|
Posted by Burkhard Ott on October 17, 2007, 7:20 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Am Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:31:20 -0400 schrieb Mr. Arnold:
>> Am Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:02:11 -0400 schrieb Mr. Arnold:
>>
>>> That's wireless and that's Linksys. One egg doesn't apply to all
>>> solutions.
>>
>> Do you have the firmware source code?
>> I read about serveral others, but mostly dos issues.
>
> Does anyone have the source code? You have to know that this is a moot
> point.
The point is you are not more secure with one of these router, you
shouldn't suggest it to others.
> The average home user knows nothing about this. So, this is a moot point
> as well.
read above
> Nothing is going to protect in this situation. What is your point?
r.a.
> So what about a router that's using SPI? What about a router that's a
> packet filtering FW router working with the OSI model to filter packets? You
> know they do exist.
Have you ever seen a networkdevice which supports tcp/ip and does not
working with the OSI model?
So every existing device which supports the tcp/ip stack has to work with.
> Once again, if the computer is compromised and software is doing this
> running on the computer, it's not the router, FW appliance, gateway
> computer running FW software or anything else's responsibility to stop it.
> It's over and it's moot. I don't care if the solution cost $10,000 that's
> sitting there.
> Once again, this is a software situation/issue running on the computer,
> with the O/S. It's whoever is sitting behind the mouse doing the
> pointing, clicking and using the keyboard responsibility. One has to
> know what one has, and what one is doing with any program, application
> or technology. How is this the fault of the router? How is this the
> responsibility of the router?
It doesn't depend on the price there are a lot of models which
could be comprimized by buffer overflows (the filter inside the router is
mostly the problem), also the firmware is mostly pretty old etc. you name
it.
> BTW, I am a programmer by profession, for Windows Web, desktop and
> client server solutions, and I have been doing it since 1980. I do
> know what you're talking about. You can take it to the bank too that I
> understand and know what you're talking about. <g>
And..? I am systemprogrammer under unix/linux, it has nothing to say.
> Some can and are more than a simple FW. They cost more than $50-$70
> considerably more than $50-$70, a typical price for a router for home
> usage, and they are using NAT too, which NAT is not FW technology.
has nothing to do with the price
>> I only say you are not saver with an router, thats it.
>
> I disagree.
Sure, accepted.
> I only update a firmware when there is a need to update the firmware due
> to some fuctionallity that I may need or a secuirty related issue, just
> like what you are doing with your Open Source solution you talked about.
> Just because a vendor comes out with an update does one need to go to an
> update. In other words, if it's not broke, then you don't fix it some
> cases and not all cases.
What I try to tell you is, it is never impossible to break in and no
device can protect you 100%.
> To be honest, I don't think you can do it. I think you have a one track
> mind.
No you're totally wrong.
> So? I use them both and none of the machines I use have been compormised
> due to it. Again, it all depends upon who is sitting behind the wheel
> and is doing the driving.
Absolutely right, read above and you find that you told others a router
makes it more secure, I said thats not true.
> I guess you don't know what a packet filtering FW router is about. There
> are FW routers that are more than some solution for home usage.
Ok, big guru tell me what is the differnce between a packetfilter and the
filter in tose routers.
The most devices run a embedded linux/BSD with iptables or pf or similar.
Filter on application layer looks (mostly) only for the protocollcode.
Now I am really curious what I can learn from you.
> That's the point. And did the OP listen to you, and not go with the
> router based upon what you were and are saying? All I saw was he
> complimented his secuirty by including the router, a wise decision. ;-)
I understand and I diagree and wrote my points to that stuff.
> I want to make very clear. I have nothing against you personally. :)
Ok, I understood, I repeat it if necessary you are not more secure with an
router.
cheers
| 
XML site map