[Link]
Lesbians Lessons - review by Danielmayu33216| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| daviangel Member Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital 455 Posts 1/04 |  Posted - Mar 21 2004 : 4:37AMwow I hope noone here catches it. Haven't heard of a destructive worm for a while Most infected computers will have to be rebuilt from scratch unless their owners instead decide to buy new ones, said Ken Dunham, a computer security expert at iDefense. "The thing looks like it will corrupt or crash most drives enough so that reinstallation is going to be required," he said. "This is a very destructive worm." [Link] |
Hardware  All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 4:41AM [Link] |
| daviangel Member Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital 455 Posts 1/04 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 5:54AM I never had a problem with him and actually use his shields up all the time. Personally I use zonealarm the best free firewall software bar none.
[Link] |
| GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 1:22PM [Link] |
| Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 6:45PM [Link] |
 | |
| GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 7:11PM With a software-based firewall running on my computer, I lose a physical layer of protection (including NAT and ping absorption) plus I am subject to a variety of potential bugs and holes in the firewall software itself as well as attacks on the firewall software from the outside in addition to threats I might have unwittingly downloaded and installed on my own machine in the form of dialers, viruses and worms. The hardware box, while not a 100% guarantee that nothing will ever happen, is significantly more secure than a software firewall application and, at about US$65, it is cheap insurance for a broadband internet access user. ~ GaySatyr [Link] |
| Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 7:47PM Now, even though it has the hardware all to itself (hopefully), it is still a program and thus subject to error just like every other program written by man. Therefore, singling out PC-based firewalls (what you call software-based firewalls) as potentially buggy is inappropriate. What can be suggested is that, given that a PC-based program has to protect itself against internal as well as external attacks, the hardware-based program should have fewer weaknesses. However, ultimately, we're at the mercy of the programmers in either case. Putting on my network engineer hat, the NAT feature is definitely a plus, but that's an additional feature; if memory serves, firewalling isn't even discussed in the RFC. As for PING absorption, I can do that with any decent PC-based firewall. Also, I assume you're not talking the ISO model when you mention the physical layer, because I'm clueless about what NAT and PING have to do with hardware and signal propagation. Note - this isn't to put anybody off of GS's suggestion. Getting a "hardware-based" firewall is definitely an excellent choice, it's just that he's in my bailiwick now and I get kind of exacting when that happens. [Link] |
| GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00 | Posted - Mar 22 2004 : 8:04PM [Link] |
| daviangel Member Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital 455 Posts 1/04 | Posted - Mar 26 2004 : 12:54AM p.s. I think we can all agree that firewalls are only a part of the solution to security. And as far as what hardware said about software vs hardware. A good analogy would be modern day video cards. I got a geoforcefx that can do T&L lighting in hardware and all kinds of other cool graphics stuff and it can do them really fast. That is not to say that an old ati card that doesn't have hardware T&L,etc cannot do T&L the same things and run the same games. It can but it does them really slow since it's doing it using software(your computer's cpu) without depending on a piece of hardware dedicated soley to T&L like my geoforcefx card has. [Link] |
| GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00 | Posted - Mar 26 2004 : 1:24AM
I'm not 100% safe, but I'm probably 99 & 44/100ths safe. ~ GaySatyr [Link] |
| Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02 | Posted - Mar 26 2004 : 3:57AM Firewalls are relatively simple programs (I'm not going to address the complexities that can arise in a business setting) that require no mathematical computations. They should deny by default, which means that a short, straight-forward decision tree is all that is required - if packet A matches the approved list of allowed ports then it comes in, otherwise it is dropped. That's it. This means that a firewall program should have little measurable impact on performance. The issue for the average PC user isn't going to be performance but rather the safety of the platform the firewall is running on. If the PC is compromised through some other vector then the firewall may be rendered useless. PS - I also agree that a firewall doesn't provide complete protection. PPS - "It can but it does them really slow since it's doing it using software(your computer's cpu) without depending on a piece of hardware dedicated soley to T&L like my geoforcefx card has." You dropped an "and" there - "using software AND your computer's CPU." To be clear, the old graphics cards didn't support T&L because different software companies used different instructions to do the necessary computations. This meant that the work had to be done by the main CPU. The problems there were Now, aren't you glad we had this chat? lol [Link] |
| daviangel Member Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital 455 Posts 1/04 | Posted - Mar 26 2004 : 9:53PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |