Message-ID: <200401151748.i0FHmrE6087562@mailserver1.hushmail.com>
From: bart2k at hushmail.com (bart2k@...hmail.com)
Subject: UTTER HORSESHIT: [was January 15 is Personal Firewall Day, help the cause]

So if the point of PFW Awareness Day, is to make the average "Joe" or
"Jane" more IT security aware.....would we as memebers of the IT security
community not do more good to have a "Complete Disclosure Day" instead
of a mis-leading, tease, buy-my-product day ???

If your true intentions are to show the world what surrounds them in
the vast dark room that they are in, does it make more sense to:
- light a match to guide them with
0r
- flip the wall light switch on 
????


 
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:51:15 -0800 Mary Landesman <mlande@...lsouth.net>
wrote:
>Interpretation is subjective, but I have always interpreted the Sam
>Spade
>rant to be directed at the alerting many of these PFWs do, vs. the
>actual
>effectiveness. In fact, his point seems to be to get a hardware-
>based
>firewall. This isn't an option for the "Annie's" of this world.
>Properly
>used, a PFW provides excellent adjunct protection and, I believe,
> is a
>must-have. In fact, even when hardware-based firewalls are available,

> a
>properly configured PFW can prevent the scenario played out over
>and over
>again with Blaster - laptops piggybacking the infection past the
>perimeter
>defenses (i.e., hand-carried in through the front door) and then
>wreaking
>havoc once inside. Had these enterprises also employed PFWs, that
>would not
>have occurred. (Of course, there are many reasons a PFW in the enterprise
>could be problematic and I do recognize that - but this isn't the
>focus of
>the discussion).
>
>NO solution is immune from user-error. Thus, folks who want to help
>out
>their friends and neighbors (and the Internet as a whole), should
>not just
>recommend a PFW, but take the time to show the person how to use
>it
>properly. And, yes, part of that should involve disabling alerting
>where
>prudent and taking a few moments to configure the appropriate trusted
>apps.
>Doing this will ensure the best chance (though never 100%) of a
>PFW working
>properly and effectively on "Annie's" computer.
>
>I use a NAT+firewall for my home network. But I also use a PFW.
>Why? It's
>great policy management. If I turn on a system my son also uses,
> I can keep
>his chat and other superfluous apps from connecting while I do whatever
>it
>is I need.
>
>In the Sam Spade article, it is clear he is frustrated with user
>inquiries
>into why something is alerting or what something in the log means.
>And his
>frustration is completely understandable. However, I think it is
>disservice
>to somehow interpret his frustration as an argument that PFWs are
>bad ideas.
>For many, they provide the best means of protection accessible to
>a
>particular breed of user. And, as such, their use should be encouraged.
>With
>proper training, of course.
>
>And yes, some malware can disable it. This is a fairly common tactic
>with
>some email worms. But that simply underscores the need to educate
>users
>about email - it is not, IMO, an indictment of PFWs nor is it a
>reason to
>not use one. Using your house analogy, that would be like telling
>someone
>not to bother locking their front door, because an intruder could
>come in
>through the back and unlock the front one... Better to learn to
>lock both
>doors, use the peephole, etc.
>
>Regards,
>Mary Landesman
>Antivirus About.com Guide
>http://antivirus.about.com
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Erik van Straten" <emvs.fd.3FB4D11C@....tn.tudelft.nl>
>To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:55 AM
>Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] UTTER HORSESHIT: [was January 15
>is Personal
>Firewall Day, help the cause]
>
>
>"http-equiv@...ite.com" <1@...ware.com>:
>> We hereby reject this utter horseshit unreservedly.
>
>Agreed - when it's intended to "protect" aunt Annie's Xmas present.
>
>It just makes NO SENSE to have PC's listening on lots of ports,
>by
>default on any interface, and then add a PFW to prevent anyone from
>accessing them.
>
>(much like building a wall in front of your house because your doors
>and Windows(TM) have broken locks).
>
>In particular because most Annie's have no clue what IP is, and
>undesired egress traffic easily bypasses PFW's (if the malware hasn't
>shut down the darn thing right away).
>
>Classic PFW = Snake Oil: http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html
>
>If Annie's weren't members of Administrators, and members of
>Administrators would not have access to apps like IE and OE, and
>WindowsUpdate would not require admin privs to download, and there
>wouldn't be so many privesc sploitz, and the FS and registry would
>have much tighter perms by default, PFW's *would* make sense - for
>blocking undesired egress traffic.
>
>That is, provided that the PFW reliably starts before net I/O is
>possible, runs in "Safe Mode With Networking", and is not crowded
>with bugs itself.
>
>Cheers,
>Erik
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
>



Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: 
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427

Powered by blists - more mailing lists