On Friday 29 August 2003 11:34 am, rikona wrote:
> Hello Bryan,
>
> Thursday, August 28, 2003, 3:46:20 PM, you wrote:
>
> BP> Requires some hardware but this is doable. Simply run a proxy
> BP> server on a dedicated machine, in the router or ipchains using
> BP> netfilter, allow only that machine
Frankie wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Richard Smith
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2003 9:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Linux Apps - Firewalls
HaywireMac wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:10:43 +0800
"Fr
On Friday 29 August 2003 06:35 am, John Richard Smith wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Can I ask you a question,
>
> Am I paranoid for not wanting to enable cookies ?
>
> you know, from the security point of view ?
>
> John
Not wanting to have cookies enabled does not make you paranoid, but that
doesn't mean
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:55:48 -0700
Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the responses.
Hell, this is the best thread we've had in a long time, thank *you* for
starting it!
--
HaywireMac
Registered Linux user #282046
Homepage: nodex.sytes.net
++
Life ca
HaywireMac wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:10:43 +0800
"Frankie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
Disabling cookies outright is generally a bad idea..
I prefer to block any cookies with expiry dates that are over a week
in the future.
Also, I block any cookies coming from domains different from the p
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:46:20 -0400
Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Sorry for the long message, I get carried away sometimes. ;-}
No problemo, I enjoyed every minute of it, and gained a greater
understanding of security along the way.
I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective, es
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:10:43 +0800
"Frankie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Disabling cookies outright is generally a bad idea..
> I prefer to block any cookies with expiry dates that are over a week
> in the future.
> Also, I block any cookies coming from domains different from the page
> you are
On Friday 29 Aug 2003 12:46 pm, Sharrea Day wrote:
> Not that ZA can really help much in those situations. Clicking on
> the link merely ran the script as the one-and-only user on Win98SE.
> I feel much safer in Linux browsing the web as user (not root) -
> although sometimes I wonder why, when
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Richard Smith
>Sent: Friday, 29 August 2003 6:36 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [newbie] Linux Apps - Firewalls
>
>
>Bryan Phinney wrote:
>
>
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:46, Heather/Femme wrote:
> Seen all this. ZA got smart, it generates an encrypted sig file for
> itself now. Makes sure it can't be compromised either... and it is not
> easily killed in newer versions. Sides, that kind of attack is pretty
> sophisticated & the avg ZA user
Bryan Phinney wrote:
On Thursday 28 August 2003 03:14 pm, rikona wrote:
Hey, if I was running a bank with no vault, no security guard in the building,
no alarms and no way to stop someone from walking out with the money, and the
only security that I did have was a locked door, it would b
Bryan Phinney wrote:
On Thursday 28 August 2003 03:14 pm, rikona wrote:
Hey, if I was running a bank with no vault, no security guard in the building,
no alarms and no way to stop someone from walking out with the money, and the
only security that I did have was a locked door, it would b
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:59:29 +0100
Derek Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> As I understand it. There is nothing to stop a virus reconfiguring
> ZoneAlarm so it is undetected.
Exactly.
--
HaywireMac
Registered Linux user #282046
Homepage: nodex.sytes.net
++
An idea is
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:59, Derek Jennings wrote:
> As I understand it. There is nothing to stop a virus reconfiguring ZoneAlarm
> so it is undetected.
>
> http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/backdoor.tron.html
>
> I may be wrong but I believe there is also nothing In Wind
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:24, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:13:45 +0100
> Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> > I fail to see the joke, too. When I used to run it I used the on-line
> >
> > checkers, and got nothing back but my router address. What joke?
>
> Because it is
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 9:24 pm, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:13:45 +0100
>
> Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> > I fail to see the joke, too. When I used to run it I used the
> > on-line
> >
> > checkers, and got nothing back but my router address. What joke?
>
> Because i
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:13:45 +0100
Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> I fail to see the joke, too. When I used to run it I used the on-line
>
> checkers, and got nothing back but my router address. What joke?
Because it is *on* the machine it is trying to protect. You
compromise the ma
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 13:13, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 7:54 pm, rikona wrote:
> > H> ZoneAlarm is a joke, but it's better than *no* joke I guess,
> > except H> in the sense it might give one a false sense of security.
> >
> > I prefer other FW's, but I'm curious as to what's so b
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 7:54 pm, rikona wrote:
> H> ZoneAlarm is a joke, but it's better than *no* joke I guess,
> except H> in the sense it might give one a false sense of security.
>
> I prefer other FW's, but I'm curious as to what's so bad about it?
>
I fail to see the joke, too. When I used t
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 5:55 am, Russ wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the responses.
>
> I tried "https://localhost:1"; but the connection was refused.
You need to install the webmin package first.
> Besides, I know next to nothing about various types of connections and
> whatnot. So trying t
20 matches
Mail list logo
