default firewalling needed!

[_jz_]

i think that for avoiding anyrisk of Mr Lambda getting someday wormed or rootkited or whatever, why not putting quite restrictive default firewall tables?

leaving nothing open (except for ssh?) would be a good idea i think...

the thing would be to specify that somewhere, so when Mr Lambda will want to make his own webserver, he'll take care of opening the corresponding ports...

maybe puting some graphical firewall interface (and monitor?) could be useful, in the vastness of the gnome-earned space?

[Fabianx]

i think that for avoiding anyrisk of Mr Lambda getting someday wormed or rootkited or whatever, why not putting quite restrictive default firewall tables?

leaving nothing open (except for ssh?) would be a good idea i think...

the thing would be to specify that somewhere, so when Mr Lambda will want to make his own webserver, he'll take care of opening the corresponding ports...

maybe puting some graphical firewall interface (and monitor?) could be useful, in the vastness of the gnome-earned space?

If you can tell me how anyone can access an knoppix, that has no passwords set (so all passwords are invalid) and no open ports, I'll think about it ...

But anyway I don't think something like "personal firewalls" are a good idea ...

Knoppix has even in /etc/hosts.deny PARANOIA set.

So it already has a maximum level of security!

If you install it to harddisk, you are responsible, what happens!

But joe user will not install it, he'll use it from Cd and be happy and he'll be safe!

If joe user wants to star the webserver he can do it ...

But then he is also responsible for that ...

cu

Fabian