Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (
More info?)
Re the ISP and what they are providing, please see my response to Steve
Winograd's post. Depending on how long I keep the OS, at some point (maybe
now) the kind of customization you refer to will be required, since the
legacy 4.1.3 is latest version still compatible. So, ease of set-up is
probably not a compelling factor anymore. I do think PA Bear has a point in
that, within a given series at least, and maybe from series to series, the
upgrades were to plug holes in the previous release, as was the case with
the release of 4.1.3. The thing I worry about is Norton-like bloat, and
having something basically designed for XP carrying all that baggage. On
Windows 98 NAV 2000 wasn't too bad; NAV 2004-05 is by all accounts
hellacious (I wouldn't know - slid over to Avast! after NAV 2003). So, to
get back on topic, I know where 2.1.5 is on the compatibility scale, but
would probably choose 4.1.3 if I knew it worked smoothly with 98.
These look like great reference links - I'm saving this one. Thanks for your
response.
glee wrote:
> Roger, I don't agree entirely with my illustrious colleague ;-)
> that using an older version of a firewall is the same as using an
> outdated version of an anti-virus. Firewalls do not get updates the
> way an anti-virus does. One *can* use an older version with great
> success, but you have to do a bit more work, as newer versions of the
> programs will have bug fixes, and often more detection and logging
> options. I have been using Kerio 2.1.5 on one system for quite a
> while, and the same version of Tiny on another system. With both
> programs you must create a rule set that goes a bit farther than what
> you are given "out of the box". Here are some links regarding some
> of the rule set tweaks that can be done to afford more protection
> from those versions of Kerio/Tiny, though most would also apply to
> the latest versions:
>
> Kerio and pre-v3.0 Tiny PFW:
>
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/security/2.5.1.+Kerio+and+pre-v3.0+Tiny+PFW?nav=6
>
> Generic Rule Set for Kerio (Proxy and no Proxy):
>
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6642367~mode=flat
>
> Kerio - Example ICMP rules:
>
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2649460~mode=flat~days=9999
>
> Unless your system is rather old and slow, you will be better off
> with the newest version your system will support. Note that Kerio
> version 4.2.0 does NOT support or run on Windows 9x, Me, NT, 2000
> Server and 2003 Server. It requires Win2K or XP.
>
http://www.kerio.com/kpf_requirements.html
>
> You can see what changes were implemented through the version 4.x
> builds, here:
http://www.kerio.com/kpf_releasehistory.html
> It might help you understand what went into each release, and why.
>
> Re: your other question, what ISP are you using, and what firewall
> app are they supplying?
>
> "Roger Fink" <fink@*****.net> wrote in message
> news:ueMhKKUnFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> General question about firewalls, about which I know almost nothing.
>> I don't
>> use one, but that will likely change soon, as I plan to switch over
>> to
>> broadband. Based on searching newsgroups and such to find out what
>> was easy
>> to set up and use, functioned well, and worked smoothly with
>> Win98SE, I'd
>> like to install an old version of Kerio Personal Firewall.
>>
>> Is there any reason why Kerio 2.1.5, which is only 2.1mb, mid 2003
>> vintage I believe, wouldn't work as well as some of the more
>> complex, bloated,
>> firewalls currently available? (I also download version 4.1.3
>> (7.3mb),
>> which was superceded this Spring by 4.2, as a second choice.)
>>
>> Finally, broadband providers seem to offer firewalls as part of their
>> installation package. Is it possible to forgo that in place of one
>> you
>> install yourself, and is that a good idea?