On 2004-12-06 Víctor A. Ramos wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 18:30 +0100, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote: >> On 2004-12-06 Victor A. Ramos wrote: >>> 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. > > Well... I suppose that you're kidding me...
No. > because there is no true in "you don't need firewalls, because you're > not running any server on your PC"... Then please enlighten me, because I cannot see any wrong in this for single hosts. Tell me, *how* is someone supposed to attack a computer that doesn't provide services. > Even I know that, dude! AFAICS you know wrong. 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