Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:01 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Permalink for comment 354414
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-22
I think the reason is, most people feel the personal firewall concept is kinda flawed. Let me explain, their are typically 2 kinds of users, knowledgable and not-knowledgable. The knowledgable already know what applications they should/shouldn't run. The others would just click allow&remember for everything.
Anyway most people just use applications installed by their distribution or network-/systems-administrator, they could easily all include a SELinux/AppArmor allow-list of what they can do and not allowed anything else. This comes from a long line of Unix-people, that would probably say, 'normal users' don't really need that kind of access. For example you could already make a firewall rule that says, user-x can only connect to the web-proxy and a lot of people think that should probably be enouogh.
There is an open source/free personal firewall for Windows though, Core Force, suppositly it actually uses (some of) that OpenBSD PF-code.
EDIT: I changed it, to reflect what I meant with flaed concept.
Edited 2009-03-22 09:45 UTC