How are personal firewalls ineffective against a whole lot of typical
attacks?? Wouldn't be the same type of argument used against Network Based
Intrusion Detection??? And also, couldn't the same be said about the
uneducated security administrator who can't the difference between when
they are really being hacked and when they are not??
The same can also be said about Corporate Firewalls?? Or better yet, could
the argument be made that Doctors actually kill more people than people
owning guns.. :)
At 02:03 PM 12/1/00 -0500, Phonix wrote:
> > Personal firewalls are useful and should be considered by any user who
> > directly connects to hostile networks, such as the Internet. They have a
> > role to play in both the corporate and SOHO (Small Office/Home Office)
>
>The problem with all the products you listed is that they are completely
>ineffective against a whole lot of typical attacks. Zonelab, Ice, etc,
>all don't bother to protect the stack. Why bother if someone can blow up
>your machine with a simple stack attack and your so-called "firewall"
>never sees it?
>
>The personal firewalls out on the market today are substantially worthless
>tools designed to take advantage of a paranoid, uneducated market base
>that can't tell the difference between when they're really being protected
>and when they're not. They take advantage of the people who say "Ooh we
>need security on our computer so Johnny doesn't become a hacker" and have
>no idea what the software they're getting does and does not protect
>against.
>
>What's the substantial difference between SOHO firewalls and corporate
>server-based firewalls? My guess is that one actually protects the
>machine. But the btter questions is, should there be a difference? I
>don't think so.
>
>.phonix.
>
>-
>[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
