
5. A cat that snores
]
so THAT'S why it's called CAT-5! 'Mazing what you learn on these forums. | |
|
|  stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | 1. I have a NAT router (default routing to an internal IP that is not in use by any machine)
2. I have Client for MS Networks and File and Print Sharing bound only to NetBEUI, not TCP/IP
3. I don't have NetBIOS over TCP/IP
4. I don't use IE or Outlook/OE
5. I don't use a software firewall
6. I have virus detection software installed, but not configured to always run in the background or autoscan traffic
7. I have an iguana and 2 cats, ever watchful, mostly of each other
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
|
| | | | Re: Viruses, worms and Trojans.....OH MY 1. Linux box running IPCop that's a NAT router.
2. No software firewalls on any machine.
3. Drunk redneck with a shotgun, who doesn't like anyone "on his property". | |
|
|  ki1oPremium
join:2001-04-12
Atlanta, GA | I have:
1. NAT firewall
2. Software firewall
3. Don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook Express
4. A loud barking dog
--
Boycott The RIAA | |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Virus is the main threat Broadband vs dialup does not materially change your risk, you are either connected or not. If you are connected you are at risk. Connection speed controls how long it takes to perpetrate whatever mischief the attacker has in mind.
Having said that unless you are running a service on a machine directly connected to the Internet the risk of direct remote attack are minimal, since the attacker has no service to connect to.
The real risk is loading a virus or trojan, firewalls do nothing to protect against that threat. Anti virus protection is critical since is able to detect (in most cases) bad code BEFORE it executes.
I'm not a big fan of software firewalls, I find them a nuisance. | |
|
| | | Re: Virus is the main threat Yeah, what he said. The most popular software firewalls--ZoneAlarm, McAfee, and Norton--are buggy, which shouldn't be any surprise since it took a lot of years to get the bugs worked out of the TCP/IP stacks.
Plus, if the policy is to prohibit the unknown, how does something become known in the first place? If firewalls had been widely deployed 10 years ago, we wouldn't have the www today. It was only because there were unprotected hosts at universities and on dial-up that folks were able to gain experience with www traffic and make an educated assessment of risks and rewards.
One of the most popular security principles today is "only I can initiate communications". But, if everyone adopts that rule, all communications will cease. Okay, you say: Others will operate Servers. And you will consume whatever they provide. Just like TV! I'd rather take a few risks. The threats are over-rated. | |
|
| |  2kmaroThinkPremium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave | Re: Virus is the main threat said by timoteo21:
One of the most popular security principles today is "only I can initiate communications".
Small exception/modification to that statement: "only I can initiate AUTHORIZED communications..." That's where the software firewall comes in so handy. If nothing else they are very good at detecting the 'unauthorized' attempts to connect to the internet. If I'm running server software, be it HTTP, FTP, Gopher or whatever then that is "authorized" to accept/initiate communications and it's up to me to implement proper security on it. It is the unknown visitor that you must be guarded against.
I've only, to my knowledge, had one virus on my system and no trojans, but lots of 'ad-ware' that called home. The virus was brought on to the system from a trusted source (my boss - gave me a file he downloaded from a U.S. Gov't site for review) and the source file was infected. That was my wake-up call to the world of virii, trojans and the like. But having ZoneAlarm on my system has notified me of stuff that got put on my system without my permission that would have used my connection WITHOUT PERMISSION when it tried to call home. One that comes to mind that several different software packages attempted to saddle me with was WebHancer -- if I hadn't had the software firewall in place I doubt if I'd have ever been the wiser about it.
--
Happy Holidays to All!! Wishing you a each a very Happy New Year! | |
|
| | Being on the net with out a firewall is like... Not having a door made out of paper it's not hard to break in and finally, its like Goatse bending over with out pants in SF, some is bound to find his open ports. | |
|
| | Hardware firewall the only way to go. I prefer my setup,I currently run OpenBSD 2.9 with packet filter running. It may be a little advanced for most users but the rulesets are *very* customizable. But hey,to each his own. | |
|
|  StarfishPer Ardua Ad AstraExMod 2002-04
join:2000-12-28
Netherlands | Re: Hardware firewall the only way to go.I'm running FreeBSD 4.7 with IPFILTER on a Pentium 100MHz....and it rocks!
Very stable and my internet-connection has never been faster
--
Saving the environment can be as easy as a click! | |
|
| | | | Re: Hardware firewall the only way to go. I have a Netopia Router with the hardware firewall turned on and configured for my needs for both traffic in and out. Pretty much blocks everything non-dynamic coming in. Behind this I will be turning on Multi-NAT on the Netopia to create a natted DMZ. On one of my public IP's I have a Linksys Router which is already a NAT firewall (will just do a one to one mapping to avoid double NAT) where I place all my home PC's (family use). My public servers will be on one private network and I will access them from the second private network (behind the Linksys) via a VPN connection to the Netopia.
Currently I have NAT turned off and have the Linksys on one of the public IP's but still behind the Netopia firewall. Will change to the above as soon as I get my public servers built.
I use LinkLogger to monitor traffic to and from the home network and Kiwi SysLog to monitor traffic violations in and out of the Netopia.
I'm still looking for some type of IDS to run on the DMZ and private network. Any suggestions?
So how does the above fair?
P.S. Some words above may be mis-spelled. 8-p | |
|
| | software firewalls software firewalls are barely a step above no firewall. plus they eat cpu/fps from games. all they do is give a false sense of security. | |
|
 BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Some people just don't care until its too late When I was running Win98se without a network it really didn't matter if I had a firewall, or not as I simply had my netbios disabled. When I moved to XP(NT), I can't believe people run this OS without a firewall on it as it is a server OS which could be exploited against in many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many ways.
When most people have something bad happen to them, its too late, and that is why prevention is the best protection in many cases. I simply run a software firewall to protect many services from leaking onto the internet that others don't need to be nosing around with.
--
"You've got mail!" Cool! I have mail, now just how do you open this damn thing? Open!... OPEN! "Application in use" Application in use? What application in use?! I haven't started any application! "Socket timeout" What the hell does that mean?!? | |
|
| | It is the hassle I am one of those that have a spotty record regarding firewalls. I know they are good for me, but they are a pain in the rear (much like exercise). I game a lot, and every single game give me some hassle when I run a firewall.
Life is just easier with out (expect for the one virus that made me reformat two PC's). And typically when I run behind my router I put my gaming PC in the DMZ. This negates the benefit of a firewall (right?). | |
|
| | don't have a firewall? when was the last time you guys ran a security sweep? probe for open ports? services? it's just a matter of time before someone else does.
fact: driving around on the internet without a firewall is like driving around on a swampy Florida backroad in July without a windshield. You're bound to eat some bugs sooner or later.
Honestly, does ZA eat that much of your CPU cycles?
my setup:
Linksys Router w NAT
Zone Alarm
Sound like overkill? I think my data is more important than a few CPU cycles. | |
|
| | False sense of security an important point I'd like to pick up on the excellent thread that has developed through skrote, eat me, tschmidt and a few others.
I have a software firewall. I wouldn't say it's a BAD idea. Still, if we are talking about risks to people who aren't tech savvy these firewalls can actually make the security issue worse. There is too much tendency to sell them as easy bulletproof protection. As was pointed out, the primary problems are messy risky computing practices, buggy software and running services without understanding the implications.
Furthermore it isn't simply bugs in software but software design decisions that are at fault. In an age where media players have integrated browsers that can open urls which can trigger scripting support, etc. it is inevitable that problems will erupt. A single click these days can trigger off a cascade of actions that can lead to all world of trouble before someone realizes what has happened. I think integrating browser support into the OS falls into this category as well. These are design problems, not simply a matter of missing bugs. I doubt that this type of approach can ever be made secure. | |
|
| ALapo
join:2001-06-11
Washington, DC | Re: False sense of security an important point I agree. I do NOT run a firewall (at home), however I am not an average joe run all programs click every link idiot. Just have some brains, keep everything updated, and check your system every once in a while... | |
|
| |  some guy$Mommy What's Irony?
join:2002-11-08
Manitowoc, WI | Re: False sense of security an important point the real threat is internal not external--the odds are much higher that your wife or kids are going to install something bad/open email attachments etc. port scanners and scripts are zillion to one shots (now how many of your wives/kids installed bonzi buddy/comet cursor/gator? be honest now)
i rest my case | |
|
| |  Firewall?? singular
PS for those who celebrate it... Merry Christmas and have a safe New Year | |
|
| | |  OOPS !!!
| |
|
| Firewalled
I have a backup as well...
131 lbs of eukanuba fed pure hell....He loves cat 5 too!~
[text was edited by author 2002-12-20 08:42:10] | |
|
|
|
You will be (if running Windows) hacked easily one day. Or worse, you may be owned already (and not even know it) while being used to break into, attack or DoS other PC's as a middle man.
