Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:26 PM, David Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Actually, far and away the best general purpose firewall on Windows is
>> the built-in windows firewall - it is *much* better than any third-party
>> addon (except perhaps ipfilter for windows), simply because it doesn't
>> have a huge baggage of extra code to slow down the system and introduce
>> new bugs and exploitable holes.
> 
> I *strongly* disagree. The firewall built into Windows XP is an
> inbound firewall only. It won't prevent programs and rogue apps from
> "phoning home", nor will it alert of any such outbound connections.
> 

The aim of well-designed security is to avoid letting bad things onto 
your machine in the first place - blocking incoming traffic is *vastly* 
more important than blocking outgoing traffic.  The Windows XP (and W2K) 
firewalls do a reasonable job of that - there are still some holes 
because windows doesn't have a proper layered network architecture, with 
specific points for filtering or manipulating network traffic (*nix 
systems *do* have such a layered architecture, that's why iptables on 
Linux and ipfilter on *bsd are far more solid than any firewall on 
windows ever can be).

What you want for a basic a firewall is to block all incoming traffic, 
and allow all outgoing traffic.  That's what you get with the default 
setup of a hardware firewall (i.e., a NAT firewall/router), and that's 
why you should *always* use one of these to protect windows machines.

Filtering outgoing traffic is only useful for more advanced situations. 
  The only outgoing traffic I filter on firewalls is to block SMTP 
traffic that is not heading for the ISP's mail relay.  There may be 
occasions when you want to filter other things for specific reasons, but 
not in general.

There are a number of reasons why using a third-party software firewall 
on windows and trying to block outgoing traffic from malware is a bad 
idea.  First off, a lot of malware is smart enough to get round 
application-specific blocks (such as by using IE or other applications 
as an intermediary).  Secondly, major "internet security suites" have 
regularly had security issues that give new attack vectors - they are 
far too complex, and therefore have a high chance of bugs, and they mess 
with important parts of the system.  That's a bad combination.

But the biggest problem with software firewalls is that they are (from 
what I have seen) far too fussy.  They greatly encourage the traditional 
windows users' habit of automatically clicking "OK" in any dialog box, 
as they ask your permission again and again to allow your programs to 
access the network.  It takes a specially observant and paranoid user to 
notice the one box asking permission for the malware you've just 
downloaded - most people will OK that too, especially as it will have an 
innocent-sounding name like "system" rather than "Zombie BotNet Client". 
  This is, of course, assuming the user hasn't got so fed up with the 
"OK" boxes that he has already disabled the firewall.


The road to internet security is the same as for any other kind of 
security - take basic precautions to prevent accidents or things 
happening without the user knowing (scan emails, block incoming traffic, 
avoid major vulnerable programs like IE, OE, and the MSN client as much 
as possible), and train the user to think or ask before clicking.  Keep 
the security system as simple as possible - there's less to go wrong, 
and less to confuse the user.


If you want to prevent unwanted outgoing traffic, an alternative to 
filtering is to look at the DNS system - either replace your hosts file 
with one of the many filtered hosts files from the internet, or switch 
to using opendns.  Both can be used to effectively block a large number 
of phishing, scam and malware sites, and/or "undesirable" sites.  And 
both work in a simple, clear and reliable way.


Regarding iptables, there are vast numbers of options for filtering if 
you want to use them.  I don't know if there is any way to block 
particular applications in a normal setup, but it should be possible - 
you can have iptables pass the packet into userspace for further 
classification and filtering.  You could easily have a userspace daemon 
that checked the sending processes details and filtered on that basis.

A related topic is Layer 7 filtering <http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/> 
which classifies packets according to their protocol, rather than their 
port or application.



_______________________________________________
vbox-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://vbox.innotek.de/mailman/listinfo/vbox-users

Reply via email to