John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:38:59 +0200, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hitrwm.wv4i016f8ojkN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >Terry <handmade@operamail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in
> >> news:1hisn7b.zy2oit14k1juqN%hlexa@hotmail.com:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > A link explaining NAT- and SPI firewalls:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.practicallynetworked.com/...g/firewall.htm
> >>
> >> The router I'm using (Netgear DG834G) uses SPI according to the
> >> spec.
> >>
> >> As there's no reason anyone would want to target my PC, am I safe
> >> from a random or casual attack, as regards having 'file and printer
> >> sharing' enabled?
> >>
> >> And, just out of interest, is it really possible for someone to get
> >> past NAT and access to files?
> >
> >No. And why should someone with a NAT firewall who wants to turn on file
> >and printer sharing be concerned about (from the link above, using SPI):
> >
> >- blocking Java, ActiveX, and Cookie portions of downloaded web pages
> >
> >- blocking access to WAN Proxy servers
> >
> >- blocking "IP Spoofing" attacks
> >
> >- blocking malformed IP packet attacks such as "Ping of Death", and
> >variants such as "Teardrop", "Bonk", and "Nestea"
> >
> >-blocking SYN flood and LAND attacks
> >
> >Mr Navas?
>
> SPI is something else entirely. Here's a good start:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall>
But you can't explain why, can you? All you do in argument is find a
link.