Re: Windows 98 box is 'owned'

[GuidoZ <uberguidoz () gmail com>]

Thanks for the email Randy. I appreciate those who are good sports
about such things. =) I think you knew better; just got the
terminology a bit mixed up. I wanted to make sure no one got the wrong
idea or learned something slightly incorrect from it.

I still believe you are right in a sense - a router would be plenty
for his mother in this situation. ;)

--
Peace. ~G


On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:31:40 -0400, Randy Williams <randyw () techsource com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I stand corrected!  Yes, GuidoZ is quite right; the products that I was
> mentioning were simple NAT boxes, and NOT proper firewalls.  I have fallen
> prey to my own attempt to convey complex ideas to the uninitiated with broad
> terms, please accept my apology.
>
> RandyW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GuidoZ [mailto:uberguidoz () gmail com]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:15 AM
> To: Randy Williams
> Cc: bulliver () badcomputer no-ip com; security-basics () securityfocus com
> Subject: Re: Windows 98 box is 'owned'
>
> While these are all good points, I'd like to make a clarification on one
> thing.
>
> > 1)  Complete re-install of the OS with the addition of both a software
> > firewall (ZoneAlarm) and a Hardware Firewall (Linksys, Dlink, etc).
>
> Linksys, Dlink, etc are routers, not firewalls. While they function
> similar to a hardware firewall (providing NAT and blocking the systems
> behind them from direct access), they are NOT a substitute for a real
> hardware firewall (SonicWall, AlphaShield, etc) when required.
> Although, I believe a router would be plenty for your mother. =)
>
> People frequently toss around the term "hardware firewall" (including
> vendors), applying it to ANY device that provides NAT translation. In
> my eyes, it takes a lot more then NAT to make a firewall. Additional
> protection such as SPI, Content filtering, VPN, PKI, etc make up a
> true hardware firewall.
>
> --
> Peace. ~G