How to Stop NIS from Disabling Windows Firewall

[ljames]

Does anyone know how to stop Norton Internet Security from
disabling Windows Firewall? I have always used both as a redundant
security. However, after a fresh install of the OS and Norton, for
some reason every time the system is rebooted Windows Firewall is
disabled. Norton is enabled, so the system is protected.

I'm sure NIS 2005 is turning Windows Firewall off. I believe I
recall an option in NIS to not not disable Windows Firewall.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or comments.

-- L.
James

 

[Doug Knox MS-MVP]

I haven't used a 3rd party firewall with XP in a long time, but as I recall, if you're using a 3rd party firewall that XP recognizes, Windows itself disables the included firewall. Running multiple software firewalls on a PC is not necessary.

 

[ljames]

I hope you're wrong about Windows Firewall disabling itself. It
would seem like a pretty insecure operation. I with they developers
would find a way to prevent other programs from disabling it without
user input. I would have thought that was one of the purposes of it
was to give you security you could have confidence with.

I understand what you say about having two as unnecessary.
However, I have used the luxury of two for a long time. There are
occasions where things get by Norton but is caught by Windows Firewall.
Actually very few things gets by Windows Firewall, however, it's very
shaky because I often look around and it's disabled.

I'm sure the switch is in Norton because I remember using it
before.

The computer I'm configuring happens to be for a client who is
very naive about computers. I consider the redundancy of the firewall
in the router, Windows Firewall and Norton a good way to go. People
are often making a mistake and hitting and option to allow or deny
without enough attention. The redundancy has saved me a lot of time
with my clients computers.


-- L. James

 

[ljames]

I hope you're wrong about Windows Firewall disabling itself. It
would seem like a pretty insecure operation. I with they developers
would find a way to prevent other programs from disabling it without
user input. I would have thought that was one of the purposes of it
was to give you security you could have confidence with.

I understand what you say about having two as unnecessary.
However, I have used the luxury of two for a long time. There are
occasions where things get by Norton but is caught by Windows Firewall.
Actually very few things gets by Windows Firewall, however, it's very
shaky because I often look around and it's disabled.

I'm sure the switch is in Norton because I remember using it
before.

The computer I'm configuring happens to be for a client who is
very naive about computers. I consider the redundancy of the firewall
in the router, Windows Firewall and Norton a good way to go. People
are often making a mistake and hitting and option to allow or deny
without enough attention. The redundancy has saved me a lot of time
with my clients computers.


-- L. James

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Windows Firewall exists such that XP's first, and maybe subsequent, outing
on the internet or on route to Windows Update, is protected at a fairly
basic level, but protected nonetheless.. use of a third party firewall
negates WF completely..

 

[Doug Knox MS-MVP]

Norton may come with an option to use its "security center", rather than the Windows Security Center for notifications (I know McAfee does). However, if you're using Norton's firewall, it offers much more protection than the built in firewall in XP. Again, the use of two software firewalls is unnecessary. When Windows recognizes an installed 3rd party firewall, it disables its own. There's nothing insecure about this. You're still protected by your third party firewall.