Re: [Full-disclosure] Dumb question: Is Windows box behind a router safe ?

[OTB <ownthebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve really needs to ask himself, if all his pop does is run Firefox
and email, why he's running Windows on that machine at all? Not safer
per se, but a less meaty target. Still needs a nightly auto-update, though.

Also, (hi, John) filtering egress is pretty well moot on $home_router,
most connectbacks these days go out on 80 or 443. IRC control channels
are so last year.

Also, Steve, there's a list for this sort of thing, not that it matters:
 http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/105/description


Chris wrote:
> Bullshit.
> 
> Screw NAT, screw routers, screw bots.
> 
> The *FIRST* thing Steve should be doing is patching his computer.  There is 
> absolutely no freaking excuse for having an unpatched or halfway patched 
> computer running Windows whatever.  Microsoft has made Windows Update 
> idiotproof...to the point where any average desktop user NOT using it is a 
> moron.
> 
> To try to compensate for his lazy, half-assed attitude is just putting a 
> band-aid on the Grand Canyon. 
> 
> To think that his unpatched and probably already compromised computer is safe 
> just because it sits behind a router, of which he has no idea if it is 
> secured, is the blind leading the blind.
> 
> PATCH THAT BOX.  Turn on Automatic Updates, set them to install and reboot 
> automatically, Steve.  You won't have to do anything except keep living in 
> the fantasyland you live in now...but at least your computers won't be 
> spewing out garbage.
> 
> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Fritscher" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Dumb question: Is Windows box behind a router 
>> safe ?
>> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:42:06 +0200 (CEST)
>>
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I hope you haven't caused a storm with aggressive mails here^^
>> This maillinglist is more about now detected holes in soft- and hardware...
>>
>> First, you certainly mean not a normal router (which is on most cases 100%
>> transparent in both directions), but a NAT-router.
>>
>> What the NAT blocks (in most cases) are incomings connections - But
>> expecially since XP SP2 this is a very seldom used way to attack
>> computers.
>> Nowadays, most bad software use holes in apps - browser, office, flash and
>> so on which use outgoing connections - which are NOT blocked by a
>> NAT-router.
>> So, yes, a bot connectiong to a botnet could be installed if Firefox or a
>> plugin like Flash, Java, Quicktime and so on has a hole and you browse on
>> a "bad" site.
>>
>> Btw, please read about NAT, routing, current bad software etc in the
>> internet - this will help you understanding the concerns.
>>
>> Sincerly,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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