Re: Error message in Windows 98 Second Edition
"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46C11B60.91C7F789@Guy.com...
| MEB, why aren't you participating in this discussion? Could it be
| that you have no clue how effective a NAT-router is, and how it
| duplicates the most useful aspects of a software firewall without the
| hassle?
Look dimwit, look at the web pages on my site,, try to actually READ them.
Just as all pages are on the site, they are limited BY DESIGN to
Fleish-Kincaid Grade Level 10 so even you SHOULD be able to understand
them...
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/security/firewalls.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/security/spyware.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/security/certs_install.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/security/NETWORKING.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/security/antivirus.htm
BTW: I see your still trying to act like you know something SOMEWHERE,
shall I post where to look, where you post, where you live, your
identification numbers, your postal address?
Also, don't create *OUT OF THIN AIR* things I supposedly said as you did
for this segment... you may not be able to read and understand, but others
can..
Finish your hard drive discussion ... see if you can make yourself appear
somewhat intelligent ...
Oh, since your such an expert, describe exactly how a NAT works, why it is
called a NAT, what functions it can also provide, its circuitry, how its
firewall activities are established, what is the best rate router, and other
relevant material,,, please do, the world awaits your extensive knowledge
,,,, hehehehehe
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________
|
| "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:
|
| > > If you have more than one computer on a local lan, you already
| > > have NAT, so you are already protected for #1.
| >
| > Not always. A router can be configured to act as a dumb bridge,
| > so that it passes the ISP's Internet-accessible IP address
| > directly to the PC it is connected to.
|
| My explanation pertains to the typical broadband SOHO situation where
| a single static or dynamic IP is being used by one or perhaps a dozen
| machines on a local lan and the NAT aspect of the router is in use.
| Which I would guess pertains to 99.999% of the readers of this group.
|
| > > Function #2 IS NOT protection. Function #2 is an alert
| > > mechanism.
| >
| > True, in a way. It's more useful as a way of curbing unwanted
| > or unexpected behavior of wanted software,
|
| Yes, I agree with that. Which is why I feel that the out-bound
| monitoring that a software firewall does is more suited for the
| curiosity or control needs of a "power-user" rather than the security
| needs of the average user.
|
| > > Once you have a NAT-router, you have item #1 covered.
| >
| > In the context of the Internet, yes. But not in the context
| > of the LAN side of the router, which is relevant if one of
| > the PCs on the LAN is compromised,
|
| This really depends on what OS the various machines on the LAN are
| running - what services are running, what is being shared, what is the
| malware that now has access to the local lan, etc. Since NT-based
| OS's are more vulnerable, and since XP has it's own firewall, then
| that risk is already mitigated. Since 98 is relatively invulnerable
| to network exploits, again the risk is low. Five years ago, we might
| be talking about the benefits of running a software firewall on win-2k
| systems that are part of a multi-system lan - and that's a whole other
| ballgame.
|
| > I do use #2 in some contexts, and have found it useful.
|
| It may be useful in that it tells you about the behavior of known-good
| software, but for most people that is not why they are told they need
| a software firewall.
|
| > > The software firewall built into XP is ONLY an incoming
| > > firewall.
| >
| > It's not, actually.
|
| Yes it is.
|
|
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320855
|
| That KB talks only about the in-bound or unsolicited incoming
| monitoring that the XP firewall does.
|
|
http://pctechshield.com/ICF.htm
|
| "Basically the first best line of defense from Internet
| Scanners and hackers is a $50 Router which can also
| shield your I.P. Address and allow instant connection
| for multiple computers."
|
| Did you read that, MEB?
|
| "Since Internet Connection Firewall provides inbound
| protection only, if you have concerns about programs
| that "phone home" or send outbound data to an unknown
| destination over the Internet, you may want to consider
| a third-party firewall."
|
| Again another reference to XP's firewall being an inbound-only
| firewall.
|
| > Routers can be hacked too,
|
| I don't believe there have been any documented examples of circulating
| malware that hacks into routers - for example to alter their
| configuration, to open ports, etc.
|
| > > A NAT-router is THE FIRST THING YOU NEED.
| >
| > Along with destruction or very careful setup of all
| > wireless access..
|
| Locking down a WIFI adapter is critical.
|
| Given that this is a win-98 newsgroup, wifi and win-98 don't usually
| go together, especially not for a desktop machine or network of
| machines. WiFi should be disabled on a NAT-router serving a 100%
| wired network of machines - or better yet don't buy a NAT-router with
| wifi for such a network.
