Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 01, 2006 11:55 PM
Just because Ubuntu doesn't have those services installed, doesn't mean there isn't a need for a firewall.
I prefer to have each client PC, regardless of OS, have their own firewall. Why? In case one is contaminated with something, you can control or regulate the situation. It gives you an option to have "choke points".
And that Windows comment? What nonsense. I don't know how you set up your boxes (pretty sloppy procedures you've got there), but it takes at least 30min to compromise a fully patched Windows box. (For a commercial distro like Red Hat, it takes months).
And the message about shutting down in 60 seconds is clearly the infamous Blaster virus. To be infected by that, you'd have to be connected to the web directly with an unpatched Windows box. As in you don't have a router/firewall infront of your win boxes...Considering you can't even setup a Windows box without getting infected, I really wonder about your advice in regards to Linux.
I've reverted back to Win2k, because I don't want to deal with WGA and Activation nonsense. Even then, I've never been infected by nonsense, since I PREPARE before I install. It just goes to show you really have no clue wtf you're doing, if you are infected by something as old as Blaster.
How about growing up a bit and actually download AutoPatcher (a collection of Windows patches in one convenient download) and slipstream your Windows setup CD with the service pack?
I also do similar for Linux. I set up a fileserver that pulls down all the patches for the distros I use, and then I get all the updates from that. If I ever need to format and start again (not likely), then I can just get the updates locally. It saves me on my monthly web usage (60GB/month) AND centralises the updates/patches. (easy to backup).
As well, how come there is no mention of Bastille Linux? This is a great way to help the Linux rookie in reducing the security risks to their boxes. (note: I said ROOKIE, not a no-clue beginner!)
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Ubuntu should have a firewall by default
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 01, 2006 11:55 PMI prefer to have each client PC, regardless of OS, have their own firewall. Why? In case one is contaminated with something, you can control or regulate the situation. It gives you an option to have "choke points".
And that Windows comment? What nonsense. I don't know how you set up your boxes (pretty sloppy procedures you've got there), but it takes at least 30min to compromise a fully patched Windows box. (For a commercial distro like Red Hat, it takes months).
And the message about shutting down in 60 seconds is clearly the infamous Blaster virus. To be infected by that, you'd have to be connected to the web directly with an unpatched Windows box. As in you don't have a router/firewall infront of your win boxes...Considering you can't even setup a Windows box without getting infected, I really wonder about your advice in regards to Linux.
I've reverted back to Win2k, because I don't want to deal with WGA and Activation nonsense. Even then, I've never been infected by nonsense, since I PREPARE before I install. It just goes to show you really have no clue wtf you're doing, if you are infected by something as old as Blaster.
How about growing up a bit and actually download AutoPatcher (a collection of Windows patches in one convenient download) and slipstream your Windows setup CD with the service pack?
I also do similar for Linux. I set up a fileserver that pulls down all the patches for the distros I use, and then I get all the updates from that. If I ever need to format and start again (not likely), then I can just get the updates locally. It saves me on my monthly web usage (60GB/month) AND centralises the updates/patches. (easy to backup).
As well, how come there is no mention of Bastille Linux? This is a great way to help the Linux rookie in reducing the security risks to their boxes. (note: I said ROOKIE, not a no-clue beginner!)
#