Here is a link to an interesting article on the utility of personal
firewalls, the merits of which have been much discussed in this group of
late. (Mind the line wrap)
-raincoater

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=275379
&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/

raincoater wrote:
This might make it easier for some..

http://tinyurl.com/qonzg

On 30 Aug 2006 12:14:35 +0200, raincoater <raincoater@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

Very condescending and inaccurate article.

-

Bob

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:14:35 -0500, raincoater
<raincoater@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Some points are accurate, however, the gist of the article
is totally incorrect.

--
I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com

Am 30 Aug 2006 12:14:35 +0200 schrieb raincoater:


Be careful - firewall fans will roast you for posting this ;-)
In germany this issue is heavily discussed and always ends up like this:

person a: "wow my new firewall gave me tons of warnings - i didn't know the
internet sooooo dangerous"

person b: "these are simple portscans. A proper configured system has no
open ports. read here: http://www.linkblock.de"

person a: "i didn't understand any of this bullshit. And the firewall
prevents programs from calling home."

person b: "don't install programs you don't trust. If you'd bought a car
without brakes..." (now the car comparison comes in or sometimes the 'House
with no door'-theme)

from this point a and b start a flame war, person c writes: "I'll fetch the
popcorn", some people try to bring some arguments but are ignored and the
sentence "a firewall is no software, it's a concept" appears at ot least
once....

The article you mentioned gives a short summary of the arguments. The
linkblock-site offers many links dealing with this issue, unfortunate
mostly german ones.
Here's an english site that describes how to configure win2000/xp in order
to close some unneccesary ports:
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote in
news:d4kbf2t2urdgtnhm0g782a9kb3jbjdtg1a@4ax.com:

Hey Bob, I am far from a network Guru, so if you feel like elucidating some
of the inaccuracies in the article, I would be most appreciative.
The article was cited on Slashdot so I thought it might have some merit.
I know, that's what I get for 'thinking'!
-raincoater

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:43:44 -0500, raincoater
<raincoater@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Well, it is kinda like...wanna be safe...just use a router and don't surf
or use email



--
I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com

Hello, Eric Huebner !
You wrote:


NOW you tell me! :0)

BTW Thanks for the links.
-raincoater

On 31 Aug 2006 02:43:44 +0200, raincoater <raincoater@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

Hi Raincoater,

Glad to. First, Dirk implied that we are completely stupid.

Dirk also implied that home firewalls are useless. That's totally
untrue, and flies in the face of the consensus of experienced Internet
users. My firewall has blocked many, many unwanted and suspicious
activities. Home firewalls will reliably block inbound and outbound
worm and Trojan activity. They will block and alert you about unwanted
outgoing activity (phoning home) by installed programs. If a program
has been changed by malicious code, a home firewall will alert you. I
could go on and on. Dirk may call that useless, but it's something I
can not afford to be without.

Hardware routers are good for blocking unused ports. However, they are
not convenient for filtering suspicious activity on normal active
ports during normal use.

If you want to know the truth, it sounds like someone is hyping
something. Here is an excerpt from Dirk's article:

You've got to ask yourself what Stefan Wolf does for a living. He
makes big bucks by designing security systems, and desktop firewalls
obviously threaten his job security. "Experts" absolutely hate free
software that diminishes their work!
-

Bob

Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote in
news:vj2jf254gpl8lo9ian03eqr39o63hq7r7m@4ax.com:

Thanks for your reply. (I am now cowering in fear of Peter Seiler's
wrath!) :0)
-raincoater

On 3 Sep 2006 10:39:09 +0200, raincoater <raincoater@nowhere.invalid>
wrote in <news:44fa94ad$1_2@x-privat.org>:

I can't imagine why. All urine and acetic acid, likes to play netcop
occasionally. Eminently ignorable gate and gaiters merchant.

--
Die dulci fruere,
Nicolaas.



.... There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:


Maybe, but your post is a double-confirmation what Peter meant :-)


OT reply with/AND full-qouting.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:55:40 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Mandic
<daniel_mandic@ping.at> wrote in
<news:edfbvs$kn7$1@paperboy.si.eunet.at>:

Exactly why I made it.


--
Die dulci fruere,
Nicolaas.



.... We often don't appreciate what we have until we lose it. Don't wait
for that to happen.

Nicolaas Hawkins - 03.09.2006 12:44 :

nice mentioning my name. In the meantime many convinced me that
fullquoting is a good idea - perhaps topposting also? ;-)

Greetings

--

by(e) PS

spam will be killed

Eric Huebner wrote:
<snip long sample argument>

You seem to have missed out a very important debating issue, whether it
is possible for a software firewall to block all outbound attempts via
all possible dirty tricks (leak tests), given that the malware is
already given free reign in the system....

A lot of experts are of the opinion that it is not possible...or at
least way too costly to try...

Certainly Comodo is trying hard to prove this is possible, which
explains why it is so bloated....

On 4 Sep 2006 02:41:29 -0700, "Aaron" <aaronnewsgroup@gmail.com>
wrote:


I agree it's impractical to be 100% safe. You get rapidly diminishing
returns when you near 100% security.

However, it's very easy to be 95% safe, and not real tough being 99%
safe. Banks and Government agencies need to be 99.999% safe, because
being breeched can be a disaster. If I'm breached, it's no big deal
because I keep no sensitive information on my computer.
-

Bob