News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by andreyf on Thursday January 21, 2010 @10:51AM (#1067495)
The official rationale is that it is not the firewall’s job to block malicious applications from accessing the network

Then what is it?

Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by slackerIII on Thursday January 21, 2010 @02:09PM (#1068044)
To prevent incoming connections you don't want.
Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by kamilg33k on Thursday January 21, 2010 @04:15PM (#1068337)
I would say that most people would have this handled at the hardware router level. Users who have a wireless LAN already have a firewall for incoming connections (unless they have DMZ enabled). Software firewalls are useful when you want to control what connects to the Internet and when.
Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by slackerIII on Friday January 22, 2010 @01:58AM (#1069256)
If someone else on your LAN gets infected because they opened an email virus, your router isn't going to help you.
Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by trezor on Thursday January 21, 2010 @11:32AM (#1067598)
Make applications on your machine comply to whatever network policy you have? I honestly don't want to have to whitelist every single one program I run to be able to do access the network. Do you?

I'm also pretty sure changing firewall-rules requires administrator priveledges, and hence it's no different than it is on Linux. Except ofcourse on Linux, the firewall isn't application-aware, so you can't even control which processes are allowed to open inbound communication.

This really is a lot of noise over nothing.

Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by tene on Thursday January 21, 2010 @04:21PM (#1068357)
> Except of course on Linux, the firewall isn't application-aware, so you can't even control which processes are allowed to open inbound communication.

You certainly can set application-level network privileges, and Red Hat derived distros do by default. For example, to list all the applications that are allowed to bind to port 80:

  [sweeks@kweh ~]$ sudo sesearch --allow -t http_port_t -p name_bind
  Found 15 semantic av rules:
     allow httpd_t http_port_t : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow kerneloops_t http_port_t : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow varnishd_t http_port_t : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow dnsmasq_t port_type : udp_socket { recv_msg send_msg name_bind } ; 
     allow svirt_t port_type : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow svirt_t port_type : udp_socket { recv_msg send_msg name_bind } ; 
     allow squid_t http_port_t : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow corenet_unconfined_type port_type : tcp_socket { recv_msg send_msg name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow portreserve_t port_type : tcp_socket name_bind ; 
     allow corenet_unconfined_type port_type : udp_socket { recv_msg send_msg name_bind } ; 
     allow portreserve_t port_type : udp_socket name_bind ; 
     allow varnishd_t port_type : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow qemu_t port_type : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ; 
     allow qemu_t port_type : udp_socket { recv_msg send_msg name_bind } ; 
     allow squid_t port_type : tcp_socket { name_bind name_connect } ;
Any processes running under other domains won't be allowed to bind to port 80.
Re:Windows 7: The almost-there operating system by JadeNB on Thursday January 21, 2010 @01:14PM (#1067892)
> I honestly don't want to have to whitelist every single one program I run to be able to do access the network. Do you?

Yes. How many programs do you have accessing the internet? I don't think that I've used, total, more than 10 or 11 programs that need internet access (and it's probably more like 3 or 4 for any given year or so); and I can live with that kind of one-time bother in exchange for knowing that other processes aren't chatting about me without my knowledge.