Re: sygate and shields up

On 9 Sep 2005 05:56:15 -0700, jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>optikl wrote:
>> jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>somebody more-or-less pointed out that what Gibson calls 'stealth'
>(blocking without giving a response) is no more secure than closed.
>
>their argument for it being no more secure was that they can already
>find out my ip anyway.
>
>It may be that 'stealth' is slightly - but barely - more secure than
>closed? Indeed, it probably is, since software firewalls all do it.
>But what would be your reason for saying that 'stealth' is more secure?

It's not just www.grc.com, but serveral sites that report security in
terms of open, closed, and stealth. For example, take a look at
http://www.pcflank.com/ and the Sygate site. And for what its worth,
this issue of closed vs stealth has been endlessly debated for more
than 3-4 years.

Bottom line ... hell if I know?
Received on Thu Sep 29 20:07:01 2005