Zombified computers

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I know there is nothing like 100% internet security. But are there ways to
at least be very safe against computer hijackers that use my ip for illegal
things?

Thank you

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hKzCc.3492$dx3.27433@newsb.telia.net>...
> I know there is nothing like 100% internet security. But are there ways to
> at least be very safe against computer hijackers that use my ip for illegal
> things?
>
> Thank you

yes there is. lookup "air-gap" technology - its 100% effective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

news wrote:

> I know there is nothing like 100% internet security. But are there ways to
> at least be very safe against computer hijackers that use my ip for
> illegal things?

Nobody can prevent that someone uses 'your' IP to send spoofed packets. If
the tranport protocol is udp (which is stateless), this will work. If the
transport protocol is tcp no tcp connection will be established since the
three way handshake cannot be executed completely unless the attacker
controls at least one router on the way from the target host to your IP.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <a23233af.0406241306.1373f732@posting.google.com>,
willgeeza@yahoo.com says...
> "news" <geerge@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hKzCc.3492$dx3.27433@newsb.telia.net>...
> > I know there is nothing like 100% internet security. But are there ways to
> > at least be very safe against computer hijackers that use my ip for illegal
> > things?
> >
> > Thank you
>
> yes there is. lookup "air-gap" technology - its 100% effective.

Security is only effective if it does not impede ones ability to do the
work they need to do. If you can't use a computer with the security
solution, then it's not much of a security solution.

Air-Gap, while being effective at REMOVING the computer from the network
does not provide any security for those connected to a network.

Don't you think that the AG joke has been played out a little to much
this decade?

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> Don't you think that the AG joke has been played out a little to much
> this decade?

After reading a lot of articles by the OP these days I'd say that suggesting
air-gap or wire cutters is the right advice to him.

I told him the other day that tcp and udp are different concerning spoofing.
Instead of asking what the diffrences of these two are and/or what a
transport protocol is, he keeps on asking silly questions about 'others
using his IP'. Until he has unterstood some basics he should use an easy to
understand tool. A wire-cutter is such an easy to understand tool.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind.
from 'Not one of us', (c) 1980 Peter Gabriel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <cbfih5$k0b$1@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
> Until he has unterstood some basics he should use an easy to
> understand tool. A wire-cutter is such an easy to understand tool.

I know people that need that type of protection

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:52:51 +0200, Wolfgang Kueter
<wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote:

>After reading a lot of articles by the OP these days I'd say that suggesting
>air-gap or wire cutters is the right advice to him.

Well... until I understand security better, this is what I've done.
When I''m not at the home computer, I just switch off the DSL line. I
realize this would impede those who want auto updates or an internet
presence, but I want neither, at least not yet

I've a NAT properly configured ( at least nothing is on DMZ and it
passes shields up),w2k up to date, antivirus, antitrojan, anti
spyware scanners, and, for good measure, I monitor proxexp and tcpview
while working on line.

Still, lurking on this forum has convinced me until I can understand
more than half of what is said in detail , a wirecutter, or in my case
the dsl power switch, is probably my best bet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <mpdod01ql8jqtukuq4foeg8ec4lcafnuft@4ax.com>,
george1234pds@excite.com says...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:52:51 +0200, Wolfgang Kueter
> <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote:
>
> >After reading a lot of articles by the OP these days I'd say that suggesting
> >air-gap or wire cutters is the right advice to him.
>
> Well... until I understand security better, this is what I've done.
> When I''m not at the home computer, I just switch off the DSL line. I
> realize this would impede those who want auto updates or an internet
> presence, but I want neither, at least not yet
>
> I've a NAT properly configured ( at least nothing is on DMZ and it
> passes shields up),w2k up to date, antivirus, antitrojan, anti
> spyware scanners, and, for good measure, I monitor proxexp and tcpview
> while working on line.
>
> Still, lurking on this forum has convinced me until I can understand
> more than half of what is said in detail , a wirecutter, or in my case
> the dsl power switch, is probably my best bet.

If you don't feel comfortable enough to leave it turned on when you are
away from it, why do you feel comfortable enough to leave it connected
to the internet when you are there in front of it?

With a typical computer, the user that thinks they are safe using dial-
up or turning it off when not around, is not really any safer, it's a
false sense of security. If your machine is properly patched (every
night, has quality anti-virus software, and is behind some form of
border device (NAT Router) you are about as safe as you can get at home
(without purchasing a firewall). You could always install Zone Alarm on
the PC and in conjunction with the router would be even better off.

It's good to see that you've taken the measures to protect your
computer.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:53:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:

>If you don't feel comfortable enough to leave it turned on when you are
>away from it, why do you feel comfortable enough to leave it connected
>to the internet when you are there in front of it?

Because " I monitor proxexp and tcpview while working on line."

Can't do that when I'm away At the very least if there is a zombie
on board ( that somehow got past the ewido, a²,avast, avg, adaware,
and spybot scans) at least it won't run until I turn on DSL.

>With a typical computer, the user that thinks they are safe using dial-
>up or turning it off when not around, is not really any safer, it's a
>false sense of security. If your machine is properly patched (every
>night, has quality anti-virus software, and is behind some form of
>border device (NAT Router) you are about as safe as you can get at home
>(without purchasing a firewall). You could always install Zone Alarm on
>the PC and in conjunction with the router would be even better off.

I'm reconsidering a firewall. My coworkers suggested a NAT was enough.
I'm considring sygate and kerio. I like sygate interface, but do not
completely understand the problem it has with the Proxomitorn
discussed here

http://www.geocities.com/yosponge/4proxom.html


>It's good to see that you've taken the measures to protect your
>computer.

Just a beginner. I got a new DSL line, and wanted to start thinking of
issues other than anti virus and anti spyware