XP Firewall

[Newbie]

Hi,

I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will the
built in option suffice?

 

[Kelly Cotter]

Hi,

I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
enabled. Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal
Firewall, or will the built in option suffice?

the windows firewall is as basic as you can get it stops incomming but not
outgoing. i recomend zonealarm pro v4.5

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Windows Firewall is very very basic...better than nothing, but not much. I
would recommend Norton Personal Firewall over ZoneAlarm (Free or Pro). I
have used both, and find the Norton to be a much better firewall. If you
pick up Norton Internet Security, you have a very well rounded package that
gives you a very high degree of protection, a common interface for all of
its components, and the ability to automatically update all the modules.


Bobby

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

The XP Firewall monitors incoming access from the Internet, but does not
monitor outgoing access to the Internet. May I suggest that you install a
3rd party 2-way Firewall, such as ZoneAlarm:

http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/information/zap/releaseHistory.html

Download the 4.5 version for the moment.

--

Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups


| Hi,
|
| I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
| Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will
the
| built in option suffice?
|
|

 

[Dannie]

I happen to use the free Windows XP firewall AND also the free Sygate
firewall. I say "AND" because some will say you should not use two firewalls
at same time but I seem to have no problem.
Dannie

 

[Unknown]

The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.

 

[Kelly Cotter]

The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.

no it's not
spyware/adware/trojans can all access the net with the windows "firewall"
you NEED a third party firewall that can alert and block outgoing traffic

 

[Tom]

The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.

Really, in what way? Most would consider any user (Home user) some of the
least understanding of the PC and internet world. You tell others never to
use anti-virus software, only then to now say to use something that monitors
internet activity one way. If they have no anti-virus, then there is no way
for the user to tell if they attained a Trojan with the inadequate XP
built-in firewall, since that virus/Trojan can broadcast back out over the
net from their locations. You're giving really bad advice as one should have
at least have a firewall that is good in both directions.

Only an MS zealot like Carey Frisch would say that MS can totally take care
of your PC for you, don't fall into that claptrap spiel also.

 

[JAX]

Unknowns statement is true, if you don't mind some, inadvertently installed,
malware sending your personal information out to others!! Both incoming and
outgoing traffic need to be monitored for security. I use ZoneAlarm free
with no problems. I am prejudiced against Norton products but, that is up to
you.

FWIW, JAX

 

[GrandpaTCAM]

Define 'Adequate'

The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.

 

[David Candy]

adequate

adequate ad¢i­kwit or ­kwat,
adjective sufficient; competent.
ad'equacy (­kwe­si) noun.
ad'equately adverb.
ad'equateness noun.
ad'equative adjective.
[Latin adaequatus made equal, from ad to, and aequus equal]

(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved

 

[Guest]

Dear Newbie

Your built in option is a very basic firewall. You need the protection of Norton or
Mcafee to stay protected. Also make sure you have virus protection, as firewall and virus protection are two different things. Norton is brill for virus protection and you can do no better than install the free version of Zone Alarm for your firewall.

Hope this helps.

 

[David Candy]

Why do you need Norton or McAfee to stay protected? What is wrong with basic firewalls.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Well, WinXP's built-in ICF is certainly better than nothing, but
it's no substitute for a real firewall.

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:



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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

No, that's very wrong. WinXP's ICF is enough for an advanced
computer user who takes additional precautions, but it's no where near
good enough for the "average" home computer user.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



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

 

[Unknown]

Hogwash. If you don't allow trash in, you needn't worry about what's going
out. Please don't use that 'outgoing is not checked' routine.

 

[JAX]

I think Bruce's key word there was, "AVERAGE". The average PC user has no
idea how to prevent malware from being loaded to their machines, other than
install 3rd party software to do it for them.

The "additional precautions" that Bruce refers to would be over the heads of
the vast majority of computer users. Their only interest in the machine is
that it works good enough to do e-mail, surf the net, and play games. They
have no knowledge of the computer itself.

Bruce is quite capable of defending his own statement but, I just wanted to
say, the "Hogwash" is coming from your direction.

IMNSHO, JAX

 

[Unknown]

On the contrary, once the firewall is turned on the Average user need not
concern himself/herself
about the firewall again. IMNSHO you have a fear phobia as big as Bruces.

 

[JAX]

You are missing the point here. That is, what the "average" user needs. They
are not computer enthusiasts and need someone/something to look out for
their best interests. Anyway, what harm would it do to install a more
effective firewall, especially if it's free?

JAX