No Longer Need An Outbound Firewall?
in [Dell]
|
From: Daddy on 17 Dec 2009 15:06 I'm asking for opinions on whether an outbound (software) firewall is still necessary, but first here's a little background to put my question in context. The reason I'm asking is because I have this "thing" about running a lean configuration. The question I'm asking is only applicable to users who are knowledgeable about security risks and conscientious in their practice of safe computing in the first place. I like to imagine myself in that group. If your outbound firewall is alerting you, that means you're already infected. Malware got past your own defenses and those provided by your malware detector. But those malware detectors are getting better all the time. My question boils down to this: Is the added overhead of a third-party software firewall - and the effort needed to understand what the he** it's doing - worthwhile in light of the advances being made by malware detectors? The better malware detectors are updated continuously and their response to zero-day exploits is getting better and better. They increasingly rely on behavioral analysis and they're getting better at it. Sure, there's nothing wrong with a belt-and-suspenders approach to security, but when do you say "enough"?. Do you need KIS if you have KAV? Still need NIS if you have NAV? Enough with the poetry...you get my drift. Daddy
From: Steve W. on 17 Dec 2009 17:40 Daddy wrote: > I'm asking for opinions on whether an outbound (software) firewall is > still necessary, but first here's a little background to put my question > in context. > > The reason I'm asking is because I have this "thing" about running a > lean configuration. > > The question I'm asking is only applicable to users who are > knowledgeable about security risks and conscientious in their practice > of safe computing in the first place. I like to imagine myself in that > group. > > If your outbound firewall is alerting you, that means you're already > infected. Malware got past your own defenses and those provided by your > malware detector. But those malware detectors are getting better all the > time. > > My question boils down to this: Is the added overhead of a third-party > software firewall - and the effort needed to understand what the he** > it's doing - worthwhile in light of the advances being made by malware > detectors? > > The better malware detectors are updated continuously and their response > to zero-day exploits is getting better and better. They increasingly > rely on behavioral analysis and they're getting better at it. > > Sure, there's nothing wrong with a belt-and-suspenders approach to > security, but when do you say "enough"?. Do you need KIS if you have > KAV? Still need NIS if you have NAV? Enough with the poetry...you get my > drift. > > Daddy I would say it is even higher priority now than it was to have an outgoing firewall. Look at how many of the latest viruses have been able to shut down the AV and AS products. About the only way your going to notice those is when they start sending out traffic. -- Steve W.
From: Shel on 17 Dec 2009 21:56 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:06:44 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >I'm asking for opinions on whether an outbound (software) firewall is >still necessary, but first here's a little background to put my question >in context. > >The reason I'm asking is because I have this "thing" about running a >lean configuration. > >The question I'm asking is only applicable to users who are >knowledgeable about security risks and conscientious in their practice >of safe computing in the first place. I like to imagine myself in that >group. > >If your outbound firewall is alerting you, that means you're already >infected. Malware got past your own defenses and those provided by your >malware detector. But those malware detectors are getting better all the >time. > >My question boils down to this: Is the added overhead of a third-party >software firewall - and the effort needed to understand what the he** >it's doing - worthwhile in light of the advances being made by malware >detectors? > >The better malware detectors are updated continuously and their response >to zero-day exploits is getting better and better. They increasingly >rely on behavioral analysis and they're getting better at it. > >Sure, there's nothing wrong with a belt-and-suspenders approach to >security, but when do you say "enough"?. Do you need KIS if you have >KAV? Still need NIS if you have NAV? Enough with the poetry...you get my >drift. > >Daddy Do away with all your security software, and install the free Microsoft Security Essentials. I have been using it for two months with no problems.
From: RnR on 18 Dec 2009 01:51 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:06:44 -0500, Daddy <daddy(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >I'm asking for opinions on whether an outbound (software) firewall is >still necessary, but first here's a little background to put my question >in context. > >The reason I'm asking is because I have this "thing" about running a >lean configuration. > >The question I'm asking is only applicable to users who are >knowledgeable about security risks and conscientious in their practice >of safe computing in the first place. I like to imagine myself in that >group. > >If your outbound firewall is alerting you, that means you're already >infected. Malware got past your own defenses and those provided by your >malware detector. But those malware detectors are getting better all the >time. > >My question boils down to this: Is the added overhead of a third-party >software firewall - and the effort needed to understand what the he** >it's doing - worthwhile in light of the advances being made by malware >detectors? > >The better malware detectors are updated continuously and their response >to zero-day exploits is getting better and better. They increasingly >rely on behavioral analysis and they're getting better at it. > >Sure, there's nothing wrong with a belt-and-suspenders approach to >security, but when do you say "enough"?. Do you need KIS if you have >KAV? Still need NIS if you have NAV? Enough with the poetry...you get my >drift. > >Daddy Tough call. What I will say is that no matter what you decide, have a clean backup because there is no such thing as bullet proof protection. You'll appreciate the backup when all else fails.
From: Bob Villa on 18 Dec 2009 08:41 On Dec 17, 2:06 pm, Daddy <da...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > I'm asking for opinions on whether an outbound (software) firewall is > still necessary, but first here's a little background to put my question > in context. > > The reason I'm asking is because I have this "thing" about running a > lean configuration. > > The question I'm asking is only applicable to users who are > knowledgeable about security risks and conscientious in their practice > of safe computing in the first place. I like to imagine myself in that > group. > > If your outbound firewall is alerting you, that means you're already > infected. Malware got past your own defenses and those provided by your > malware detector. But those malware detectors are getting better all the > time. > > My question boils down to this: Is the added overhead of a third-party > software firewall - and the effort needed to understand what the he** > it's doing - worthwhile in light of the advances being made by malware > detectors? > > The better malware detectors are updated continuously and their response > to zero-day exploits is getting better and better. They increasingly > rely on behavioral analysis and they're getting better at it. > > Sure, there's nothing wrong with a belt-and-suspenders approach to > security, but when do you say "enough"?. Do you need KIS if you have > KAV? Still need NIS if you have NAV? Enough with the poetry...you get my > drift. > > Daddy From what I have heard, if you are behind a hardware firewall with good password protection...then all that is needed is the Windows (XP,Vista,Win7) firewall. bob_v
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Should I upgrade my Dell Mini 9 netbook? Next: Any info on upcoming DELL netbooks |