Firewalls have been well established as a good method of preventing access to local area network resources from the Internet. A corporation who didn't use a firewall to protect their LAN would consider to be pretty irresponsible. For $40, why shouldn't a home user get this same kind of basic protection?
Richard -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nik Reiman Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:30 PM To: Richard M. Smith Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft urging users to buy Harware Firewalls Richard M. Smith quoth: > I agree with Microsoft's recommendation for a hardware firewall on all > home PCs. A Linksys NAT router box is selling for only $40 at Amazon as > we speak. Besides protecting against the MSBlaster worm, a hardware In my experience, throwing money at problems like this is a temporary fix, at best. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a software vendor recommends specialized hardware to compensate for their lack of security. > firewall blocks those annoying Windows pop-up spam messages which have > become so common lately. A hardware firewall also protects a shared > Windows directory from being accessed from the Internet. My only > question is why aren't NAT routers built into all cable and DSL modems. Because (a) it's probably cheaper not to, and (b) not all ISP's allow NAT in their terms of service. -Nik -- Nik Reiman // [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ http://www.aboleo.net _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html