XP firewall PLUS 3rd party firewall??

[Guest]

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

New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I
read in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls
(as well as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
cause them not to work well.

Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
3rd party apps work better?

If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
disabled when using the 3rd party one?

 

[Guest]

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

Disable the XP firewall when using an advanced firewall from another
manufacturer.

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard


"Paul R" <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2q7Jc.7050$sV2.1053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
> addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I read
> in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls (as well
> as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually cause them not
> to work well.
>
> Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
> 3rd party apps work better?
>
> If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
> disabled when using the 3rd party one?

 

[DantheMan]

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

The XP firewall only monitors incoming traffic, a third party firewall will keep an eye on outgoing traffic also. The XP firewall together with uptodate AV protection is an OK solution for a home user.

XP SP2, out late summer, will improve the inbuilt firewall adding 2 way traffic protection.

Regards
Dan

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> Disable the XP firewall when using an advanced firewall from another
> manufacturer.
>
> --
> Regards:
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
>
>
> "Paul R" <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2q7Jc.7050$sV2.1053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
> > addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I read
> > in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls (as well
> > as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually cause them not
> > to work well.
> >
> > Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
> > 3rd party apps work better?
> >
> > If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
> > disabled when using the 3rd party one?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Agreed. You should choose one and use only the one.

For the OP: The included firewall is sufficient. It lacks the ability to
monitor outgoing traffic, but works well on incoming. Monitoring outgoing
traffic is useful if you suspect malware intrusions on the system. Some free
firewalls:

http://www.kerio.com/kpf_home.html
http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/home.jsp
http://www.tinysoftware.com/home/tiny2?la=EN

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23x0Q3oYaEHA.808@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Disable the XP firewall when using an advanced firewall from another
> manufacturer.
>
> --
> Regards:
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
>
>
> "Paul R" <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2q7Jc.7050$sV2.1053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
> > addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I
read
> > in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls (as
well
> > as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually cause them
not
> > to work well.
> >
> > Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
> > 3rd party apps work better?
> >
> > If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
> > disabled when using the 3rd party one?
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Greetings --

WinXP's built-in firewall is _adequate_ at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. It doesn't give you any
alarms, or any other kind of indication, to tell you that it is
working, though. Nor is it very easily configurable. What WinXP also
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 ICF 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


"Paul R" <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2q7Jc.7050$sV2.1053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall
in
> addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user.
I
> read in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack
firewalls
> (as well as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
> cause them not to work well.
>
> Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user
or do
> 3rd party apps work better?
>
> If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
> disabled when using the 3rd party one?

 

[Guest]

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

Greetings --

No, that's incorrect.

The "next generation" Windows Firewall included with SP2, while
vastly superior to the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability
and configurability, is still rather lacking, as a solid security
component. It still can't supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it
intended to do so; rather, it's intended to complement them. And, like
the original ICF, it will not monitor out-going traffic.

It's most important virtues, I think, are it's improved
compatibility with internal LANs and its configurability via group
policies. Now, there's a simple, cheap tool that system admins can
use to protect the LAN workstations from that occasional - but not
rare enough - fool who manages to bypass the perimeter firewall and
manually install some malware that could then spread throughout the
LAN via shared drives.


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


"Dantheman" <Dantheman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E0202A0A-77D8-4685-A848-D6B2FBD8984E@microsoft.com...
> The XP firewall only monitors incoming traffic, a third party
firewall will keep an eye on outgoing traffic also. The XP firewall
together with uptodate AV protection is an OK solution for a home
user.
>
> XP SP2, out late summer, will improve the inbuilt firewall adding 2
way traffic protection.
>
> Regards
> Dan
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
> > Disable the XP firewall when using an advanced firewall from
another
> > manufacturer.
> >
> > --
> > Regards:
> >
> > Richard Urban
> >
> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
> >
> >
> > "Paul R" <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:2q7Jc.7050$sV2.1053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party
firewall in
> > > addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home
user. I read
> > > in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls
(as well
> > > as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
cause them not
> > > to work well.
> > >
> > > Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl
user or do
> > > 3rd party apps work better?
> > >
> > > If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP
be
> > > disabled when using the 3rd party one?
> >
> >
> >

 

[DantheMan]

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

Ah my bad, I'm sure it was going to originally.

"Bruce Chambers" wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> No, that's incorrect.
>
> The "next generation" Windows Firewall included with SP2, while
> vastly superior to the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability
> and configurability, is still rather lacking, as a solid security
> component. It still can't supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it
> intended to do so; rather, it's intended to complement them. And, like
> the original ICF, it will not monitor out-going traffic.
>
> It's most important virtues, I think, are it's improved
> compatibility with internal LANs and its configurability via group
> policies. Now, there's a simple, cheap tool that system admins can
> use to protect the LAN workstations from that occasional - but not
> rare enough - fool who manages to bypass the perimeter firewall and
> manually install some malware that could then spread throughout the
> LAN via shared drives.
>
>
> 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
>
>
> "Dantheman" <Dantheman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E0202A0A-77D8-4685-A848-D6B2FBD8984E@microsoft.com...
> > The XP firewall only monitors incoming traffic, a third party
> firewall will keep an eye on outgoing traffic also. The XP firewall
> together with uptodate AV protection is an OK solution for a home
> user.
> >
> > XP SP2, out late summer, will improve the inbuilt firewall adding 2
> way traffic protection.
> >
> > Regards
> > Dan
> >
> > "Richard Urban" wrote:
> >
> > > Disable the XP firewall when using an advanced firewall from
> another
> > > manufacturer.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards:
> > >
> > > Richard Urban
> > >
> > > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
> > >
> > >
> > > "Paul R" <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2q7Jc.7050$sV2.1053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > > New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party
> firewall in
> > > > addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home
> user. I read
> > > > in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls
> (as well
> > > > as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
> cause them not
> > > > to work well.
> > > >
> > > > Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl
> user or do
> > > > 3rd party apps work better?
> > > >
> > > > If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP
> be
> > > > disabled when using the 3rd party one?
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

XP SP2 is supposed to be about security, security, and security. Yet
the new Windows Firewall still does not monitor out-going traffic. I don't
understand why Microsoft would not add this feature.

 

[Guest]

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

It just may have to do with their recent court case and "bundling", you
think.

If Microsoft offered a firewall equal to, or superior to, ZoneAlarm and the
one that Norton puts out, what do you think the response of these 2
companies would be?

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard


"History Fan" <IHatESpaM@IHateSPAm.com> wrote in message
news:uHzlePoaEHA.2056@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> XP SP2 is supposed to be about security, security, and security. Yet
> the new Windows Firewall still does not monitor out-going traffic. I
> don't
> understand why Microsoft would not add this feature.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Paul R <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote:
>New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
>addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I
>read in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls
>(as well as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
>cause them not to work well.
>Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
>3rd party apps work better?
>If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
>disabled when using the 3rd party one?

XP's firewall is sufficient. But you don't have bells and whistles with it.

A 3rd party firewall will inform you if an attempt is made, and also when
outgoing from your computer is trying to log onto the Internet. Usually you
just "OK" the outgoing once & never have to bother again. But you might catch
some weirdo thing that got onto your hard drive (spyware) and know about it.
& the incoming, usually you tell it not to inform you after the one time for a
similar type of attempt.

Stuff you need as a new computer user - firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware.

A good free firewall program = Zone Alarm
A good free anti-spyware program = Ad Aware
A decent free anti-virus program = AVG

With the above software they all have a "pro" version, & want you to buy it.
But you do not have to. Their free versions do a good job.

Me? I use Norton SystemWorks 2004, which has anti-virus in it. A free copy
of Norton Firewall came with it. & I use Ad Aware. Norton works - it updates
all of the time. However if you are unlucky enough to have a technical
problem (I don't), they want an arm & a leg to call them voice ($29.95). I
recommend them only if you can find a big sale (there is always rebates going
on).

The only reason I recommend Norton, is because of SystemWorks, because of the
password manager - it is very good. I only have to enter in a new login &
password once on a website, and there-after it is done for me. Also it will
fill out forms with my name/address/phone, etc. But I would not just buy the
Norton anti-virus software. The password manager alone is worth the $30 you
should pay (after a rebate) for SystemWorks 2004, and you'll get anti-virus &
some other tools too. Also wait for a sale that has the Norton Personal
Firewall glued to the box.

Oh - if you ever use a router (make a home network of 2 computers or more),
that also becomes a hardware firewall. I am using one, but still use the
Norton Firewall, though I don't have to - why? Because it still tells me when
stuff is outgoing. But incoming never gets to the firewall program, because
the router stops it.

....D.

 

[Guest]

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

"...D." <d@no_usenet_email..org> wrote in message newskfff054o1oil0q3q6j6vbcga6gjkmjepn@4ax.com...
> Paul R <195prosete@951earthlink.net> wrote:
>>New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
>>addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I
>>read in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls
>>(as well as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
>>cause them not to work well.
>>Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
>>3rd party apps work better?
>>If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
>>disabled when using the 3rd party one?
>
> XP's firewall is sufficient. But you don't have bells and whistles with it.
>
> A 3rd party firewall will inform you if an attempt is made, and also when
> outgoing from your computer is trying to log onto the Internet. Usually you
> just "OK" the outgoing once & never have to bother again. But you might catch
> some weirdo thing that got onto your hard drive (spyware) and know about it.
> & the incoming, usually you tell it not to inform you after the one time for a
> similar type of attempt.
>
> Stuff you need as a new computer user - firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware.
>
> A good free firewall program = Zone Alarm
> A good free anti-spyware program = Ad Aware
> A decent free anti-virus program = AVG
>
> With the above software they all have a "pro" version, & want you to buy it.
> But you do not have to. Their free versions do a good job.
>
> Me? I use Norton SystemWorks 2004, which has anti-virus in it. A free copy
> of Norton Firewall came with it. & I use Ad Aware. Norton works - it updates
> all of the time. However if you are unlucky enough to have a technical
> problem (I don't), they want an arm & a leg to call them voice ($29.95). I
> recommend them only if you can find a big sale (there is always rebates going
> on).
>
> The only reason I recommend Norton, is because of SystemWorks, because of the
> password manager - it is very good. I only have to enter in a new login &
> password once on a website, and there-after it is done for me. Also it will
> fill out forms with my name/address/phone, etc. But I would not just buy the
> Norton anti-virus software. The password manager alone is worth the $30 you
> should pay (after a rebate) for SystemWorks 2004, and you'll get anti-virus &
> some other tools too. Also wait for a sale that has the Norton Personal
> Firewall glued to the box.
>
> Oh - if you ever use a router (make a home network of 2 computers or more),
> that also becomes a hardware firewall. I am using one, but still use the
> Norton Firewall, though I don't have to - why? Because it still tells me when
> stuff is outgoing. But incoming never gets to the firewall program, because
> the router stops it.
>

In all honesty, using anything with Norton on the package, would be like wanting to go down on Miss Perspicacia Tick, and that is just totally unconscionable!

Considering the above analogy, I'd say you're one perverted dude if you like Norton's *-)

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:32:00 -0400, "Tedd" <ted@notnormal.net> wrote:

>In all honesty, using anything with Norton on the package, would be like wanting to go down on Miss Perspicacia Tick, and that is just totally unconscionable!
>
>Considering the above analogy, I'd say you're one perverted dude if you like Norton's *-)

I only say be weary because of the not being able to contact them immediately
in case of a problem, unless you are willing to pay $29.95. And they have no
Usenet support (used to before Windows XP, thus the many newsgroups you see
with "Symantec" as part of the name. They only have a website devoted to
people who might have problems. They do have email, but I must say they make
it very difficult to figure out how to find where to send it from, and I'll
bet it is on purpose.

But all of my Norton products (SystemWorks 2004. Norton Personal Firewall
2004, Norton Ghost (2003) have worked flawlessly on a 2.2 GHz Athalon
3200+. Even after I re-installed Windows XP about a month ago, the Norton
stuff re-installed just fine - plus a bonus - it reset my anti-virus &
firewall subscriptions to 0, thus I now have a whole year before I must
re-subscribe.

But I am just plain curious as to why you do not like Norton - for the same
reason of the tech support as I mention?

If not - why then? Have you used Norton products and had problems? I hope
you didn't read the anti-Norton/Symantec hype about people who had problems &
made a decision that way? Because I'd guess with millions of people using
their products, there just are going to a be a few users that have problems...
and then of those, a couple who have posted in Usenet. I'd say if you have a
modern computer (Win XP, at least 1.1 GHz and 512 MBs RAM minimum), you are
not going to have any problems. Sure there are always going to be a few
users, but the more users, the more you might hear of a problem here & there.

....D.

 

[Marvin]

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

Can I use a sygate firewall with xp that has norton internet security with
firewall
installed already
"Paul R" wrote:

> New to XP and wonder if there's a need to have a 3rd party firewall in
> addition to XP's when using a dsl connection as a single home user. I
> read in another post a very common sense tip *not* to stack firewalls
> (as well as av products) since using multiple firewalls can actually
> cause them not to work well.
>
> Is XP's internal firewall sufficient for the average home dsl user or do
> 3rd party apps work better?
>
> If a 3rd party one is preferable over the XP one, should the XP be
> disabled when using the 3rd party one?
>

 

[Guest]

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

Don't use two firewalls! Many consider the generic Ws' firewall inadequate
and recommend third party programs. I have found that some of these prevent
applications to run. I have resorted to the Ws program with no ensuing
problems. I regularly scan my system with other security programs, as is
highly recomended. {redoak}