I like to block network programs that should be contact home or whatever.
Phillip Pi,
please don't take this personally but it seems your understanding in
relation to 3rd party (so-called) firewalls is very limited, to say the
least.
Your *best* option is to uninstall Kerio and activate the build-in f/w
application of WinXP!
For the average homeuser, the Windows Firewall in XP does a fantastic job
at its core mission and is really all you need if you have an 'real-time'
anti-virus program, [another firewall on your router or] other edge
protection like SeconfigXP* and practise Safe-Hex**.
The windows firewall deals with inbound protection and therefore does not
give you a false sense of security. Best of all, it doesn't implement lots
of nonsense like pretending that outbound traffic needs to be monitored.
Activate and utilize the Win XP built-in Firewall; Uncheck *all* Programs
and Services under the Exception tab.
Read through:
Understanding Windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/internet/sp2_wfintro.mspx
Using Windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/networking/security/winfirewall.mspx
PFW Criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_firewall#Criticisms
At Least This Snake Oil Is Free.
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/07/19/at-least-this-snake-oil-is-free.aspx
Deconstructing Common Security Myths.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/05/SecurityMyths/default.aspx
Scroll down to:
"Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe."
Exploring the windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/VistaFirewall/default.aspx
"Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a gimmick that only gives the
impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually
does improve your security."
*In conjunction with WinXP SP2 Firewall use:
Seconfig XP 1.0
http://seconfig.sytes.net/
OR
Configuring NT-services much more secure.
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
**Routinely practice Safe-Hex.
http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html
Hundreds Click on 'Click Here to Get Infected' Ad
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132447,00.asp
And, in future be more critical when reading advertisement driven
publications (don't get blinded by all that hype)!
Go to...
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Home-Home-Office/Sunbelt-Personal-Firewall/
...and follow all the hype created by Sunbelt's *Marketing Department*.
Still use the free Windows XP firewall?
Unfortunately, this gives you a false sense of security. It only protects
incoming traffic. But outgoing traffic, with your credit card info, social
security number, bank accounts, passwords and other confidential
information is not protected. The WinXP firewall will let it all go out.
But... SPF will block that data if you buy the FULL version! You absolutely
need a better, commercial-grade firewall.
Then read in...
Windows Personal Firewall Analysis
http://www.matousec.com/projects/wi...ysis/leak-tests-results.php#firewalls-ratings
...a more realistic view which obviously was drafted by the head of
Sunbelt's *Operations Department*.
Sunbelt Software - the vendor of Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall
2007-08-07: Here is the response we have received from this vendor:
Sunbelt Software is committed to providing the strongest possible security
products to its customers, and we will be working to correct demonstrable
issues in the Sunbelt Personal Firewall. Users can expect these and other
continuing enhancements for the Sunbelt Personal Firewall in the near
future.
However, we have some reservations about personal firewall "leak testing"
in general. While we appreciate and support the unique value of independent
security testing, we are admittedly skeptical as to just how meaningful
these leak tests really are, especially as they reflect real-world
environments.
The key assumption of "leak testing" -- namely, that it is somehow useful
to measure the outbound protection provided by personal firewalls in cases
where malware has already executed on the test box -- strikes us as a
questionable basis on which to build a security assessment. Today's malware
is so malicious and cleverly designed that it is often safest to regard PCs
as so thoroughly compromised that nothing on the box can be trusted once
the malware executes. In short, "leak testing" starts after the game is
already lost, as the malware has already gotten past the inbound firewall
protection.
Moreover, "leak testing" is predicated on the further assumption that
personal firewalls should warn users about outbound connections even when
the involved code components are not demonstrably malicious or suspicious
(as is the case with the simulator programs used for "leak testing"). In
fact, this kind of program design risks pop-up fatigue in users,
effectively lowering the overall security of the system -- the reason
developers are increasingly shunning this design for security applications.
Finally, leak testing typically relies on simulator programs, the use of
which is widely discredited among respected anti-malware researchers -- and
for good reason. Simulators simply cannot approximate the actual behavior
of real malware in real world conditions. Furthermore, when simulators are
used for anti-malware testing, the testing process is almost unavoidably
tailored to fit the limitations of simulator instead of the complexity of
real world conditions. What gets lost is a sense for how the tested
products actually perform against live, kicking malware that exhibits
behavior too complex to be captured in narrowly designed simulators.
This is pretty eye-opening as well:
Firewall LeakTesting.
Excerpts:
Leo Laporte: "So the leaktest is kind of pointless."
Steve Gibson: "Well,yes,...
Leo: "So are you saying that there's no point in doing a leaktest anymore?"
Steve: "Well, it's why I have not taken the trouble to update mine, because
you..."
Leo: "You can't test enough".
Steve: "Well, yeah.
Leo: "Right. Very interesting stuff. I guess that - my sense is, if you
can't test for leaks, a software-based firewall is kind of essentially
worthless."
