Firewalls? hmm... who has actually ever been hacked?

[Cardinal 0]

Firewalls. Hmmm.. So am I right in saying that the moral of this story is that they are not needed? Hehe.. Kidding. I don't know, my opinion has not been changed just altered. I am warming to the hardware firewall idea as I can agree safely that there is a sh1tload of activity on my ports. In fact on most peoples. The question remains how much of this activity is harmful. So it comes down to a matter of preference. On a network I can understand the need for a firewall, I never argued otherwise. But on a single box with no real reason for privacy It seems a little less essential.

 

I have to say though; I had no idea how much activity there was on my connection. I'm sure most people out there will be surprised. But I guess, will they care?

 

I am beginning to.

[Four and Twenty 0]

I am still running without a firewall or a virus scanner.

 

I figure it is like fuking without a condom there is a risk involved and it is a big one but somehow I just can't bring myself to care.

[DeadCats 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Four and Twenty:
I am still running without a firewall or a virus scanner.</font>

If I was running just a home machine (boy, how I wish) with no need for security, could do a reinstall in a couple of hours, and wanted it slim and fast, I'd probably do the same. In fact, a 'Win2K Lite' would be just great.



------------------
"Being married to a programmer is like owning a cat. You talk to it but you're never really sure it hears you, much less comprehends what you say." -DeadCats, 1999
"Talking to DeadCats is like talking to a dead cat." -MrsDeadCats, 2001

[clutch 1]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cardinal:
I am warming to the hardware firewall idea as I can agree safely that there is a sh1tload of activity on my ports. In fact on most peoples. The question remains how much of this activity is harmful.</font>

Any unwanted network activity is just that, unwanted. What you do about it is up to you. Personally, I just use the router with its basic NAT functionality to keep that traffic out.

------------------
Regards,

clutch

[Revilre 0]

Netgear is making a $250 DSL/Cable router that has true firewall capability, content filtering, connection sharing, etc.

 

The firewall isn't just NAT, its has true statefull packet inspection.

 

Oh yeah, if your local DSL is compatible with the Cisco675 DSL Router, try to get one and use it. It has all the built in NAT capability of the external routers, it kills two birds with one stone. It provides the DSL modem and the connection sharing in one small box, and is made by Cisco.

[Glock 9mm 0]

Quote:

??? Wrong. By default File & Print sharing is enabled on 9x systems. Alot of NT boxes have default admin passes or NO PASSWORD . Also it's not very hard to figure out the local admin on an NT box.

Okay, I'm currently using 98SE, switching to Win2K as soon as I find some compatible software for my Intel PC Camera (lazy bastards at Intel! I'll never buy a cam from them again! Logitech or bust. )

File and print sharing is turned off by default in my system (it isnt checked). I also played around with my network settings to disable netBIOS from being sent, when when going through the "Test My Shields" and "Probe My Ports" tests, it stated that the most common points of entry are closed (or even stealthed) on my system, and I don't even have a firewall.

Now that I'm switching from 9x to Win2K, what do you recommend changing in order to keep hackers from guessing my local admin pass?