RE: Linux vs Windows Firewalls

> I never assumed anything.

>What a looser. Why are you replying to this mail so late? It was like 3
>days ago when I wrote it, and was glad to see nobody answered it and
>that this same discussion got saner (for which I did nothing), and I was
>proven wrong yet again.
>I think you just like to bring heated discussions back, dont you?

Your ability to have a civil disscussion about 
Windows Firewall vs. Netfilter is amazing. 
And all the evidence and facts you have presented truly
outshines anything I have presented.
You must be omniscient !!!!
I guess I am not worthy to be in your presence.
Truly you are the master of Firewalls.
All us loosers on the list must bow before the Jedi Firewall Master.
Truly the Firewall force is with you.





-----Original Message-----
From: annoyances-admin-DzJonyRHso41Ayx8vbq1stBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org
[mailto:annoyances-admin-DzJonyRHso41Ayx8vbq1stBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org]On Behalf Of David Eduardo
Gomez Noguera
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:20 PM
To: linux annoyances
Subject: RE: [Annoyances] Linux vs Windows Firewalls


On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 08:00, Ridgeway, Alan wrote:
> > Yes it does, what you said was that having a firewall that allowed filtering
> based on programs made the system (windows in this case) inherently super ubber
> duper more secure than linux.
> 
> > > If you read news papers or news sites, you will find out which OS has
> > the worst leaks.
> 
> You are assuming all Windows machines run Windows firewall. That is not the case.
> The newspapers are NOT documenting Windows Firewalls failing, they are documenting
> RPC buffer overflows. They are documenting SMB failures. They are NOT documenting 
> Windows Firewall

I never assumed anything.
And I didnt wrote the part about the news papers.
Please read throughly through the mail thread.
> 
> >Now, blocking on programs I think is ubber stupid and unnecessari.
> 
> I agree. But I don't agree with the line of thinking that anything in Windows 
> can be discredited because an unreleated part of the OS failed. It's like saying 
> Denial of Service attacks are normally caused by guys who run Linux, therefor
> all of Linux will cause Denial of Service attacks at will. It's not logical.
> It does not give credability to Linux to illogically bash Microsoft. If you want
> to bash Microsoft, do on stuff they deserve to be bashed on (and I agreee there is
> plenty to bash them on.)
> 

No, but the original post did imply that the firewall alone made the
system that could do filtering based on program (or process) more secure
than one that could not, ignoring any other aspect of what makes a
system (in)secure.

And I am not bashing MS. Again, read more carefully.

> 
> >So now, drop this subject for heavens sake!
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are not the moderiator of this list. 
> You don't get the last say just because you want to.
> I invite others to voice there thoughts because that is the way
> we learn. I you can't handle the subject, then write a filter
> for this suject line and delete it from your e-mail before you even see it.
> 

What a looser. Why are you replying to this mail so late? It was like 3
days ago when I wrote it, and was glad to see nobody answered it and
that this same discussion got saner (for which I did nothing), and I was
proven wrong yet again.
I think you just like to bring heated discussions back, dont you?


_______________________________________________
annoyances mailing list
[email protected]
http://michelangelo.renaissoft.com/mailman/listinfo/annoyances