PDA

View Full Version : BEEN TOLD



olldaddy76
16-08-2003, 06:57 PM
RE the BLASTER WORM........ or future such worms. That a firewall is needed if you are on A D S L but not if you use WIN 98... and are a home user...TRUE or FALSE and why!!?? But the need for using Windows Update is also a necessary ingredient.

Susan B
16-08-2003, 07:17 PM
ADSL is an internet connection and Win 98 can use ADSL. I think you may be meaning that you were told you do not need a firewall when using dial-up?

Some people used to say that a firewall is unnecessary for users of dial-up internet connection but after this incident with the blaster worm they may have to revise that view as those on dial-up with a firewall were not affected.

Win 98 was not affected by the blaster worm but that is not to say that it will be immune to future worms of this kind. Personally I would recommend that everyone install and use a firewall on all versions of Windows.

Gorela
16-08-2003, 07:38 PM
Or perhaps a certain old 486 computer as a dedicated firewall ;) rather than a toy for the kids :O

godfather
16-08-2003, 07:41 PM
I agree that up to now there has been little need to use a firewall on dial-up. The Blaster worm (and its kiddyscript variants that we will now see) has ended that, and a firewall is advisable in my opinion.

If you run up-to-date virus software and apply all Windows patches as soon as they are available then any risk is mitigated significantly. Also important is to keep up to date with what is happening out there, read the news daily and understand when there is a problem. I can't believe the number of people that got infected PCs, and never knew what was happening despite radio, TV, newspapers saturation coverage.

If you use ADSL its just that you are more open to attack as your PC is on-line all the time its turned on. Those of us with ADSL routers can still hide behind the hardware firewall function that a good router provides.

Its just that this time the Worm was written to exploit a bug in Windows versions other than 95, 98 and ME. Next time it may not be so.

tweak\'e
16-08-2003, 07:55 PM
there are a few worms that effect win9x that a firewall will help prevent. not to mentioned MS's poor networking setup dosn't help.

the days of carefree unprotected net surfing went out the windows years ago.

hardware firewalls are ok but i wouldn't recommend them for the home. they still don't stop rougue programs (eg trojen that come via email), require maitence(patches etc). things get interesting when its your hardware firewall/router that has been hacked.

kinda reminds me of this post........
<quote>
"It's somewhat surprising that nobody has yet used the Code Red fiasco
as an analogy. Granted that the 3 'strains' seen so far have not as
yet caused any widespread disruption of the Internet. However, as has
been discussed elsewhere, a new 'strain' modified in the correct
fashion could conceivably bring about mayhem.

This worm is spreading because of laziness, ineptitude and lack of
discipline. It should never have happened, the people responsible for
the continued spread of Code Red are largely the people that are paid
to administer their systems in such a manner that this kind of thing
never gets to happen. These people are in a profession that should put
them way above the much maligned home user.

There has been enough publicity about CR and the patches and warnings
have been around for weeks, so how come it's happening? How come
corporate servers are left unpatched? how come servers maintained by
trained and supposedly proficient people are crassly and
embarrassingly open to infection and propagation?


As I sit and watch the incredible number of probes to port 80, very
few of which are down to home users, I cannot help but wonder at the
irony regarding clueless 'home users'. The 'professionals' would
appear to not be so hot at securing their systems themselves, and
they are supposed to lead by example.

If they can't even apply simple patches against a threat that is
advertised weeks in advance, what hope is there of convincing poor old
'Joe Public' that he or she should take security seriously?

This is a message from the webmaster of a local @Home users group. His
observations about the use of illegal servers on @Home accounts is
telling; I would not have espected that to be so prevalent:

Aug 3rd - Why the site isnt there (or is it?)

I'm guessing that everyone with an @Home connection
thinks this website is down right
now.

Fortunately, they're only 1/2 correct. The site is
running, but traffic to it is being blocked
by the datacenter that houses the server.

Why?

Because right now, @Home users' unprotected illegal
servers are infected producing
enough traffic to saturate a pair of OC-3 fibers.

And because of this, the datacenter had no choice but to
block all traffic originating in
@Home or RoadRunner IP ranges. The traffic alone (since
their NT servers are
innoculated, and the Linux servers are not suceptible) is
enough to knock out a
datacenter if left unchecked...

I think this goes to show two things:

1) there's a lot of people running IIS in @home resential
accounts

and

2) there's a lot of people who are NOT running virus
scanners.

Right now, I'm bouncing through a secure forwarding
service to write this. Anyone who's
not on an @Home or Roadrunner network will be able the
get in fine.... but until traffic
dies to a manageable level, everyone else is SOL.
____________
Webmaster,
RBUA.ORG

</quote>

bmason
16-08-2003, 08:14 PM
If you can get windows to close all listening posts there really isn't a need for a firewall (except for the outbound app stuff if you want it).

The problem is getting it to close them, especially the filesharing ones.

The current worm doesn't affect win98 but it still leaves the filesharing ports open so it could be affected by another exploit.

Big John
16-08-2003, 10:43 PM
> RE the BLASTER WORM........ or future such worms.
> That a firewall is needed if you are on A
> D S L but not if you use WIN 98... and are a home
> user...TRUE or FALSE and why!!?? But the need for
> using Windows Update is also a necessary ingredient.

Sitting behind NAT on a router you should not need a firewall either.

godfather
16-08-2003, 10:58 PM
The only possible need for a firewall when behind a NAT router, is to guard against a trojan application causing outward traffic.

If you are not downloading and installing junk, and surfing sensibly then it should not be needed, agreed.

tweak\'e
16-08-2003, 11:44 PM
>If you are not downloading and installing junk, and surfing sensibly then it should not be needed, agreed.

never! ;-)

most of the pc's that i have clean out of spyware and trojans have been surfing sensibly. most of the time they don't even realise they are infected. its not untill you install a firewall that they even notice they have been infected.

the problem is that the rest of us suffer due to the inability of others to get their sicurity sorted.

godfather
17-08-2003, 12:04 AM
Where have I gone wrong then? Is it just luck?

In the last couple of years, I have never had any spyware, adware, trojans or viruses. I periodically give adaware a run, and enable a software firewall to check for any unwanted intruders. Nothing found apart from the adcache folder (unused) in Eudora and a few cookies.

I do click "no" to installing helpers quite often though.

Fire-and-Ice
18-08-2003, 05:38 PM
> Where have I gone wrong then? Is it just luck?

To a certain extent, I believe, but mostly by practicing safe surfing and internet habits. Like you, I have had very few problems (touchwood) but I still arm myself with heavy artillery just in case.

Anyway, how does tweak'e know for sure that the pc's he cleans out have been surfing sensibly? ;-)

Graham L
18-08-2003, 06:15 PM
I would guess, godfather, that you haven't got a huge collection of MP3s (and/or "adult" images) which you have been downloading. :D

I would also guess that your computers have software which has been loaded and left alone.

godfather
18-08-2003, 07:07 PM
Possibly that is the reason. I really feel left out though......

tweak\'e
19-08-2003, 11:42 AM
comon its not hard to check through where someone has been surfing exspecially if they use IE. the catch however is what do you call surfing sensibly? ;-)

i suspect the reason godfather is leftout of the fun is he has enough brains to actually read whats hes installling and the amazing ability to click "no" when asked "do you whish to install XXX dailer?" :-)

strangly enough some of the worse sites for ramming activeX installed software (eg spyware/dailers) down your gob seems to be kids gameing sites :(


unforunatly the ones who really need to use firewalls are the ones who have no idea what a firewall/spyware/trogen is which kinda makes it a catch 22.

Fire-and-Ice
19-08-2003, 12:05 PM
> strangly enough some of the worse sites for ramming activeX installed software (eg spyware/dailers) down your gob seems to be kids gameing sites

Maybe you should suggest those people use Firebird or Mozilla as a browser instead of IE then. No more pop ups and no more Active X problems. ;-)

tweak\'e
19-08-2003, 09:17 PM
yeah i normally do tho i prefer opera :-)

however a lot of people have no idea what a browser is or that there are alternatives.