outbound filtering - Firewalls

This is a discussion on outbound filtering - Firewalls ; Volker Birk, 12/28/2006,4:19:23 PM, wrote: > badgolferman wrote: > > I decided to reinstall a PFW for outbound control. > > Sincere condolences, that you're fooled. > > Yours, > VB . Not being an expert in PC security like ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 59 of 59

Thread: outbound filtering

  1. Re: outbound filtering

    Volker Birk, 12/28/2006,4:19:23 PM, wrote:

    > badgolferman wrote:
    > > I decided to reinstall a PFW for outbound control.

    >
    > Sincere condolences, that you're fooled.
    >
    > Yours,
    > VB.


    Not being an expert in PC security like you, I am limited in my choices
    and abilities to protect my computer. I will do those things that
    offer the best in value, usability, and effort. I suppose if you
    wanted to drop a trojan horse in my computer you could do so with
    minimal effort but I will put up some resistance.

    Now if you want to talk about electronics and aircraft simulation then
    maybe I can teach you something...

    --
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
    judgment." ~ Will Rogers

  2. Re: outbound filtering

    badgolferman wrote:

    > Not being an expert in PC security like you, I am limited in my choices
    > and abilities to protect my computer. I will do those things that
    > offer the best in value, usability, and effort.


    OK, and then why are you trying to run a host-based packet filter without a
    clue about networking and TCP/IP? How do you think you could achieve any
    security with such prerequisities? Technology is not a panacea, and we're
    some hundred years away from intelligent software.

    And why aren't you paying attention to much more trivial and fundamental
    security measures?

    > I suppose if you wanted to drop a trojan horse in my computer you could
    > do so with minimal effort but I will put up some resistance.


    Are you trying to associate the PFW with that "resistance"?

    And with real security measures in place, such a thing wouldn't even become
    possible in first place.

  3. Re: outbound filtering

    In article <4vj6m9F1chclfU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
    > badgolferman wrote:
    >
    > > Not being an expert in PC security like you, I am limited in my choices
    > > and abilities to protect my computer. I will do those things that
    > > offer the best in value, usability, and effort.

    >
    > OK, and then why are you trying to run a host-based packet filter without a
    > clue about networking and TCP/IP? How do you think you could achieve any
    > security with such prerequisities? Technology is not a panacea, and we're
    > some hundred years away from intelligent software.
    >
    > And why aren't you paying attention to much more trivial and fundamental
    > security measures?
    >
    > > I suppose if you wanted to drop a trojan horse in my computer you could
    > > do so with minimal effort but I will put up some resistance.

    >
    > Are you trying to associate the PFW with that "resistance"?
    >
    > And with real security measures in place, such a thing wouldn't even become
    > possible in first place.
    >

    Like not playing certain sony cds on your computer you mean?
    me

  4. Re: outbound filtering

    badgolferman wrote:
    > Volker Birk, 12/28/2006,4:19:23 PM, wrote:
    > > badgolferman wrote:
    > > > I decided to reinstall a PFW for outbound control.

    > > Sincere condolences, that you're fooled.

    > Not being an expert in PC security like you, I am limited in my choices
    > and abilities to protect my computer. I will do those things that
    > offer the best in value, usability, and effort. I suppose if you
    > wanted to drop a trojan horse in my computer you could do so with
    > minimal effort but I will put up some resistance.


    There are easy ways for you to prevent from that. This is much better
    than trying to detect when it's too late.

    Don't use Internet Explorer. Shutdown your network services (as
    explained here i.e.: http://ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html) or just use a
    simple packet filter like the Windows-Firewall. Keep your software up to
    date; at best use online software update where possible. A virus scanner
    could help to filter out the most common viruses and could be a sensible
    choice, if you know, that virus scanners cannot prevent from every virus
    by concept. Don't work as Administrator, use a restricted account
    instead. And keep your backups up to date.

    > Now if you want to talk about electronics and aircraft simulation then
    > maybe I can teach you something...


    Very interesting, indeed ;-) What are you working on? Maybe there is a
    better group for that? Could you recommend one?

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
    Grace Hopper

  5. Re: outbound filtering

    on 29 Dec 2006, something possessed Wheaty to write:

    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote in
    > news:4vfsulF1c5ci9U1@mid.dfncis.de:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Ah, I understand: William = idiot
    >>
    >> Now please, go away. You don't have any technical knowledge at all,
    >> and unless you're willing to learn, you'll just keep on spouting
    >> nonsense. I won't mind you, but please stop telling such nonsense to
    >> other people who don't know any better.

    >
    > I normally would steer clear of this, but I
    > must admit, you do sound an awful lot like the poster "Mr. Arnold" who
    > has since seen the ugly side of my killfile- a place where you will
    > permanently reside.


    You noticed that similarity as well, huh? And to think, Duane Arnold
    almost had me believing differently ;-).

    Cheers, and Happy New Year.

    Will

  6. Re: outbound filtering

    >
    > You noticed that similarity as well, huh? And to think, Duane Arnold
    > almost had me believing differently ;-).
    >


    What's wrong with this fool?

  7. Re: outbound filtering

    William wrote:
    > Killfile
    >
    > There, that's better. You can call me names all you want now, since I
    > won't have to listen to it. Anyway, to the OP, seriously, listen to the
    > rest of us, but pay no attention to Sebastian Gottschalk. He really
    > gives the usenet community a bad name.
    >
    > Will


    I don't believe this. This goody two shows *clown* is running around in
    the NG, playing the goofy two shoes Lone Ranger. All he is really doing
    is stabbing people in the back, trying to put himself above everyone.

    Old Sir William is no better than anyone else and he is far from being a
    perfect Human Being, as much as he wants people to think that he is
    righteous and perfect.

    This so called man and I use the word *man* loosely for him is really
    pitiful.

  8. Re: outbound filtering

    On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:16:13 -0000, bassbag
    wrote:


    >> badgolferman wrote:
    >> > Not being an expert in PC security like you, I am limited in my choices
    >> > and abilities to protect my computer. I will do those things that
    >> > offer the best in value, usability, and effort.


    > seppi@seppig.de wrote:

    [snip]
    >> And why aren't you paying attention to much more trivial and fundamental
    >> security measures?

    ....
    >> And with real security measures in place, such a thing wouldn't even become
    >> possible in first place.


    Did I miss where Sebastian listed all those real security
    measures?? Or, as usual, he just hinted that he knows the answer but
    he's not telling? More of his usual boasting of 'If you just knew as
    much as I know' ?

    Geo


  9. Re: outbound filtering

    Death <""Death\"@The Door@No Hope.com"> wrote in
    news:Pthlh.4357$pQ3.2602@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

    Genetic Pullution seems to run rampant with this provider.



    --

    Whats easier for kissing random strangers? Misletoe or chloroform?

  10. Re: outbound filtering

    Wheaty wrote:
    > Death <""Death\"@The Door@No Hope.com"> wrote in
    > news:Pthlh.4357$pQ3.2602@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net:
    >


    Is this your best? Why don't you whine with an abuse report?

  11. Re: outbound filtering

    on 29 Dec 2006, something possessed Death to write:

    > William wrote:
    >> Killfile
    >>
    >> There, that's better. You can call me names all you want now, since
    >> I won't have to listen to it. Anyway, to the OP, seriously, listen
    >> to the rest of us, but pay no attention to Sebastian Gottschalk. He
    >> really gives the usenet community a bad name.
    >>
    >> Will

    >
    > I don't believe this. This goody two shows *clown* is running around
    > in the NG, playing the goofy two shoes Lone Ranger. All he is really
    > doing is stabbing people in the back, trying to put himself above
    > everyone.
    >
    > Old Sir William is no better than anyone else and he is far from being
    > a perfect Human Being, as much as he wants people to think that he is
    > righteous and perfect.
    >
    > This so called man and I use the word *man* loosely for him is really
    > pitiful.


    Plonk!!!

  12. Re: outbound filtering

    >
    >
    > Plonk!!!


    You can run but you can't hide Sir Righteous El Capitan William. You
    don't start no sh*t and there will be no sh*t. I can't make it any
    plainer than that Capitan.

  13. Re: outbound filtering

    William wrote:
    >
    > Plonk!!!


    You can run but you can't hide Sir Righteous El Capitan William. You
    don't start no sh*t and there will be no sh*t. I can't make it any
    plainer than that Capitan.

    Hell, he won't know anyway, as he's plonking.

  14. Re: outbound filtering

    William wrote:
    > On 12/26/2006 2:46 PM, something possessed Sebastian Gottschalk to write:
    > > badgolferman wrote:
    > >
    > >> Jim Ford, 12/26/2006,3:32:22 PM, wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> He obviously knows a lot about security
    > >> Maybe not. If he really knew a lot about security he would be willing
    > >> to offer advise. I'd say he knows a lot about arrogance.

    > >
    > > Actually this one rathers belongs much more to a meta discussion. Your
    > > problem is not a concrete security problem, but the lack of concept and
    > > knowledge. Offering concrete advise won't solve this more fundamental
    > > problem.

    >
    > What problem? He didn't give an abstract or concrete problem, the OP
    > just asked for some advise, and instead received the rantings of a mere
    > child who thinks he knows more than the rest of the Internet users and
    > uses that arrogant belief to pompously attack any others showing any
    > sign of ignorance (by asking for advise) in order to boost and inflate
    > your undeveloped ego.


    Some more of your halfass opinioned diagnoses William. Have you
    told everyone in these groups you are a qualified Psychologist,
    "YET"?

    Don't be shy impress them with your word "symantecs" *LOL*
    (i.e. semantics)


    4Q


  15. Re: outbound filtering

    Hey Wheaties, you got anything else you want to bitch and whine about?

  16. Re: outbound filtering

    Death2 <""Death2\"@The Door@No Hope2.com"> wrote in news:Lnjlh.5075$w91.967
    @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > Hey Wheaties, you got anything else you want to bitch and whine about?
    >


    Other than the fact that you weren't hit in the head with a shovel at
    birth, nope, can't think of anything.

    --


  17. Re: outbound filtering

    Wheaty wrote:
    > Death2 <""Death2\"@The Door@No Hope2.com"> wrote in news:Lnjlh.5075$w91.967
    > @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
    >
    >
    >>Hey Wheaties, you got anything else you want to bitch and whine about?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Other than the fact that you weren't hit in the head with a shovel at
    > birth, nope, can't think of anything.
    >


    Yeah, yeah, dear, you can go change your draws, smell them draws first
    like you sniff other people, and blow a righteous kiss to the crowd.

    I see you're no better than anyone else, with a weak game and you stink,
    trying to pass judgment on someone.

  18. Re: outbound filtering

    GEO wrote:

    > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:16:13 -0000, bassbag
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> badgolferman wrote:
    >>> > Not being an expert in PC security like you, I am limited in my choices
    >>> > and abilities to protect my computer. I will do those things that
    >>> > offer the best in value, usability, and effort.

    >
    >> seppi@seppig.de wrote:

    > [snip]
    >>> And why aren't you paying attention to much more trivial and fundamental
    >>> security measures?

    > ...
    >>> And with real security measures in place, such a thing wouldn't even become
    >>> possible in first place.

    >
    > Did I miss where Sebastian listed all those real security
    > measures??


    No, you didn't.

    > Or, as usual, he just hinted that he knows the answer but
    > he's not telling?


    Indeed. Because stuff like backups, keeping software updated and LUA is
    well known.

    After all, some stuff is even trivial conclusion: The trivial measure
    against unvoluntarily running malicious code is to deny running code by
    default (global noexec) and whitelisting legitimate applications. You don't
    even need to know much about computers to understand this.

    > More of his usual boasting of 'If you just knew as much as I know' ?


    Nah, more like "Damn, get the basic stuff right before trying advanced
    stuff."

  19. Re: outbound filtering

    On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:13:09 +0100, Sebastian Gottschalk
    wrote:


    >> Did I miss where Sebastian listed all those real security
    >> measures??


    >No, you didn't.


    [snip]

    >.... Because stuff like backups, keeping software updated and LUA is
    >well known.
    >
    >After all, some stuff is even trivial conclusion: The trivial measure
    >against unvoluntarily running malicious code is to deny running code by
    >default (global noexec) and whitelisting legitimate applications. You don't
    >even need to know much about computers to understand this.


    That was a nicer reply; could have been your first. Save it, and do a
    copy and paste on future enquiries on the same topic.

    Geo


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3