Re: Dumb question: Is Windows box behind a router safe ?

[OTB <ownthebox () cipherpunx org>]

Steve really needs to ask himself, if all his pop does is run Firefox
and email, why he's running Windows on that machine at all? Not safer
per se, but a less meaty target. Still needs a nightly auto-update, though.

Also, (hi, John) filtering egress is pretty well moot on $home_router,
most connectbacks these days go out on 80 or 443. IRC control channels
are so last year.

Also, Steve, there's a list for this sort of thing, not that it matters:
 http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/105/description


Chris wrote:
> Bullshit.
>
> Screw NAT, screw routers, screw bots.
>
> The *FIRST* thing Steve should be doing is patching his computer.  There is absolutely no freaking excuse for having 
> an unpatched or halfway patched computer running Windows whatever.  Microsoft has made Windows Update idiotproof...to 
> the point where any average desktop user NOT using it is a moron.
>
> To try to compensate for his lazy, half-assed attitude is just putting a band-aid on the Grand Canyon. 
>
> To think that his unpatched and probably already compromised computer is safe just because it sits behind a router, 
> of which he has no idea if it is secured, is the blind leading the blind.
>
> PATCH THAT BOX.  Turn on Automatic Updates, set them to install and reboot automatically, Steve.  You won't have to 
> do anything except keep living in the fantasyland you live in now...but at least your computers won't be spewing out 
> garbage.
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Fritscher" <michael () fritscher net>
> > To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
> > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Dumb question: Is Windows box behind a router safe ?
> > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:42:06 +0200 (CEST)
> >
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > I hope you haven't caused a storm with aggressive mails here^^
> > This maillinglist is more about now detected holes in soft- and hardware...
> >
> > First, you certainly mean not a normal router (which is on most cases 100%
> > transparent in both directions), but a NAT-router.
> >
> > What the NAT blocks (in most cases) are incomings connections - But
> > expecially since XP SP2 this is a very seldom used way to attack
> > computers.
> > Nowadays, most bad software use holes in apps - browser, office, flash and
> > so on which use outgoing connections - which are NOT blocked by a
> > NAT-router.
> > So, yes, a bot connectiong to a botnet could be installed if Firefox or a
> > plugin like Flash, Java, Quicktime and so on has a hole and you browse on
> > a "bad" site.
> >
> > Btw, please read about NAT, routing, current bad software etc in the
> > internet - this will help you understanding the concerns.
> >
> > Sincerly,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/