In article , BillW50 scribeth thus
Indeed.. but surely these days would anyone connect -directly- to the net?.
Seeing that wireless routers with inbuilt NAT seem to be all the rage these days?..
In news: snipped-for-privacy@bancom.co.uk, tony sayer typed on Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:41:12 +0100:
Well there are a number of households with only one computer which uses just a ADSL modem to connect. And the ISP assigns them an IP address (usually dynamic) which can be seen from the outside world directly to your computer. And they would have the same problem without a firewall.
Cable modem users are on their own little neighborhood network from all I know and they would be safe from random attacks from the outside world. So you are right, but there is still enough users out there that could be still at risk. I don't know, maybe 20 million alone in the US would be my best guess.
There have been a number of studies showing that the mean time before infection of a pre-XP-SP2 computer (fresh install Windows, no other security software, connect to the internet (broadband connection), DO
***NOTHING***, just let it sit with a configured and working IP connection) is less than 5 minutes.This holds for any computer running any version of Windows prior to XP SP2, with no added security software and not running behind a firewall or at least a router with NAT.
Most pe>> I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows
Cable modems are the same as DSL routers, in that they inherently have a public IP address.
The issue here is whether or not a single computer, connected directly to a cable modem or DSL (ADSL) modem is given a public or private IP address.
(Private = 192.168.xxx.xxx = safe; public = almost anything else; you can check your ip address by opening a command prompt window (DOS box; Start, Accessories, Command Prompt) and typing the command "IPCONFIG".]
As a nearly correct generality, ALL cable modems and DSL modems natively have public IP addresses. The "subnetting" of the cable network, by itself, DOES NOT help you in that regard.
In the first place, in order to even be able to give you a private IP address, the cable or DSL modem needs to have an internal single port router and NAT. Not all do.
In the second place, even if the cable or DSL modem has the ability to do NAT and issue a private IP address, it's ALWAY configurable. The reason is that if customer is going to run a SERVER on the internet, he NEEDS a public IP address, consequently the ability to achieve this is always present. So it becomes a matter then of how the modem, if it has a built-in routter and NAT to begin with, is configured by default (I say "by default" because probably only a low single digit percentage of users have any idea that their cable or DSL modem is configurable in this regard, or how to do it).
Although some users might be ok with their equipment as supplied, the standard advice that most professionals give is that ALL computers should be behind an "explicit" router, e.g. a customer supplied piece of equipment inserted between the modem and the user's computer or LAN. Even if the user is not sharing the internet connection and/or has no interest in setting up a WiFi network.
BillW50 wrote:
That's true of cable modems and adsl modems but not of adsl routers unless its configured for a subnet which is not very often. Someone with a subnet would have the sense to turn on the firewall on XP before downloading and installing the updates. With the firewall turned on its not going to be infected before the updates are installed.
Linux can be infected if you install a 5 year old unpatched version and leave it connected, it just takes longer.
I.e. teh same tim as it takes to laod Windows anyway!
Windows IS a virus..
In article , Barry Watzman scribeth thus
Well I wonder if the UK and USA practice differs in this respect?.
Most all the people I know with Broadband ADSL or cable have a router with say 4 ethernet ports thereon issuing invariably 192.168.1.xxx
or more often than not a wireless connection...
That's the modern reality: Most ISP's give such away anyway, and the price of e.g. an integrated DSL router.modem with NAT is not much more than a modem alone anyway. Its all software really.
However it wasn't always the case, particularly on cable.
Well, not any more ...
UAC File & Registry Virtualization sends the actual writes (and eventual reads) somewhere else. It's a process that mostly works if all applications are fooled by the redirection. Doesn't always work though :-(
Like last week installing Apache on Vista I found Apache had set the documents directory 'htdocs' straight in the midst of 'Program Files' and steadfastly served http from that location. Copying web files there from my editor program (Eclipse) was futile, they disapear somewhere else and Apache never got the chance to serve them.
The workaround was to configure Apache to support the htdocs folder relocated somewhere else, and keep UAC active. I won't turn that off.
I saw a mis-spelling in the title of a newsgroup post the other day, and read it as something else.
Post "Windows Virual PC 64 bit and 32 bit questions..."
IRTA, "Windows Viral PC".
Now that IS a concept!! Anyone got an .iso for that?
Comes on every windows installation disk :-)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.