Firewall

[Fred]

Is it better to use the new Windows Firewall or a thrid
party one such as ZoneAlarm, Keiro, Sygate, etc...

Thanks

 

[Todd J Heron]

The "new" Windows Firewall actually offers much more configuration options
than the free one from ZoneAlarm. If you know what you're doing, the
Windows Firewall (formerly known as the Internet Connection Firewall) can be
made just as secure as any third-party product.

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

The XP Firewall doesn't monitor outgoing access to the Internet. A 3rd
party '2-way' Firewall is preferable.

 

[Wislu Plethora]

-----Original Message-----
The "new" Windows Firewall actually offers much more configuration options
than the free one from ZoneAlarm. If you know what you're doing, the
Windows Firewall (formerly known as the Internet Connection Firewall) can be
made just as secure as any third-party product.

Really? Please tell us how we can configure the XP
firewall to monitor *outbound* traffic.

 

[Ben]

Is it better to use the new Windows Firewall or a thrid
party one such as ZoneAlarm, Keiro, Sygate, etc...

Thanks

Windows firewall...........

 

[Ben]

Hi

The XP Firewall doesn't monitor outgoing access to the Internet. A 3rd
party '2-way' Firewall is preferable.

It is not important to monitor outgoing access to the internet.

 

[Alias]

Windows firewall...........

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt wrong! Windows "firewall" only protects from incoming data.

Alias

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

What about the programs that want to 'phone home' with details of your
credit card etc. - if it has been used on the Internet?? Or all your
passwords including access to your bank account??

 

[Alias]

It is not important to monitor outgoing access to the internet.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt wrong again! My, you aren't doing very well today.

Alias

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

I disagree - a 3rd party '2-way' Firewall adds extra security.

 

[doc]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt wrong! Windows "firewall" only protects from incoming data.

Alias

Hi,
You seem to be knowlegeble. Could you tell me my outbound protections is
needed? Or refer me to some clarifying site?
If inbound protection is on, how can outbound disclose any thing?
Thanks for any info.
Doc

 

[Alias]

Hi,
You seem to be knowlegeble. Could you tell me my outbound protections is
needed? Or refer me to some clarifying site?
If inbound protection is on, how can outbound disclose any thing?
Thanks for any info.
Doc

The answer was posted on this thread.

Alias

 

[SlowJet]

You don't need to if the router already did it.

So if someone can't use a flyple with a self tied fly,
then they shouldn't fish at all.

Your in the very small minority ofo people that even have
the faitest idea of what you are talking about, let along
care. Wouldn't it be better to explain how to get the WFW
as safe as possible and then you can go write articles
about blockage.

SJ

 

[Ben]

Hi,
You seem to be knowlegeble. Could you tell me my outbound protections is
needed? Or refer me to some clarifying site?
If inbound protection is on, how can outbound disclose any thing?
Thanks for any info.
Doc

The point is you can't handle a two way firewall.
It is always asking you how to do with this and how to do with that.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

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:



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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

That's, quite frankly, an absurd claim. Granted, the "next
generation" Windows Firewall included with SP2 is vastly superior to
the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability and
configurability, but it is, in no way, shape, or form, nearly as
configurable or effective as any 3rd party product. Nor is it
intended to be. It still doesn't even monitor outbound traffic.

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 --

What brand/model of router monitors outbound traffic dynamically?
Can you name one?

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 --

Wrong again. Just because _you_ apparently haven't bothered to
learn how to use a firewall, don't assume everyone else is a helpless.

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

 

[Ben]

Greetings --

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

But brother, do you always know what to do(block or allowed) when Sygate
firewall ask you??
It just give the problem back to you.
It can detect an outbound signal, but it can not help you to deal with it.
For more information, I can tell you all, some malwares can rename it
self to a non-malware name.
Can you distiguish that?????????????????????????????????????????????
I don't think most of us have that kind of ability...........

 

[Ben]

Greetings --

That's, quite frankly, an absurd claim. Granted, the "next
generation" Windows Firewall included with SP2 is vastly superior to
the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability and
configurability, but it is, in no way, shape, or form, nearly as
configurable or effective as any 3rd party product. Nor is it
intended to be. It still doesn't even monitor outbound traffic.

Bruce Chambers

It is really no help to monitor outbound communications.
Because the firewall can not help you to deal with it.
Who knows what is the malware's name??????????????????
What you can do is allowed and allowed and allowed.