Router firewall no protection?

[Anders F]

I asked this on the
microsoft.public.windows.networking.firewall
group but this is pretty inactive and I got no answer.
My old system is XP Pro SP3 and I use this to
configure the router. My new computer is an
ASUS Eee PC 900, Linux version. I have not used
it very much, just checked to see if I can access
the internet. I can.

---------

I have a second computer so I bought a router
(Zonet ZSR0104CP) to keep them both connected
to the net. This router is advertised as having
a firewall but to me, this firewall seems like nothing
but a joke.

As I understand it, a firewall should keep the
bad guys out. There are some things I can
configure, I will list them and I will tell you
why I think they suck.

1) MAC filtering. MAC addresses are only
available on the local net. I only have two
computers and I do not intend to use one to
hack the other.
OK, there are bigger LANs and there might be
those where this filering is meaningsfull.
Still, the great majority of baddies must be out
there, not on the LAN.

2) IP address filtering, 192.168.10.xxx to
192.168.10.xxx. LAN addresses, same as point 1.

3) Time filtering, day of the week and time to
block. The baddies do not work 9 to 15. This
is meant to keep the computer from the net, not
the net from the computer.

4) URL filtering, example from the set-up page:
*.*sex*.* . I don't trust that all sex sites
have "sex" in their names. I don't trust that
all trojan sites have "trojan" in their names.
I don't trust that the URLs from baddies are
not faked. I do not know if there is an URL in
all IP messages.

Besides the router, I am using the Windows
firewall. With an external firewall this should
not be necessary but I feel very unsure about
it.

I know something about networking but I am no
expert. Does the firewall have any value at
all? Am I wrong about something?

Thanks for any answer
Anders

 

[Cassandra]

1) MAC filtering. MAC addresses are only

available on the local net. I only have two
computers and I do not intend to use one to
hack the other.

Among other uses, this can be somewhat helpful in circumstances in which
your network is easily hacked into - for example, if one or more of your
computers is hooked up to the router by WiFi.

2) IP address filtering, 192.168.10.xxx to
192.168.10.xxx. LAN addresses, same as point 1. Same answer as point 1.

3) Time filtering, day of the week and time to
block. The baddies do not work 9 to 15. This
is meant to keep the computer from the net, not
the net from the computer.

If you reduce the amount of time your network is accessible from the net
each day from 24 hours to 16 hours, let's say, you have at least reduced the
chances of its being hacked into.

4) URL filtering, example from the set-up page:
*.*sex*.* . I don't trust that all sex sites
have "sex" in their names.

True, but if you list *.*xxx*.*, *.*adult*.*, *.*porn*.*, and so on, you
will probably reduce the chances of accidentally allowing a porn site to
shoot popups at you, which might both annoy you and create other security
problems.

I don't trust that

all trojan sites have "trojan" in their names.

What I wrote above probably applies to *.*serialz*.*, *.*crackz*.*, and so
on. From what I have read, even plain *.*.ro might be useful, unless you
know Romanian or have acquaintances in Romania.

I don't trust that the URLs from baddies are
not faked.

I'm not sure what you mean; it's true that the only way to prevent a baddy
from registering drink-kokakola.ro would be to persuace Coca Cola to take
effective legal action, which I suspect is difficult.

I do not know if there is an URL in

all IP messages.

I'm not sure what you mean by that either. If you mean that TCP/IP can
transmit information without a verbal URI, that's true.

Besides the router, I am using the Windows
firewall. With an external firewall this should
not be necessary but I feel very unsure about
it.

Given the choice between the two, I would probably choose the router
firewall, if only because it would reduce the load on the desktop machine's
resources. In any case, you've already paid for the NAT router for a
different reason. Why does having the firewall on it bother you?

Doesn't your router firewall have any other settings, such as one to block
certain ports or protocols?

Thanks.
C.