Are firewalls that good?
I used outpost & zone alarm and FireHole still gets through?
http://keir.net/firehole.html
Greg:
(my responses below are to your post in the grc.security NG)
If the user is less than an Admin user, the user will see a dialog: "I could
not find a default web browser to use."
I tested this in XP Pro SP1 and in SP2 RC2.
Robert:
I disagree. IMO, it depends upon the techniques used by the trojan, and the
technologies/settings used by the firewall.
If we use the FireHole utility as an example, and my setup of running ZA
free, BID, and XP's ICF together:
Scenario: FireHole is usurping another app (MSIE) to make the outbound call:
1) ZA free:
ZA free is an application gate and I have it set to "Ask" for MSIE.
FireHole's attempt to call home via MSIE causes ZA free to prompt me for
approval.
However, this is the end of control over FireHole by ZA free, therefore, if
FireHole attempted to do anything damaging and I had ZA free approve the
connection attempt, FireHole is absolutely free to do whatever, subject to
the rights/permissions of the currently logged on user.
2)BID:
BID is an ID.
FireHole's attempt to call home does not cause any alarms/blockage by BID.
However, BID is still monitoring for suspicious activity, therefore, if
FireHole attempted to do a act qualified as "suspicious activity", BID could
intervene. (IMO, this is why it is so impt to run BID with ZA free).
3) XP's ICF:
Is a stateful packet filter.
FireHole's attempt to call home does not cause any alarms/blockage by BID.
As long as the "trojan" uses the same connection, ICF should not interfere.