You already said it can be done so how can that be nonsense? Also, it's replacing the FW with the RIGHT layered security system. Not just a feature by a software. Please read through my posts again.
Is the Firewall still relevant today?
- Thread starter HarborFront
- Start date
- Sep 2, 2014
- 179
Catching a bullet with your teeth can also be done . but its not recommended
Replacing the FW with the RIGHT layered security system can also be done. but its not recommended.
why its it not recommended ? its bad security practice, the firewall is there for a reason , No security professional would advise using a system without a firewall, the same as no doctor would advise Catching a bullet with your teeth.
Is the Firewall still relevant today? Yes .
Can it be replaced ? Yes .
Should it be replaced ? NO
Is there any valid reason to replace the firewall ? No
Replacing the FW with the RIGHT layered security system can also be done. but its not recommended.
why its it not recommended ? its bad security practice, the firewall is there for a reason , No security professional would advise using a system without a firewall, the same as no doctor would advise Catching a bullet with your teeth.
Is the Firewall still relevant today? Yes .
Can it be replaced ? Yes .
Should it be replaced ? NO
Is there any valid reason to replace the firewall ? No
If you read this article
Are Words Harming the Security Industry?
you'll find that 4 most important factors are needed to ward off majority of cyber attacks. For Australia it's 85% and for MS is 94%. These are
1) OS patching
2) Software patching
3) Whitelisting
4) Removal of admin rights. That's use of SUA account instead of admin account.
These important factors apply to companies. They can equally apply to home users. Note that nowhere FW was mentioned. FW(and/or AV) should make it to the top 4 replacing whitelisting if it's that important in a security system, no?
- Sep 2, 2014
- 179
well since you believe everything u read , read then come back and post ,
or is it you only believe what suites you ,
or is it you only believe what suites you ,
Last edited by a moderator:
I have read some of those. Why not you search for 'Why a firewall is not needed' or 'Are firewalls still necessary/relevant/needed' etc? Read those and come back to post here, ok?
Last edited by a moderator:
nothing to do with FW and network attacks. You quote stuff out of context.
because using a FW is assumed.
You are limited in knowledge about security (and especially about network attacks); you believe you know because you install few security softwares...
When the wanacry/eternalblue/doublepulsar kernel attack was revealed , its only countermeasure was the FW . So take your fantasy , and throw it in the bin.
You posts are just misinformations and dangerous for any members.
No serious sysadmin will go without any FW for his personal computer or for his company. that is a fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
That sum it all, unfortunately, we have to drill it in the cranium of some people...
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,225
It amazes me that this discussion has gone on for 6 pages. Anyone with any knowledge at all of malware knows that an Outbound alerting firewall is a necessity.
A system with only a traditional AV and no firewall (or inbound only) in place still makes me drool even though I've been a Kind and Gentle person for years...
A system with only a traditional AV and no firewall (or inbound only) in place still makes me drool even though I've been a Kind and Gentle person for years...
Definition of Cyberattack
A cyberattack is any type of offensive manoeuvre employed by nation-states, individuals, groups, or organizations that targets computer information systems, infrastructures, computer networks, and/or personal computer devices by various means of malicious acts usually originating from an anonymous source that either steals, alters, or destroys a specified target by hacking into a susceptible system
Cyberattack - Wikipedia
Assumption is nothing unless proven.
Last edited:
I like the discussions for they give me insights into why a FW is needed and not simply good-to-have by others.
Agreed on the first part. But I'm asking whether that outgoing function of the FW (NOT the FW itself) can be replaced by Terra Privacy's Hacker Deterrent Pro?
As for your 2nd part can a strong IDS/IPS with some other right security software replaces the incoming function of the FW? Again it's NOT the FW itself here.
And if both the above can be done then the FW can be replaced, no?
Thanks
Last edited:
ah, now you changed the term of your questions, in this case, some , not all.
With HDP , can you block specific ports, IP adresses and protocols ? NO.
No, the FW function is to provide the means to allow/deny any connections. IDS/IPS doesn't, their jobs is only to detect (they are like security alarm) , they don't prevent connections as a FW will do.
the above can't be done, so FW can't be replaced.
because the OP keep trying to find a justification to replace the FW by his new favorite software, and people keep repeating the same damn thing...
if it was me, i would lock the thread because the answer was given from the very start... but if i did , people will say im a evil dictator (happened already )
hahaha hacking people is EVIL !!! (but you and me are evil so...)
- Jan 9, 2017
- 468
Late for the party as always...
What a heck, almost 7 pages discusion this .
Well, if HF want to go without FW it's he's/she's decision. Do i make like that, no way! Last what i dropped my security "arsenal". Even his sysadmin pal says it can be done, and many here already says it can be done and everything could be done, is it smart? It's a completely another story...
What i have been lurking about HF posts here and learn little about his interesting, it's totally want to be anonymoys/no logging/no even one connection like amazon etc...it's a catastroph! And of course 100% bulletproof security solution. I do not doubt his knowledge at al...but...well it's his choise. Do he got here much agree comments to trash up FW with security, if i count right not so many. Yeah, there are internet full of links/sites what could refer own mind, are those site wise? Again another story.
When you connect first intenet, it's for sure that firewall/Nat is needed! Let's play a game.; You trash the FW, okay. And you think it's possible in terms of safety&privacy both with RIGHT security solution BUT without FW. It's like i play 1 line vikinglotto and there is a 85 million cash to right line of numbers. If i make a 5 line of numbers sure my % to win increase but if i dropped only 1 line it's cheaper and still i can win. If you dropped as many security line your defence you want and think those sheets what is possibility get hacked by good with some not so friendly dude it's minimal, yes it like so. But if that "dude" want or got some info that wake up his/her interest, it for sure do that, then i count that FW it's really not everything! but, I will never dropped in my defence line.
But you sure try to make people here to believe that possibility it's like so, do it and when you have skilled hacker aim and you keep you PC without harm done, i say you just win a 85 million that my early saying vikinlotto!
Just my BEFORE morning coffee nonsense.
Good luck for you the path whatever it will be.!
- Ouh, and about the thread question my answer is yes.
What a heck, almost 7 pages discusion this
.Well, if HF want to go without FW it's he's/she's decision. Do i make like that, no way! Last what i dropped my security "arsenal". Even his sysadmin pal says it can be done, and many here already says it can be done and everything could be done, is it smart? It's a completely another story...
What i have been lurking about HF posts here and learn little about his interesting, it's totally want to be anonymoys/no logging/no even one connection like amazon etc...it's a catastroph! And of course 100% bulletproof security solution. I do not doubt his knowledge at al...but...well it's his choise. Do he got here much agree comments to trash up FW with security, if i count right not so many. Yeah, there are internet full of links/sites what could refer own mind, are those site wise? Again another story.
When you connect first intenet, it's for sure that firewall/Nat is needed! Let's play a game.; You trash the FW, okay. And you think it's possible in terms of safety&privacy both with RIGHT security solution BUT without FW. It's like i play 1 line vikinglotto and there is a 85 million cash to right line of numbers. If i make a 5 line of numbers sure my % to win increase but if i dropped only 1 line it's cheaper and still i can win. If you dropped as many security line your defence you want and think those sheets what is possibility get hacked by good with some not so friendly dude it's minimal, yes it like so. But if that "dude" want or got some info that wake up his/her interest, it for sure do that, then i count that FW it's really not everything! but, I will never dropped in my defence line.
But you sure try to make people here to believe that possibility it's like so, do it and when you have skilled hacker aim and you keep you PC without harm done, i say you just win a 85 million that my early saying vikinlotto!
Just my BEFORE morning coffee nonsense.
Good luck for you the path whatever it will be.!
- Ouh, and about the thread question my answer is yes.
You didn't missed much LOLLate for the party as always...
What a heck, almost 7 pages discusion this
- Jan 16, 2017
- 1,469
Is there any advantage at all on not using firewall? I'm not knowledgeable like many of you here. Saw Umbra saying some minor speed decrease(ain't no time and patience to read 6 pages to find it again! ). But I guess that speed would be negligible and not noticeable at all. Anything else?
). But I guess that speed would be negligible and not noticeable at all. Anything else?
- Oct 2, 2014
- 825
Is there any advantage at all on not using firewall? I'm not knowledgeable like many of you here. Saw Umbra saying some minor speed decrease(ain't no time and patience to read 6 pages to find it again!
Some FW may decrease surfing speed a bit, but most of them you won't even notice unless you are using some sort of accurate timer to compare before and after. A properly configured FW is always a good friend, Windows Firewall by default does a good job.
- Jan 16, 2017
- 1,469
My decrease in speed was 20 years ago when i use a 256k adsl LOL
With actual speed you shouldn't notice anything.
With actual speed you shouldn't notice anything.
- Sep 26, 2014
- 2,973
@HarborFront at your first post you are asking if we still require a firewall.
Answering to cs you are asking if outbound function can be done by another security software.
I am confused but at the same time i'm pretty sure that these are 2 different questions.
Anyway what is a good security config differs from person to person.
If you think that replacing the firewall with other security software can give you better security you should do it.
@Malware1 had a config with no security software what so ever.Risky? Yes but he is a malware expert and he didn't think he need it one.
I have one request. Give it a try without a firewall and tell us how it went.
Right now my curiosity is over the roof about your results
Answering to cs you are asking if outbound function can be done by another security software.
I am confused but at the same time i'm pretty sure that these are 2 different questions.
Anyway what is a good security config differs from person to person.
If you think that replacing the firewall with other security software can give you better security you should do it.
@Malware1 had a config with no security software what so ever.Risky? Yes but he is a malware expert and he didn't think he need it one.
I have one request. Give it a try without a firewall and tell us how it went.
Right now my curiosity is over the roof about your results
- Jun 24, 2016
- 2,503
You're just assuming a software firewall is non-sense because some kind of malware can disable it and gain control over it. If we party from this theory, then all software is useless. That's why they have support and techs behind it. They offer protection, and if somebody discovers a vulnerability, they release a patch. You won't ever be a hundred percent protected, and it's a probability a malware can pass through the barriers of a certain firewall. If you're so paranoid, get a hardware firewall.
Take into account good pieces of firewalls won't only include technology as to supervise inbound and outobund connections, but will include more modules in order to prevent more types of common (and not so common) attack to networks and its derivates. You talk about firewalls as if they can be easily disabled, when most of the times, a well configured firewall won't even let the mentioned malware connect to the internet as to download a payload.
Can malware disable your software firewall? Yes. If it did so, it's 99.9% your fault and you most probably deserved it for not being able to read a #####ing alert. Stop blaming software for human stupidity.
Beep.
Take into account good pieces of firewalls won't only include technology as to supervise inbound and outobund connections, but will include more modules in order to prevent more types of common (and not so common) attack to networks and its derivates. You talk about firewalls as if they can be easily disabled, when most of the times, a well configured firewall won't even let the mentioned malware connect to the internet as to download a payload.
Can malware disable your software firewall? Yes. If it did so, it's 99.9% your fault and you most probably deserved it for not being able to read a #####ing alert. Stop blaming software for human stupidity.
Beep.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
