| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 36678 | 2003-08-16 06:57:00 | BEEN TOLD | olldaddy76 (2539) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 168168 | 2003-08-16 06:57:00 | RE the BLASTER WORM........ or future such worms. That a firewall is needed if you are on A D S L but not if you use WIN 98... and are a home user...TRUE or FALSE and why!!?? But the need for using Windows Update is also a necessary ingredient. | olldaddy76 (2539) | ||
| 168169 | 2003-08-16 07:17:00 | ADSL is an internet connection and Win 98 can use ADSL. I think you may be meaning that you were told you do not need a firewall when using dial-up? Some people used to say that a firewall is unnecessary for users of dial-up internet connection but after this incident with the blaster worm they may have to revise that view as those on dial-up with a firewall were not affected. Win 98 was not affected by the blaster worm but that is not to say that it will be immune to future worms of this kind. Personally I would recommend that everyone install and use a firewall on all versions of Windows. |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 168170 | 2003-08-16 07:38:00 | Or perhaps a certain old 486 computer as a dedicated firewall ;) rather than a toy for the kids :O | Gorela (901) | ||
| 168171 | 2003-08-16 07:41:00 | I agree that up to now there has been little need to use a firewall on dial-up. The Blaster worm (and its kiddyscript variants that we will now see) has ended that, and a firewall is advisable in my opinion. If you run up-to-date virus software and apply all Windows patches as soon as they are available then any risk is mitigated significantly. Also important is to keep up to date with what is happening out there, read the news daily and understand when there is a problem. I can't believe the number of people that got infected PCs, and never knew what was happening despite radio, TV, newspapers saturation coverage. If you use ADSL its just that you are more open to attack as your PC is on-line all the time its turned on. Those of us with ADSL routers can still hide behind the hardware firewall function that a good router provides. Its just that this time the Worm was written to exploit a bug in Windows versions other than 95, 98 and ME. Next time it may not be so. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 168172 | 2003-08-16 07:55:00 | there are a few worms that effect win9x that a firewall will help prevent . not to mentioned MS's poor networking setup dosn't help . the days of carefree unprotected net surfing went out the windows years ago . hardware firewalls are ok but i wouldn't recommend them for the home . they still don't stop rougue programs (eg trojen that come via email), require maitence(patches etc) . things get interesting when its your hardware firewall/router that has been hacked . kinda reminds me of this post . . . . . . . . <quote> "It's somewhat surprising that nobody has yet used the Code Red fiasco as an analogy . Granted that the 3 'strains' seen so far have not as yet caused any widespread disruption of the Internet . However, as has been discussed elsewhere, a new 'strain' modified in the correct fashion could conceivably bring about mayhem . This worm is spreading because of laziness, ineptitude and lack of discipline . It should never have happened, the people responsible for the continued spread of Code Red are largely the people that are paid to administer their systems in such a manner that this kind of thing never gets to happen . These people are in a profession that should put them way above the much maligned home user . There has been enough publicity about CR and the patches and warnings have been around for weeks, so how come it's happening? How come corporate servers are left unpatched? how come servers maintained by trained and supposedly proficient people are crassly and embarrassingly open to infection and propagation? As I sit and watch the incredible number of probes to port 80, very few of which are down to home users, I cannot help but wonder at the irony regarding clueless 'home users' . The 'professionals' would appear to not be so hot at securing their systems themselves, and they are supposed to lead by example . If they can't even apply simple patches against a threat that is advertised weeks in advance, what hope is there of convincing poor old 'Joe Public' that he or she should take security seriously? This is a message from the webmaster of a local @Home users group . His observations about the use of illegal servers on @Home accounts is telling; I would not have espected that to be so prevalent: Aug 3rd - Why the site isnt there (or is it?) I'm guessing that everyone with an @Home connection thinks this website is down right now . Fortunately, they're only 1/2 correct . The site is running, but traffic to it is being blocked by the datacenter that houses the server . Why? Because right now, @Home users' unprotected illegal servers are infected producing enough traffic to saturate a pair of OC-3 fibers . And because of this, the datacenter had no choice but to block all traffic originating in @Home or RoadRunner IP ranges . The traffic alone (since their NT servers are innoculated, and the Linux servers are not suceptible) is enough to knock out a datacenter if left unchecked . . . I think this goes to show two things: 1) there's a lot of people running IIS in @home resential accounts and 2) there's a lot of people who are NOT running virus scanners . Right now, I'm bouncing through a secure forwarding service to write this . Anyone who's not on an @Home or Roadrunner network will be able the get in fine . . . . but until traffic dies to a manageable level, everyone else is SOL . ____________ Webmaster, RBUA . ORG </quote> |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 168173 | 2003-08-16 08:14:00 | If you can get windows to close all listening posts there really isn't a need for a firewall (except for the outbound app stuff if you want it) . The problem is getting it to close them, especially the filesharing ones . The current worm doesn't affect win98 but it still leaves the filesharing ports open so it could be affected by another exploit . |
bmason (508) | ||
| 168174 | 2003-08-16 10:43:00 | > RE the BLASTER WORM........ or future such worms. > That a firewall is needed if you are on A > D S L but not if you use WIN 98... and are a home > user...TRUE or FALSE and why!!?? But the need for > using Windows Update is also a necessary ingredient. Sitting behind NAT on a router you should not need a firewall either. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 168175 | 2003-08-16 10:58:00 | The only possible need for a firewall when behind a NAT router, is to guard against a trojan application causing outward traffic . If you are not downloading and installing junk, and surfing sensibly then it should not be needed, agreed . |
godfather (25) | ||
| 168176 | 2003-08-16 11:44:00 | >If you are not downloading and installing junk, and surfing sensibly then it should not be needed, agreed. never! ;-) most of the pc's that i have clean out of spyware and trojans have been surfing sensibly. most of the time they don't even realise they are infected. its not untill you install a firewall that they even notice they have been infected. the problem is that the rest of us suffer due to the inability of others to get their sicurity sorted. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 168177 | 2003-08-16 12:04:00 | Where have I gone wrong then? Is it just luck? In the last couple of years, I have never had any spyware, adware, trojans or viruses. I periodically give adaware a run, and enable a software firewall to check for any unwanted intruders. Nothing found apart from the adcache folder (unused) in Eudora and a few cookies. I do click "no" to installing helpers quite often though. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||