2 firewall programs running?

2 firewall programs running?
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Networking Firewalls    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
2 firewall programs running? David Azose 09-07-2007
Posted by Mr. Arnold on September 8, 2007, 11:48 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

>> If you want to be bold and beautiful, why don't you get rid of the XP FW
>> too?
>
> I see no reason why to do so.

That's if he or she knows what he or she is doing. So, why not be bold and
beautiful if one knows that or she doen't need a packet filter running on
the machine due to he or she running machines behind a FW router.

You know, everyone is not as weak as you make them out to be.

>
>> And as long as XP's FW is sitting behind that NAT router, because XP's
>> FW
>> can only stop inbound traffic just like the NAT router, then using the XP
>> FW
>> router behind the NAT router is pointless. It buys you nothing.
>
> This is wrong.

You're going to have to come up with more than just wrong. If that router is
using SPI, then how is Windows using the XP FW doing any more than that. The
only thing the XP FW can do is stop inbound traffic no more than what a NAT
router using SPI is doing. The only time using XP's FW makes any senese is
when the machine has a direct connection to the modem and therefore a direct
connection to the Internet or the machine is in a LAN setting like a
wireless cafe.

>
> Following the "defense in depth" strategy, the heuristics used for
> packet filtering usually have holes, so a second filtering could help.

I disagree. The only time it makes sense is if the first solution like a NAT
router cannot stop outbound traffic, then a packet filtering solution at the
machine level sitting behind a NAT router that cannot stop outbound makes
sense.

>
> Of course, it would be better not to offer network services at all if
> one does not need to.
>

Well of course, if the machine doesn't need to be in a network situation
with other machines then why have the services enabled, period?

On the other hand, as long as my machines are behind a border device like a
packet filtering FW router or FW appliance, then I have no need to for a
filter running on the machines behind them Windows, Linux or otherwise.



Posted by David Azose on September 9, 2007, 1:30 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Mr. Arnold wrote:
>
>>> If you want to be bold and beautiful, why don't you get rid of the
>>> XP FW
>>> too?
>>
>> I see no reason why to do so.
>
> That's if he or she knows what he or she is doing. So, why not be bold
> and beautiful if one knows that or she doen't need a packet filter
> running on the machine due to he or she running machines behind a FW
> router.
>
> You know, everyone is not as weak as you make them out to be.
>
>>
>>> And as long as XP's FW is sitting behind that NAT router, because
>>> XP's FW
>>> can only stop inbound traffic just like the NAT router, then using
>>> the XP FW
>>> router behind the NAT router is pointless. It buys you nothing.
>>
>> This is wrong.
>
> You're going to have to come up with more than just wrong. If that
> router is using SPI, then how is Windows using the XP FW doing any more
> than that. The only thing the XP FW can do is stop inbound traffic no
> more than what a NAT router using SPI is doing. The only time using XP's
> FW makes any senese is when the machine has a direct connection to the
> modem and therefore a direct connection to the Internet or the machine
> is in a LAN setting like a wireless cafe.
>
>>
>> Following the "defense in depth" strategy, the heuristics used for
>> packet filtering usually have holes, so a second filtering could help.
>
> I disagree. The only time it makes sense is if the first solution like a
> NAT router cannot stop outbound traffic, then a packet filtering
> solution at the machine level sitting behind a NAT router that cannot
> stop outbound makes sense.
>
>>
>> Of course, it would be better not to offer network services at all if
>> one does not need to.
>>
>
> Well of course, if the machine doesn't need to be in a network situation
> with other machines then why have the services enabled, period?
>
> On the other hand, as long as my machines are behind a border device
> like a packet filtering FW router or FW appliance, then I have no need
> to for a filter running on the machines behind them Windows, Linux or
> otherwise.
>
>
Mr. Arnold and others,

I'm ignorant of much of what constitutes networking and of what "packet
filtering" is. And I make an assumption that "outbound traffic" is
anything I type on my computer while connected to the internet that goes
out over the internet.

My main concern is attempting to discourage hackers from taking control
of my computer while I'm on the internet.

My router is a Linksys model WRT54G. The disk that came with it may have
an electronic users manual, but since I just plugged the thing in and it
worked (I was able to get on the internet from the computers connected
to it), I didn't see the need to go any further. Ignorance may not be bliss.

As for having both the basic (hardware?) firewall built into the router
AND the Windows Firewall enabled, would that cause any problems? I
really don't care if what they each do is redundant, if no harm is done.

David A.

Posted by Mr. Arnold on September 9, 2007, 9:11 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


<snipped>

> Mr. Arnold and others,
>
> I'm ignorant of much of what constitutes networking and of what "packet
> filtering" is. And I make an assumption that "outbound traffic" is
> anything I type on my computer while connected to the internet that goes
> out over the internet.

I am not going to get into outbound traffic as opposed to inbound traffic. I
made a post here in this NG a few weeks ago to another poster about what
solicted and unsolicted traffic is about that a FW deals with and links
about how a FW works. What is a FW? What is not a FW? What does a FW do?
What are the differnt types of FW(s)? -- ETC ETC -- If you like, you can
find that post based on my posting name and read-up.

>
> My main concern is attempting to discourage hackers from taking control of
> my computer while I'm on the internet.

The only way that's going to happen is if the machine gets compromised,
which if it does, then *you* have contributed to it yourself in someway, by
going to a Web Site that installed the malware/compromise or you opened an
email with an attachment that installed something etc, etc.
>
> My router is a Linksys model WRT54G. The disk that came with it may have
> an electronic users manual, but since I just plugged the thing in and it
> worked (I was able to get on the internet from the computers connected to
> it), I didn't see the need to go any further. Ignorance may not be bliss.
>

You have a WRT54G packet filtering FW router there that can stop inbound and
outbound traffic, and it can do a whole lot of other things too. You need
to understand how that device works and how to use that device. You should
be more concerned about how can someone hack the wireless network, join my
network, and in doing so, be all over the top of my machines hacking them or
use my network to do something illegal.

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelesssecurity/tp/wifisecurity.htm

You'll need to change the frimware, which is free that's being talked about
in the WW link for the 54G. That's if you know what frimware is about, look
it up use Google. You shouldn't fly blind and not know the traffic coming to
and leaving your network.

http://sonic.net/wallwatcher/


> As for having both the basic (hardware?) firewall built into the router

That 54G is NOT a basic router. It's more than that.

> AND the Windows Firewall enabled, would that cause any problems? I

Windows XP firewall is NOT a FW. It is a machine level packet filter that
protects at the machine level. A FW separates two networks and sits at the
junction point between the two networks, with one network it's protecting
from the WAN (Wide Area Network)/Internet, and the other network it's
protecting the LAN (Local Area Network). A FW has at least two interfaces
with one interface facing the WAN the untrusted zone and the other interface
facing the LAN the trusted zone. The 54G is a FW solution and any software
like XP's FW or a 3rd party (personal FW) solution is not a FW. They are
machine level packet filters running at the machine level.

> really don't care if what they each do is redundant, if no harm is done.

They are NOT doing the same thing and and ignorance is no excuse.

However, since you have a wireless solution, then it's best to have a
machine level packet filter such as XP's FW/packet filter running in case
someone hacks the wireless side of your network and starts hacking your
machines.

If you don't know what War Driving is about, then look it up using Google.

The buck stops with the person sitting behind the keyboard and mouse and is
doing the driving and not with the FW or packet filter. That also holds true
for the Windows XP O/S. The buck stops at the O/S and not with some FW or
packet filter.

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html
http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm


Posted by Volker Birk on September 10, 2007, 3:23 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> As for having both the basic (hardware?) firewall built into the router
> AND the Windows Firewall enabled, would that cause any problems?

Usually not.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es muss darauf geachtet werden, dass das Grundgesetz nicht mit Methoden
geschützt wird, die seinem Ziel und seinem Geist zuwider sind."

Gustav Heinemann, "Freimütige Kritik und demokratischer Rechtsstaat"

Posted by Volker Birk on September 10, 2007, 3:41 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>>> And as long as XP's FW is sitting behind that NAT router, because XP's
>>> FW
>>> can only stop inbound traffic just like the NAT router, then using the XP
>>> FW
>>> router behind the NAT router is pointless. It buys you nothing.
>> This is wrong.
> You're going to have to come up with more than just wrong. If that router is
> using SPI, then how is Windows using the XP FW doing any more than that.

Usually, such routers (as other packet filters, too) implement
heuristics to implement protocols like FTP, which cannot be filtered
easily.

Because of that, they're vulnerable.

This is why shutting down unwanted network services is much more secure
than packet filtering.

Having two different packet filters can help with some issues, if you
know exactly what you're doing.

I'm not requesting you to do so. I just wanted to point out, that you
forgot some scenarios, where your original statement is not true.

>> Following the "defense in depth" strategy, the heuristics used for
>> packet filtering usually have holes, so a second filtering could help.
> I disagree. The only time it makes sense is if the first solution like a NAT
> router cannot stop outbound traffic, then a packet filtering solution at the
> machine level sitting behind a NAT router that cannot stop outbound makes
> sense.

Your mistake is to believe in NAT as a security feature. The opposite is
true. The security comes from filtering, not from NAT.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es muss darauf geachtet werden, dass das Grundgesetz nicht mit Methoden
geschützt wird, die seinem Ziel und seinem Geist zuwider sind."

Gustav Heinemann, "Freimütige Kritik und demokratischer Rechtsstaat"

Similar ThreadsPosted
Are there any firewall software that block programs from running? March 4, 2005, 4:57 pm
Security programs 2005 - , Firewall programs 2005 -, Antivirus programs 2005 -, APPDEV DOT NET SECURITY, Linux Security and Firewall programs 2005 -, CiscoWorks ( CW ) Security programs 2005 - , February 25, 2005, 5:03 am
Firewall problems with file-share programs [help needed!] May 27, 2005, 5:04 am
Firewall running, but where??? May 19, 2006, 10:10 pm
Is Software Firewall Necessary with a H/W already running? July 30, 2004, 8:30 pm
Is it possible for someone to access my HD even though I am running a firewall? October 31, 2005, 7:38 pm
Port closed but no firewall is running March 21, 2007, 10:30 am
New Firewall but "Security" says "Norton is currently running..." May 12, 2007, 1:06 am
VelociRaptor Firewall donated to school - having trouble getting it running December 9, 2004, 2:48 pm
how to monitor programs accessing the net... December 17, 2004, 8:42 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy