Nick Holland wrote: > exactly. > This idea of using VMware (or similar) to host a firewall that > protects the host operating system is something I find somewhere > between amusing (because its silly) and scary (because it indicates > people don't really understand, and think that a "firewall" works > magic, and these people might be protecting our personal data). > >
this goes without saying since any solution involving windows is, IMO, turd polishing. however, i am forced to use the turd (, luke?) and would rather have it wrapped in tinfoil than paper, not unlike a burrito. > I don't think that's a really good idea. > > A year ago, I thought it was a theoretically bad idea. But leave it > to the wireless people to put theory into practice: > http://lwn.net/Articles/191100/ > Remember that this was a DRIVER vulnerability, not an APPLICATION > vulnerability. So yes, nothing had to be attached. > > A little while after that, Intel was reporting security bugs in > many/most of their 100Mbps and 1Gbps adapter drivers. Thanks for > demonstrating that it isn't just a wireless thing. > > Better than sticking your "All Services On" Windows machine directly > on the 'net? Probably. Secure? Not in my opinion. > > > Nick.
