full-disclosure - Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu Jan 19 21:08:57 2006
From: full-disclosure2 at pchandyman.com.au (Greg)
Subject: Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf 
> Of Stan Bubrouski
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 7:51 AM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices
> 
> 
> On 1/19/06, Dave Korn <davek_throwaway@...mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Stan Bubrouski wrote in 
> > news:122827b90601190801w2a7f8206h5d8973cf6b240788@...l.gmail.com
> > > As cruel as that last message was I'm sick of the ZA pros here 
> > > saying its perfect, its not, far from it.
> >
> >   Since nobody has ever claimed that ZA is perfect, in 
> saying this you 
> > prove
> 
> Yeah I didn't literally mean perfect, only that certain 
> people seem to argue that everyone's complaints about ZA 
> aren't real because they don't experience them.  What proof 

Actually, seeing no-one actually said that, I suppose that is a pointer
towards you REALLY meaning that YOU cant make the prog do something
therefore no-one can.

IMHO, ZA has some good points in it. As I said before, it is easy as buggery
to set up and has ways to fix stuff that make lief easier. One such example
in a wi-fi network that would get internet through the router but not
connect to shares was a mate of mine, needing to get out quickly, simply
installed ZA on each Windows machine and attempted to access shares from one
machine to the next and went to that other machine and added each manually
set IP to the trusted list. That got the workers through OK until he had the
time (after a few days skiing) to get back and fix it all properly. Bloody
XP Pro and Home mix for some reason. 

I like it's ability to show "I KNOW hardware firewalls are better than
software ones and WONT be told anything else because *I* know - don't you?"
types the logs that ZA free edition, behind their hardware firewall, picks
up of whatever comes it's way through the router without even upsetting a
thing there. That doesn't mean that ZA stopped everything but there are SOME
things stopped and logged so it is a cause for worry for them. They think
they are safe. Clearly they arent safe behind their hardware firewall and
once more I say "For every so-called security professional who THINKS a
hardware firewall is all you need, there is a blackhat laughing behind your
back". OK that was slightly altered but it gets the point across.

> could I profer here?  Some flawed benchmark?  A video?  Why 
> would I bother you assume I'm lying anyways.
> 
> > that your claims are either lies or hyperbole.  If you can't argue 
> > with what
> 
> So because you think that one sentence is misleading (in 
> retrospect 'perfect' was not a good word choice), everything 
> else I said must be untrue.  Sigh.
> 
> > people actually said, making up things that they didn't say is 
> > fatuously dishonest.
> 
> You are the one being dishonest and the one exaggerating 
> here.  You take something too literally, and call people 

Actually, I would have to agree with him that it was you doing that. You
either lied or exaggerated above as I pointed out. Deal with it.