|
Posted by Sebastian G. on January 14, 2008, 5:23 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Todd H. wrote:
> Tom In Maine writes:
>
>> Although I use only one computer. I would like to add a router for the
>> firewall protection.
>>
>> Any specific suggestions?
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Don't let Sebastian's cheery demeanor and pedantry over terminology
> dissuade you from a good idea of some hardware based protection
> between you and the internet.
It's not pedantry that makes a router not a protection...
> Right after he tells you that what you
> propose is a bad idea, he'll be sure to tell you that the "firewall"
> software that is currently the only thing keeping your computer from
> unsolicited internet traffic is completely inadequate.
Nonsense. After all, unsolicited traffic should not be a problem at all -
conversely, if it is, then a firewall can't help either.
|
|
Posted by Leythos on January 14, 2008, 6:32 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Nonsense. After all, unsolicited traffic should not be a problem at all -
> conversely, if it is, then a firewall can't help either.
Except that most Windows users have computers that don't properly block
unsolicited traffic, and most are subject to very weak security
implementations.
A simple NAT router is protection against being reached by unsolicited
traffic and does a great job at it.
At the very least, a simple NAT router is the first line of defense for
home users.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
Posted by Burkhard Ott on January 14, 2008, 6:52 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> At the very least, a simple NAT router is the first line of defense for
> home users.
no, thats not true, with the router the net behind that device is not more
or less secure, think about the zombies in bot nets.
does all those user don't have nat router's? ;)
cheers
|
|
Posted by Al Dykes on January 14, 2008, 8:48 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >Am Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:32:50 -0500 schrieb Leythos:
>
>
>> At the very least, a simple NAT router is the first line of defense for
>> home users.
>
>no, thats not true, with the router the net behind that device is not more
>or less secure, think about the zombies in bot nets.
>does all those user don't have nat router's? ;)
>
>
Good point. A NAT router is just part of the safe computing toolbox.
If you don't keep your software patched and then you click on an evil
email or website, poof, you're a zombie.
You need ant-virus software. I also use and recommend the etc/hosts
file distributed by these good folks. It blocks mor ethan 7,000 sites
that are known to be evil in some way.
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Anti-spyware gets run once in a while, too.
|
|
Posted by Sebastian G. on January 14, 2008, 2:03 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Good point. A NAT router is just part of the safe computing toolbox.
Since a NAT router doesn't provide any security by itself, I fail to see how
it could be part of a security concept. After all, NAT is supposed to
provide, not to limit connectivity (and the RFC explicitly states so).
> You need ant-virus software.
Need?
> I also use and recommend the etc/hosts file distributed by these good folks.
Which is about the most stupid suggestion of the month.
> Anti-spyware gets run once in a while, too.
Well, yeah, to show how incompetent it is. But where's the relation to
security? It's not like the output of such software would have any relevance
whatsoever.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | why wireless router cheaper than plain router? | June 15, 2005, 11:40 am |
| Connecting to VPN Router That's Behind Another Router | January 29, 2008, 8:06 pm |
| Router/Firewall/VPN Appliance vs. Router and firewall appliances | May 4, 2006, 5:28 pm |
| router contains a built-in switch versus router without a built-in switch | September 14, 2005, 10:22 pm |
| 56k router with nat | May 4, 2005, 10:46 pm |
| router | May 13, 2005, 1:05 pm |
| Do I need a new router? | August 13, 2005, 11:09 pm |
| do i need a new router | September 19, 2005, 7:58 pm |
| Help with router | December 30, 2005, 9:06 am |
| NAT Router | March 27, 2007, 11:53 am |
|
XML site map