Re: Just want to keep the crap out!!

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2006@planetcobalt.net> wrote:

>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

uhmmm... downloading a virus and lettign it format your hard drive is
an attack which NAT and firewalls would not stop. You can't stop a
user from downloading something bad for them if they want to.

What's your point?

All the viruses and trojans that hunt the internet for exploits and
victims would be stopped. Anyone attempting to access you PCs would be
stopped. Anyone doing a DoS would kill the router, not your PCs.
Received on Mon May 1 01:02:38 2006