Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)
On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
"rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
> question)
>
[snip]
None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of
"incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused
problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the
point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT
router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible
threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even
the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite)
have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can
(when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And
that's the best you can ever hope for.
> > If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
> > place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
> > be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.
>
> Yea, Highly possible that one..
> Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
> games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
> explanation)..
[snip]
Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in
reality.
> Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
> registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
> It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
> or really run ANY server..
>
[snip]
All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the
operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue.
Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than
whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard".
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,
"rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious
> question)
>
[snip]
None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of
"incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused
problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the
point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT
router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible
threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even
the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite)
have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can
(when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And
that's the best you can ever hope for.
> > If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer
> > place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would
> > be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around.
>
> Yea, Highly possible that one..
> Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host
> games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a
> explanation)..
[snip]
Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in
reality.
> Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a
> registration server) and TONS of other stuff..
> It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server,
> or really run ANY server..
>
[snip]
All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the
operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue.
Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than
whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard".
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram