Re: Just want to keep the crap out!!

DigitalVinyl wrote:
> Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net> wrote:
>>DigitalVinyl wrote:
>>> "dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> Since I know nothing about software firewalls I obviously hosed my PC
>>>> when playing with the stupid thing. My Tiny Firewall 2.0.13.
>>>> I am on a fixed(very fixed) income and would like some advice on a
>>>> cheap hardware solution. Yeah right. Probably asking for too much
>>>> ,huh?Thanks
>>>
>>> Any soho router will provide the majority of protection through
>>> hardware NAT. (various irate counter replies I'm sure will follow)
>>
>> I bet that's because you know you're wrong.
>>
>>> While NAT attacks theoretically exist, nobody is targetting your
>>> device so focusedly to exploit these concepts and back into an
>>> existing outgoing connection and then exploit that specific type of
>>> connection for your specific OS correctly for whatever connection
>>> service happened to be using that sequential port.
>>
>> There is absolutely no need to exploit a specific device or OS.
>>
>> http://www.enyo.de/fw/security/java-firewall/
>
> Here we go... this is not a NAT attack... they are not attacking the
> NAT capability.

I didn't say they were. It's an attack against which NAT - even if it
were implemented perfectly - won't protect. Period. Sometimes it's
easier to go around the wall than straight through it.

cu
59cobalt

-- 
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you
don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier