| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 70333 | 2006-06-29 12:38:00 | Zone Alarm is retiring from Win98 ........ | paradox (1082) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 467369 | 2006-07-13 05:23:00 | You mean exploits that get by NAT but are stopped by a software firewall? inbound no, no firewall can . outbound yes, unless you think NAT can do application control . Sorry but you can live without a software firewall if you're careful what you do . I work in an IT department and the majority of people I work with would not run a software firewall, and some would not use anti-virus . And network protection is their day job . BINGO . . . . . . . . my whole point exactly . an IT pro can do without because they know their system, however all others users don't have any idea and we all can't be IT pro's . its totally irresponsible to promote security setups only the professional could get away with using . just because YOU can get away without using AV firewall etc doesn't mean the rest of us can . So quit setting up people for a fall :angry |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 467370 | 2006-07-13 11:42:00 | inbound no, no firewall can . outbound yes, unless you think NAT can do application control . BINGO . . . . . . . . my whole point exactly . an IT pro can do without because they know their system, however all others users don't have any idea and we all can't be IT pro's . its totally irresponsible to promote security setups only the professional could get away with using . just because YOU can get away without using AV firewall etc doesn't mean the rest of us can . So quit setting up people for a fall :angry Who was promoting it? Just pointing out your initial position was wrong when you were so keen to shoot me down in flames . Remember it was you who said "<groan> not again . . . thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the . . . . . . . " Turns out you were wrong and I'm sorry but the same people you think a software firewall protects often won't understand how it works so will be no better off . But the point was you can be secure without one, not that you shouldn't use one . Give yourself that kick, it bounced off me . |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 467371 | 2006-07-13 13:28:00 | Every machine I am responsible for has a software firewall, AV and active anti-spyware prog installed . If the machine lives behind a NAT router, great, this is a bonus . The idea that an "IT pro" can monitor every thing going on in his machine 365/24/7 is surely a joke . We use software as the monitoring tool because it doesn't need to sleep and it can detect "unseeable" activities . It also has a large team behind it investigating and adding updates for new threats . In addition, an IT pro doesn't watch the maybe hundreds of computers s/he is responsible for . Read their job description . It will say something like set up secure systems for the employees to follow/use . There are also many business laptops going out of the business to be used on all sorts of dodgy connections then brought back to hook into the business network . Red alert . And these machines are on the internal network as trusted devices . Believe me, I would want to have taken ALL reasonable security precautions when the enquiry gets setup to investigate the million dollar loss caused by having to take a large business system down to disinfect it . And if this sounds like it comes from someone who is/has been an IT manager, you are right! |
linw (53) | ||
| 467372 | 2006-07-14 08:50:00 | ok Twelvevolts seeing as your showing your age here.... how do you stop a mouse driver or printer driver from accessing the net? both use comman ports eg same as browser. on a home pc you wouldn't even know they where accessing the net, so please how would NAT stop them ?? don't forget this is a home pc, not some locked down buisness pc. AV will not detect these as they are legit, likewise neither will AS detect them. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 467373 | 2006-07-14 10:26:00 | Every machine I am responsible for has a software firewall, AV and active anti-spyware prog installed . If the machine lives behind a NAT router, great, this is a bonus . The idea that an "IT pro" can monitor every thing going on in his machine 365/24/7 is surely a joke . We use software as the monitoring tool because it doesn't need to sleep and it can detect "unseeable" activities . It also has a large team behind it investigating and adding updates for new threats . In addition, an IT pro doesn't watch the maybe hundreds of computers s/he is responsible for . Read their job description . It will say something like set up secure systems for the employees to follow/use . There are also many business laptops going out of the business to be used on all sorts of dodgy connections then brought back to hook into the business network . Red alert . And these machines are on the internal network as trusted devices . Believe me, I would want to have taken ALL reasonable security precautions when the enquiry gets setup to investigate the million dollar loss caused by having to take a large business system down to disinfect it . And if this sounds like it comes from someone who is/has been an IT manager, you are right! I don't have an issue with people running software firewalls, I think I said elsewhere I use Kerio . Fact is for any flaws you can point at a hardware firewall, there are equal flaws with a software firewall . However an anti-virus, anti spyware and firewall (as well as a few other security tools) makes perfect sense . The point is that my not running a software firewall doesn't warrant a " <groan> not again" comment, and I never implied that I didn't use other security tools . Hackers don't generally need to go after the people with some security, there are enough out there with none . |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 467374 | 2006-07-14 10:45:00 | read it again . My router does the job and no need to run a software firewall . <groan> not again . . . thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the . . . . . . . people who promote the very old "you don't a software firewall" rant do need a swift kick in the . . . . . . . just like those who promote the "you don't need AV" rant . |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 467375 | 2006-07-14 19:52:00 | Guys, you are just going around in circles here. Perhaps agree to disagree on this subject ... | Jen (38) | ||
| 467376 | 2006-07-15 00:12:00 | if you ran windows 3.1 you would be safe, no hackers no crackers anyways the latest update will alwaysconsume more resources |
techiekid (7219) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||