Re: Firewalls, are they really necessary?
From: Fao, Sean (enceladus311_at_yahoo.comI-WANT-NO-SPAM)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:45:11 -0500
> You assume too much. Dont' think of a firewall as just INPUT. OUTPUT
> is at least as important - ie smbd. Do you follow?
> Of course a firewall is important but connecting to a pop3 port doesn't prove
> jack. Why run a local mail server at all, with or without a firewall? If it's running,
> it's running and will be accessible with or without a firewall. That was my point.
> That makes the telnetter's example moot.
I think we're simply misunderstanding each other and I apologize for
I agree, a POP3 server is *probably* useless if it's not intended to be
exposed to the outside world. However, in the rare circumstance that aq
required a POP3 server (learning experience?), a firewall would
obviously provide another level of protection to ensure that no unwanted
visitors could read his mail.
You call the telnetter's example "moot" because the service shouldn't
have been running in the first place. Agreed, it probably shouldn't
have been running; but, it was (and maybe it was supposed to be), and aq
now walks away with a better understanding of what a firewall can
protect against. If they were only good for blocking services that
shouldn't be running, we'd never have a need for them.