Well... I suppose that you're kidding me... because there is no true in "you don't need firewalls, because you're not running any server on your PC"... Even I know that, dude!
So, you know, I give by finalized the discussion. Regards On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 18:30 +0100, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote: > On 2004-12-06 VÃctor A. Ramos wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 12:42 +0100, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote: > >> On 2004-12-06 Victor A. Ramos wrote: > >>> I'm disagree with you... and here is a quote from the iptables > >>> documentation section at netfilter.org: > >>> > >>> http://netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO//packet-filtering-HOWTO-1.html > >> > >> M-hm. And which part of that exactly is supposed to support your > >> disagreement? (hint: you do not have a network) > > > > My own computer connected to the Internet is a link which can be > > attacked... that!s the part of the network that I pretend to protect. > > Why do you believe that you need protection for something which is not > there at all? You wrote that you don't have any service bound to the > external interface. If that's true, then there's nothing that possibly > could be attacked. > > Of course, your uplink could be flooded. However, a packet filter won't > protect you from that kind of attack. > > Regards > Ansgar Wiechers > -- > "Those who would give up liberty for a little temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both." > --Benjamin Franklin > > -- VÃctor A. Ramos <itchysoft_AT_yahoo_DOT_es> (o_ Debian GNU/Linux .'''`. //\ Registered User : :' : V_/_ #315167 `. `' ` Jabber ID <vramos_AT_jabber_DOT_org>