Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

RE: Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices
From: "Greg" <full-disclosure2 () pchandyman com au>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:08:41 +1100



-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk 
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf 
Of Stan Bubrouski
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 7:51 AM
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices


On 1/19/06, Dave Korn <davek_throwaway () hotmail com> wrote:

Stan Bubrouski wrote in 
news:122827b90601190801w2a7f8206h5d8973cf6b240788 () mail gmail com
As cruel as that last message was I'm sick of the ZA pros here 
saying its perfect, its not, far from it.

  Since nobody has ever claimed that ZA is perfect, in 
saying this you 
prove

Yeah I didn't literally mean perfect, only that certain 
people seem to argue that everyone's complaints about ZA 
aren't real because they don't experience them.  What proof 


Actually, seeing no-one actually said that, I suppose that is a pointer
towards you REALLY meaning that YOU cant make the prog do something
therefore no-one can.

IMHO, ZA has some good points in it. As I said before, it is easy as buggery
to set up and has ways to fix stuff that make lief easier. One such example
in a wi-fi network that would get internet through the router but not
connect to shares was a mate of mine, needing to get out quickly, simply
installed ZA on each Windows machine and attempted to access shares from one
machine to the next and went to that other machine and added each manually
set IP to the trusted list. That got the workers through OK until he had the
time (after a few days skiing) to get back and fix it all properly. Bloody
XP Pro and Home mix for some reason. 

I like it's ability to show "I KNOW hardware firewalls are better than
software ones and WONT be told anything else because *I* know - don't you?"
types the logs that ZA free edition, behind their hardware firewall, picks
up of whatever comes it's way through the router without even upsetting a
thing there. That doesn't mean that ZA stopped everything but there are SOME
things stopped and logged so it is a cause for worry for them. They think
they are safe. Clearly they arent safe behind their hardware firewall and
once more I say "For every so-called security professional who THINKS a
hardware firewall is all you need, there is a blackhat laughing behind your
back". OK that was slightly altered but it gets the point across.

could I profer here?  Some flawed benchmark?  A video?  Why 
would I bother you assume I'm lying anyways.

that your claims are either lies or hyperbole.  If you can't argue 
with what

So because you think that one sentence is misleading (in 
retrospect 'perfect' was not a good word choice), everything 
else I said must be untrue.  Sigh.

people actually said, making up things that they didn't say is 
fatuously dishonest.

You are the one being dishonest and the one exaggerating 
here.  You take something too literally, and call people 

Actually, I would have to agree with him that it was you doing that. You
either lied or exaggerated above as I pointed out. Deal with it.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault