Re: firewall for a client
On 2004-12-06 Víctor A. Ramos wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 18:30 +0100, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2004-12-06 Victor A. Ramos wrote:
>>> My own computer connected to the Internet is a link which can be
>>> attacked... that!s the part of the network that I pretend to
>>> protect.
>>
>> Why do you believe that you need protection for something which is
>> not there at all? You wrote that you don't have any service bound to
>> the external interface. If that's true, then there's nothing that
>> possibly could be attacked.
>>
>> Of course, your uplink could be flooded. However, a packet filter
>> won't protect you from that kind of attack.
>
> Well... I suppose that you're kidding me...
No.
> because there is no true in "you don't need firewalls, because you're
> not running any server on your PC"...
Then please enlighten me, because I cannot see any wrong in this for
single hosts. Tell me, *how* is someone supposed to attack a computer
that doesn't provide services.
> Even I know that, dude!
AFAICS you know wrong.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Those who would give up liberty for a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both."
--Benjamin Franklin
Reply to: