Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Firewall

Reply
Thread Tools

Firewall

 
 
DN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2003
I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another firewall
and if so would you recommed some.

thanks
DN


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Harri Mellin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2003
In article <VBWWa.2959$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"DN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another firewall
> and if so would you recommed some.


everything else is better than the built in firewall in xp

--
-------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams http://zap.to/webcams
-------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jaleco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2003
DN wrote:
> I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another firewall
> and if so would you recommed some.
>
> thanks
> DN
>
>


You will find in a few weeks of being online that all traffic will cease
on Windows XP. I don't know what level of patches you have and it is
quite possibly fixed with the latest security patches or service pack,
but, the built-in firewall is crap and will stop you from accessing
anything (Microsofts way of saying that all content is bad).

Jal

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Dann
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2003

"DN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:VBWWa.2959$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another firewall
> and if so would you recommed some.
>
> thanks
> DN
>
>


Hi,

Why don't you guys look at the professional reviews of commercial home use
firewalls?

The reviews on ZDnet for the Norton firewall and the zonealarm pro both say
that these two programs (costing about $60) do, at best, only a little bit
more than the built-in firewall in XP.

Please tell me why it is 'crap'?

Mike.


 
Reply With Quote
 
mto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2003

"Mike Dann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f310a30$0$27831$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "DN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:VBWWa.2959$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another

firewall
> > and if so would you recommed some.
> >
> > thanks
> > DN
> >
> >

>
> Hi,
>
> Why don't you guys look at the professional reviews of commercial home use
> firewalls?
>
> The reviews on ZDnet for the Norton firewall and the zonealarm pro both

say
> that these two programs (costing about $60) do, at best, only a little bit
> more than the built-in firewall in XP.
>
> Please tell me why it is 'crap'?
>
> Mike.
>
>


For starters, the built in XP "fire wall" is either on or off - in other
words it is a very minimal "fire wall." There are no alerts, so if
something is attempting to breach the firewall you have no clue and thus
cannot so much as hit the disconnect button.

I would, however, be interested in reading what ZD has to say - making sure
of course that all of my security measures are set to high when I visit to
avoid the crap that magically appears on their site each time that I do.
Would you mind citing the specific URL's that you are referring to?


 
Reply With Quote
 
mto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2003

"mto" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Mike Dann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3f310a30$0$27831$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "DN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:VBWWa.2959$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another

> firewall
> > > and if so would you recommed some.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > DN
> > >
> > >

> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Why don't you guys look at the professional reviews of commercial home

use
> > firewalls?
> >
> > The reviews on ZDnet for the Norton firewall and the zonealarm pro both

> say
> > that these two programs (costing about $60) do, at best, only a little

bit
> > more than the built-in firewall in XP.
> >
> > Please tell me why it is 'crap'?
> >
> > Mike.
> >
> >

>
> For starters, the built in XP "fire wall" is either on or off - in other
> words it is a very minimal "fire wall." There are no alerts, so if
> something is attempting to breach the firewall you have no clue and thus
> cannot so much as hit the disconnect button.
>
> I would, however, be interested in reading what ZD has to say - making

sure
> of course that all of my security measures are set to high when I visit to
> avoid the crap that magically appears on their site each time that I do.
> Would you mind citing the specific URL's that you are referring to?
>


Hunted around zdnet while I was waiting. This is the only comparison that I
found -
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4521-65...-5.html?tag=tp

It says no such thing about Norton Firewall or Zone Alarm being little
better than the built in XP. Zone Alarm is a long standing editor's choice
winner with a higher rating than any of the other software firewalls that
they review.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2003
>"DN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:VBWWa.2959$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I use Windows Xp firewall. Is there any use investing in another firewall
>> and if so would you recommed some.
>>
>> thanks
>> DN


As far as personal firewalls are concerned, a very important attribute is the
ability to control OUTBOUND traffic. The MS Windows XP firewall does nothing
for outbound.

There are many capable personal firewalls. Generally any of them will be a
capable enough choice for most people.

ZoneAlarm seems to be the most popular. I personally don't care for it for a
number of reasons that wouldn't matter to most users. In particular I find
that it can be very difficult to remove once installed. Most people don't
change firewalls unless they're testing them so that may not matter to you.

Sygate provides, (or did last I looked), a very nice detailed packet capture
log. Again a feature of limited interest to most.

Norton is based upon the AtGuard firewall which they purchased rights to years
ago. Norton is a capable product, alas I liked the original AtGuard better.

Tiny is small, and flexible.

BlackIce started life as an intrusion detector. It's grown quite a bit since
then. Many people like it.

OutPost is another choice. Despite the one man rant, in multiple guises,
running around a couple of the forums. I've found it to be a very nice
product. Their new 2.0 pay version has some features I've not seen in any of
the other firewall products. For most users, those new features would be of
limited interest. For what it's worth, this is the one I have running most
often.

There are others as well. Of the ones I've mentioned, only the MS XP firewall
is severely lacking.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
mto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2003

"Mike Dann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f3259c0$0$27804$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> <SNIP>
> > >

> >
> > For starters, the built in XP "fire wall" is either on or off - in other
> > words it is a very minimal "fire wall." There are no alerts, so if
> > something is attempting to breach the firewall you have no clue and thus
> > cannot so much as hit the disconnect button.
> >
> > I would, however, be interested in reading what ZD has to say - making

> sure
> > of course that all of my security measures are set to high when I visit

to
> > avoid the crap that magically appears on their site each time that I do.
> > Would you mind citing the specific URL's that you are referring to?
> >
> >

>
> Hi,
>
> The article I remembered reading is:
>
>

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Norton_...tml?tag=review
>
> Look under the heading "No Windows 95".
>
> I didn't remember the article as clearly as I should have. The reference

in
> this article suggests that NIS hides ports just as well as XP. I

'sexed-up'
> this dossier by mistake! (UK readers will know what I mean ).


Mike the whole world knows about that "sexed-up" business

There was a time when I was very worried about hiding my ports. These days
that is headed towards the bottom of the list. Getting "shot in the back"
by some program that magically appears on my machine like a ghost from some
ad I happened to run across is far more worrisome and troublesome. The
danged drive-by downloads have become all too common - seen them on ZD,
Cnet, tucows, extremetech, msnbc, foxnews - and since they install without
permission and often don't even leave a hint they are there (like in the
programs menu or add/remove) God himself might not figure out what they do.

> The main reason for my reply was the "Microsoft = bag-of-shite" attitude

of
> people without pointing out why. If somebody says "this is *******s"
> without saying why it is *******s, what's the point in saying it?


I see your point, but Microsoft has been a bag-of-shite as long as they have
been Microsoft so I guess lots of people no longer feel that fact needs
explaining.

> Administering MS products is invariably a nightmare. No *real* control

over
> services or processes, or the many applications which can be installed.

On
> a UNIX system, life is much easier, as you can see all of the info you

need
> to resolve a problem.


Isn't that the truth. My primary home machine is Windows entirely because
of the price difference that used to exist between Windows and a Mac. Cold
day I'd host a website on a Windows machine though.

> I use MS products as a client OS because they are easy. Getting software

is
> a doddle, and I can live with the fact that I don't have real control of

my
> OS (if MS hasn't provided a link/button/switch to do what you want to do,
> then your stuffed).
>
> Mike.


Windows from the get-go has been a really bad and really slow copy of the
Mac OS and it hasn't improved much with age. Very little in the way of
really great software (Adobe, SAS, all of the chemical/physics/engineering
programs, WordPerfect) was initially written for or by Microsoft - just
ported there when the demand got high enough. Their strong suite seems to
be marketing to the masses rather than developing anything truly original or
comprehensive. From everything that I have ever seen this is nothing but a
cobbled together mess - kind of like trying to tailor a fine suit from the
scraps in the ragbag.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Cisco PIX Application level firewall or Packet level firewall? Learning Cisco Cisco 3 10-15-2005 12:55 AM
Increasing data transfer on a firewall to firewall vpn connection providencebuddy@yahoo.com Cisco 1 06-14-2005 10:20 PM
Connecting to a PIX firewall using cisco VPM client though a Linksys WAG54G with eth firewall enabled Phil Cisco 1 12-11-2004 12:30 PM
RMI client behind a firewall, server behind a firewall too Robert Dodier Java 6 09-14-2004 09:23 PM
Firewall and Norton Firewall Mark Wilson Computer Support 0 11-05-2003 06:35 AM



Advertisments