>
> The more appropriate question would be "Is a Windows box safe with a
> user behind it?" since today's threats require that you browse to the
> danger, or click an "OK" button first :-)
Shall we just ignore the thousands of variants of Virut which are
extremely prevalent? Virut is a file inf
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Chris wrote:
> Seriously? This is some home user who has nary a clue about how to use
> Automatic Updates...and you want to teach him about egress filtering?
>
> I'd rather hear about n3td3v or whatever the fuck his name is.
>
My post was a direct response to a
That's sort of an old-school question :-) It only prevents classic
infections (slammer, blaster, nachi, etc) or newer equivalents (SMB2 on
Vista).
The more appropriate question would be "Is a Windows box safe with a
user behind it?" since today's threats require that you browse to the
danger, or
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Steven Anders wrote:
> Michael, thank you for the explanation. And thank you everyone for the
> thoughts. Appreciate it. My apologies if I get on the nerves of people with
> my dumb question :-) .
>
> Now after further reading, I am now educated of how bad softwar
full-homeus...@lists
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Michael, thank you for the explanation. And thank you everyone for the
thoughts. Appreciate it. My apologies if I get on the nerves of people with
my dumb question :-) .
Now after further reading, I am now educated of how bad software use holes
in apps like browser and the plugins to do bad stuff
computers won't be
> spewing out garbage.
>
>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Fritscher"
>> To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Dumb question: Is Windows box behind a router
>> safe ?
>
uot;G. D. Fuego"
> Cc: "full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk"
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Dumb question: Is Windows box behind a router
> safe ?
> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:15:20 -0500
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM, G. D. Fuego wrote:
> >
> > O
t
garbage.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Fritscher"
> 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)
>
>
> H
Therefore, some onions must be ogres.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Dave wrote:
> Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Security should have layers.
> ___
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclo
Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Security should have layers.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Abhijeet Jain
wrote:
> Myth No. 2- Using Firefox does not make you safe! In fact, IE 7/8 is the
> safest browser when used with Windows Vista because it runs on lower
> privileges.
>
> On
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 (
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM, G. D. Fuego wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:18 PM, john s wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:01 PM, G. D. Fuego wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Steven Anders wrote:
I have always thought that having a computer behind the router
(si
On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:18 PM, john s wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:01 PM, G. D. Fuego
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Steven Anders
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have always thought that having a computer behind the router
>>> (since router has firewall) is generally safe, but I woul
> I have a dumb question: Is a Windows box
> behind a router safe ?
No.
> It is my father's PC and the Windows OS was not updated regularly.
Why not? Is he incapable of clicking on an OK button? With Automatic
Updates, there is absolutely no excuse to NOT be fully updated. Don't
give me t
Yeah, but the original poster made it clear that the box was running
Windows XP Service Pack 2, so both your comments are largely irrelevant. :)
--Rohit Patnaik
yersinia wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Abhijeet Jain
> mailto:abhijeet.ecsta...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Myth No. 2- Usi
No, I would not consider your father's box to be safe. There are enough
drive-by-download attacks and e-mail scams to make infection a very real
possibility even if the automated worm route is blocked by a NAT
router. However, if you installed SP2 with default settings, it
probably enabled th
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:29, Steven Anders wrote:
> 2. If a Windows box is behind a router, could a botnet be installed to it ?
> Assuming, the end user does not install/download any applications from the
> Internet and always use Firefox.
USB sticks are easy to infect
___
Abhijeet Jain wrote:
> Myth No. 2- Using Firefox does not make you safe! In fact, IE 7/8 is the
> safest browser when used with Windows Vista because it runs on lower
> privileges.
>
But if not patching windows, then they are also not patching IE.
Firefox has updates also.
That router may also
Pretty much all it's going to take is one exploit delivered through
email (link, pdf, etc.) and the box is owned.
Botnet clients work by connecting outward (phoning home) so the
firewall & router won't do anything for illicit outgoing traffic
unless you set up egress filtering to catch it.
I woul
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Abhijeet Jain
wrote:
> Myth No. 2- Using Firefox does not make you safe! In fact, IE 7/8 is the
> safest browser when used with Windows Vista because it runs on lower
> privileges.
>
> Not on Linux(Fedora) with Selinux Enabled, better if you run with the
guest_u se
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:01 PM, G. D. Fuego wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Steven Anders wrote:
>>
>> I have always thought that having a computer behind the router
>> (since router has firewall) is generally safe, but I would love to
>> hear insights or thoughts.
>
> Nope. A firewall
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:29:20 PDT, Steven Anders said:
> I have always thought that having a computer behind the router (since router
> has firewall) is generally safe, but I would love to hear insights or
> thoughts.
In general, that's true. Most of the current popular infection vectors are
conn
Myth No. 2- Using Firefox does not make you safe! In fact, IE 7/8 is the
safest browser when used with Windows Vista because it runs on lower
privileges.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Kos wrote:
> Ancompuger behind a router/firewall does not make it safe.
> Vulnerabilities and exploits are no
On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Steven Anders wrote:
>
> 1. There are many exploits and vulnerabilities of Windows, but I
> was wondering if outdated Windows box behind router generally
> safe ? Since, the Windows box was not updated with the latest
> updates.
>
> I have always thought that
Ancompuger behind a router/firewall does not make it safe.
Vulnerabilities and exploits are not limited to a network level, which
is generally what a firewall is used for. Vulnerabilities sent via any
protocol used (http, imap, pop, other protocols that may be in use)
are not suddenly secur
I received great responses and am very grateful to the help from community
of this list. Thank you.
I have a dumb question: Is a Windows box behind a router safe ?
It is my father's PC and the Windows OS was not updated regularly. The
Windows box was connected through wire (RJ45) to the router.
27 matches
Mail list logo
