Advice about Firewall

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Hi,
I should want to get advice about the necessity to use another firewall than
the SP2 firewall :
Is the SP2 firewall sufficient or is it better to install another one, like
these provided by the companies wich provide Antivirus ?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In article <721EED77-AA53-431B-80A9-DCB37ADF0D92@microsoft.com>,
Albertoh@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Hi,
> I should want to get advice about the necessity to use another firewall than
> the SP2 firewall :
> Is the SP2 firewall sufficient or is it better to install another one, like
> these provided by the companies wich provide Antivirus ?

You should look at the Windows Firewall as the MINIMUM necessary to
protect the computer from inbound connections IF everything is working
properly and your machine is not already compromised.

Now, would I trust it, heck NO, not even on someone's system I didn't
like. A NAT router is the minimum for any DSL/Cable/T1 installation, a
real firewall if you have any services exposed to the public Internet.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Albertoh wrote:
> Hi,
> I should want to get advice about the necessity to use another firewall than
> the SP2 firewall :
> Is the SP2 firewall sufficient or is it better to install another one, like
> these provided by the companies wich provide Antivirus ?
>
> Thanks


The song remains the same... ;-}

WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH