Firewall

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by DN, Aug 2, 2003.

  1. DN

    DN Guest

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

    thanks
    DN
     
    DN, Aug 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DN

    Harri Mellin Guest

    In article <VBWWa.2959$>,
    "DN" <> 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
    -------------------------------------------
     
    Harri Mellin, Aug 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DN

    Jaleco Guest

    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
     
    Jaleco, Aug 3, 2003
    #3
  4. DN

    Mike Dann Guest

    "DN" <> wrote in message
    news:VBWWa.2959$...
    > 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.
     
    Mike Dann, Aug 6, 2003
    #4
  5. DN

    mto Guest

    "Mike Dann" <> wrote in message
    news:3f310a30$0$27831$...
    >
    > "DN" <> wrote in message
    > news:VBWWa.2959$...
    > > 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?
     
    mto, Aug 6, 2003
    #5
  6. DN

    mto Guest

    "mto" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Mike Dann" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f310a30$0$27831$...
    > >
    > > "DN" <> wrote in message
    > > news:VBWWa.2959$...
    > > > 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/4521-6520_16-1008556-5.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.
     
    mto, Aug 6, 2003
    #6
  7. DN

    Dave Guest

    >"DN" <> wrote in message
    >news:VBWWa.2959$...
    >> 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
     
    Dave, Aug 7, 2003
    #7
  8. DN

    mto Guest

    "Mike Dann" <> wrote in message
    news:3f3259c0$0$27804$...
    >
    > <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_Internet_Security_2002/4505-3514_16-6844863-2.html?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 bollocks"
    > without saying why it is bollocks, 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.
     
    mto, Aug 7, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Phil
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,152
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    565
    Walter Roberson
    Jun 14, 2005
  3. Learning Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,286
    Walter Roberson
    Oct 15, 2005
  4. Mark Wilson

    Firewall and Norton Firewall

    Mark Wilson, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
    Mark Wilson
    Nov 5, 2003
  5. Anonymous

    Windows XP Firewall/Internet Connection Firewall

    Anonymous, Dec 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    940
    Anonymous
    Dec 1, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page