[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, David Bell wrote:
On Tuesday 25 January 2011 15:15:50 Gordon Henderson wrote:NAT, while no substitute for a proper firewall will hide >95% of issues you may see though.It's that 5% that I worry about!
Actually, it's probably higher than that - assuming the router is doing it's job correctly. Afterall, there are millions of (windows) PCs behind NAT routers, doing OK - I suspect that these days, hackers get in by virtue of the trojan route - clicking on a link, opening an email, etc. rather than directly attacking home PCs.
In these cases, yes, a firewall might help, but it's going to be a firewall doing packet inspection, payload monitoring, etc. that you really need...
And if you're desktop is running Linux, what are you concerend about? Now... Myself and may many others host Linux servers directly connected to the Internet - what firewall protects them? The answer in my case is; Their own. But really - if you're not running anything that's open, (that you don't intend to be open), what is there to protect against? You can nmap your own servers/PCs to see what's open, or use the netstat command inside them (which might not protect against a netstat trojan, however) Gordon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq