Nothing (except a good spanking -:)) can help in such case. We are not
talking about static NAT and inbound connections.
I told about dynamic PNAT _only_.
>
> Once upon a time, Alexei Roudnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Any simple NAT (PNAT, to be correct) box decrease a chance of infection
by
>> The problem is that Joe User (or his kid) wants to run
>> some random P2P program without having to reconfigure
>> NAT port mappings, so they have all inbound connections
>> mapped to a static internal IP.
> If Joe (L)User or his kid sets up his NAT that way...
> well, quite honestly he gets
** Reply to message from Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 7 May
2004 09:45:36 -0500
> Once upon a time, Alexei Roudnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Any simple NAT (PNAT, to be correct) box decrease a chance of infection by
> > last worms to 0. Just 0.%.
>
> The problem is that Joe Us
Once upon a time, Alexei Roudnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Any simple NAT (PNAT, to be correct) box decrease a chance of infection by
> last worms to 0. Just 0.%.
The problem is that Joe User (or his kid) wants to run some random P2P
program without having to reconfigure NAT port mappings,
Any simple NAT (PNAT, to be correct) box decrease a chance of infection by
last worms to 0. Just 0.%.
O course, it does not protects very well from intentional attacks, and do
not protect against e-mail bombs and
java script exploints.
In reality, having WIN2K after NAT box 100% time connecte
"william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmmm, are you saying that the solution to many so-called
> > Internet security vulnerabilities is for people to
> > use an SI Firewall, aka Simple, Inexpensive Firewall,
> > aka Stateful Inspection Firewall?
>
> Its not a real solution, its
On Wed, 5 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > (To deflect the inevitable "NAT is not a firewall" complaints, the box
> is a
> > stateful inspection firewall -- as all NAT boxes actually are).
>
> Hmmm, are you saying that the solution to many so-called
> Internet security vulnerabilities i
> (To deflect the inevitable "NAT is not a firewall" complaints, the box
is a
> stateful inspection firewall -- as all NAT boxes actually are).
Hmmm, are you saying that the solution to many so-called
Internet security vulnerabilities is for people to
use an SI Firewall, aka Simple, Inexpensiv
> Smith, Donald wrote:
> Feel free to read the document and make suggestions
> (within scope) for improvements.
I would change the title to something like "install windows xp and all
updates securely". The current title misleads the reader into thinking
that (s)he could actually use the computer
CTED]
> Subject: RE: FW: Worms versus Bots
>
>
>
> >The goal of this document is help new XP users survive long
> enough to
> >do their updates. Many of them cant/wont put up
> acls/nat/firewalls ...
> >but if they follow the steps listed they have a be
The goal of this document is help new XP users survive long enough to do
their updates.
Many of them cant/wont put up acls/nat/firewalls ... but if they follow
the steps listed they have a better chance of
successfully downloading and updating their new machine then they will
have with OUT these s
> Smith, Donald wrote:
> The goal of this document is help new XP users
> survive long enough to do their updates.
It is regrettable though that no mention is made of real personal
firewalls such as ZoneAlarm (ICF has no egress control whatsoever).
Although the intentions behind this document are
13 111.2
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Daniel Senie
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:39 AM
> To: Sean Donelan
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: FW: Worms versus Bots
>
>
>
> At 10:54 AM 5/4/2004, S
; Behalf Of Daniel Senie
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:39 AM
> To: Sean Donelan
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: FW: Worms versus Bots
>
>
>
> At 10:54 AM 5/4/2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 4 May 2004, Smith, Donald wrote:
> > > If y
Message-
> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:55 AM
> To: Smith, Donald
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: FW: Worms versus Bots
>
>
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Smith, Donald wrote:
> > If you follow these steps outlined by SANS yo
At 10:54 AM 5/4/2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Smith, Donald wrote:
> If you follow these steps outlined by SANS you should be able to
> successfully update
> and NOT get infected. This is short, easy, fully documented (with
> pictures :)
> http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Smith, Donald wrote:
> If you follow these steps outlined by SANS you should be able to
> successfully update
> and NOT get infected. This is short, easy, fully documented (with
> pictures :)
> http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1298
The risk is smaller, but still exis
EDCC
pgpFingerPrint:9CE4 227B B9B3 601F B500 D076 43F1 0767 AF00 EDCC
kill -13 111.2
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Henry Linneweh
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:19 AM
> To: Eric Krichbaum; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
It is amazingly simply to pull an ethernet cable out
of the back of your box to update a box from a CD
especially in a suspect environment where you have
had many problems.
I have had the displeasure of having had to go from
box to box and clean each individually and while many
problems were
I see times more typically in the 5 - 10 second range to infection. As
a test, I unprotected a machine this morning on a single T1 to get a
sample. 8 seconds. If you can get in 20 minutes of downloads you're
luckier than most.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[
20 matches
Mail list logo
