Re: Spam Cube in the NYT

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, xyberpix wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> What if you pre-configure the firewall, so all the user has to do is  
> add their internal and external IP ranges.
>
> You also word the FW rules along the lines of "Do you want to enable  
> Internet browsing? Yes/No". which will open HTTP & HTTPS.

I think the wording there would be "Do you want to allow people around the 
world to access a web site running on your computer", because outbound 
browsing doesn't need port 80 open.

I think this nicely illustrates the problem that it's *configuring* a 
firewall that's difficult. 

> I have to agree though that processor speed would be irrelevant, but  
> reliability is defiantly the key here.
> Don't make it at all complicated, I really think that this is a damn  
> good idea, JP, mail me off list on this one, or IM me.
>
> xyberpix
>
> Blog: http://blogs.securiteam.com
>
>
>
> On 30 Mar 2006, at 13:14, Drsolly wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys, this article below gives me an idea for a start-up...
> > >
> > > ... A small proxy server kinda like the spam cube. It could be
> > > marketed to parents who want to control the browsing habits of their
> > > technologically superior kids. If a parent installs software on their
> > > kids box, then they can uninstall it, not with the homeproxy, which
> > > could also block viri and detect CSS and phishing sites.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think? Even if someone else beats us to the punch
> > > with a proxy, we could always beat em with quality. Stuff a 64bit AMD
> > > dual core in a box and you would be gauranteed to beat out the
> > > compitetion (who would probably go for lower production cost)
> > >
> > > Shoot we could even have a smaller-cheaper model for the budget  
> > > concious.
> > >
> > > That, accompanied with a donation of a percentage of the profits to
> > > the open source apps/os's we run would ensure we had a good line of
> > > support.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think?
> >
> > I think that processor speed is likely to be irrelevant. Better to  
> > design
> > for reliability.
> >
> > But you'll have the same problem as with firewalls. Setting it up  
> > well,
> > will be beyond the technical capability of the target market.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFEMnLW2VKEoIQBZwkRAjUUAKDcD22953te3ozgdttYKqAbdt2ZiwCfc6ty
> 1MhZvRMsSQTrE6Vli9Ng6t4=
> =C+41
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.