Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:02:14 +0200 From: "Helmut Schneider" <jumper99@gmx.de> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-pf Stealth Modus Message-ID: <hakdb6$kvt$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <6422287.58441254834893591.JavaMail.root@zimbra-store><49F0693DC96541B4B9D7B61599A12CA4@vpe.de><20091006182241.79d16c8c@centaur.5550h.net><hag28i$26j$1@ger.gmane.org><20091006210912.379434eb@centaur.5550h.net><hahnmk$ji6$1@ger.gmane.org> <20091007171133.21cf50ce@centaur.5550h.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
文鳥 <bunchou@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:40:36 +0200 > "Helmut Schneider" <jumper99@gmx.de> wrote: >> I know the term "stealth firewall" very well. It's a worthless >> marketing buzzword. It suggests users that it could prevent an attack >> or even the scan itself. Neither is correct. This is what I wanted to >> point out and I was encouraged by the fact that the OP was talking >> about "stealthing" open ports. > > Ok, I totally agree with your reasoning when it comes to the open > ports and useless marketing hype. Nevertheless, I think that the word > "stealth" fits very well in the case of closed ports as it makes it > a (slight) bit harder to find if a host is up or not. Well, I still disagree. > Anyway, even if the OP's mail was a bit misleading, I think > it would have helped him more if you had just explained what > 'stealth' actually means, why you and steered him into the right > direction in addition to what you wrote. And it would also have > prevented this prolonged and utterly useless discussion we were > leading ;) Again I disagree, I expect this discussion to be useful for many others. But I agree, we should stop at that point. :) Helmut
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?hakdb6$kvt$1>