What was the *technical* justification for adding outbound traffic monitoring in Vista FW ?
Was it customer pressure :) ?
If MS is considering that monitoring outbound traffic is such a *pressing security issue*, why aren't they provide an appropriate fix for the WinXP2 firewall via 'Patch Tuesday'?
Or, could we expect a *security enhancement* :) of the WinXP firewall when WinXP3 is released in the first half of 2008?
Any thoughts?
Exactly.
Because they want to sell more copies of Vista.
cu
59cobalt
None, rather:
Yes.
Because they want to sell their newest crap.
No, since Microsoft already stated that XPSP3 won't introduce any new functionality.
That's what i thought as well, thanks :)
Even though the impending issue of Win XP3 will endure for a considered period of time? I can't imagine that f/w outbound monitoring is a 'hot' selling issue.
I agree with your sentiment, but don't think that f/w outbound monitoring would be a marketing issue., but then again I am not a marketing expert either :)
I am not a techy, isn't it possible to issue a fix? Why issue XP3 at all?
There is an element on XP that can stop outbound traffic to supplement the XP FW. It runs on my Vista machine to supplement its FW, and I don't fool with the need to set outbound rules for Vista's FW, because I have been using it for many years.
It's called IPsec.
Very interesting, this should keep me busy for a while. Thanks a bunch :)
Backporting features into the previous OS version will most likely have a negative impact on sales of the current version.
cu
59cobalt
Simple:
- It has no technical value. Malware can simply remote control existing applications that have already been allowed, via various forms of IPC or via writing into their configuration data.
- The clueless people don't understand this, are following the illusions created by various third-party host-based packet filters, and then simply demand it.
- Microsoft is a corporation, thus by law they're required to do their best to make money. Even further, the company motto is to write software for making money.
Now count this together and it becomes obvious.
It is no fix, it's an added functionality. They're *unwilling* to add such.
Bugfixes. All those that had too low impact to issue public fixes and/or were addressed with low priority.
It's called an open Port 500/UDP, 50/IP, 51/IP, and the inability to filter Kerberos and multicast traffic (and, without further configuration, also the inability to filter RSVP and broadcast traffic).
Will you please go away. You are of no value to me, when I have repeatedly told you that IPsec is being used in a supplemental fashion behind the XP and Vista FW(s) to stop outbound traffic if need be.
Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
Are you hard of *reading* or something? Maybe, you need a *reading* aid.
You have got a serious problem with your postings. It's beyond ridiculous. You are ridiculous.
I know you're going to reply, like the hound dog that you are.
But it simply isn't supplemental wrt. the mentioned excemptions. If you activate IPSec, IPFilter and the XP/Vista FW, the mentioned ports are still open and the mentioned traffic still passes through.
Long story short: Your suggested setup is horribly broken.
My God, it is LOL!
If you don't have anything useful to write: Shut up!
(Anyway else one should report your SPAM to Earthlink)
Good bye SG, I have had enough of you for today. I know if you see me post, you'll ride up on your cockroach with you mouth slobbering.
I think so.
Yours, VB.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.