K
Ken Gardner
Does anyone have any strong opinions (or, better yet, knowledge!) on
why the internal firewall with Windows XP (ICF, or Internet Connection
Firewall) is better or worse than third party alternatives such as
Norton or Zone Alarm?
I don't need the extra bells and whistles, such as the pop up
blockers, ad blockers, parental controls, productivity controls,
anti-spam measures, etc., that come with the third party programs.
I'm interested solely in the performance of the native XP firewall
versus the performance of the alternatives.
I am aware that the XP firewall blocks only incoming traffic, while
third party firewalls also block certain outgoing traffic. If that's
the only "advantage" of the third party firewall, I'll take that as an
explanation. But are there others?
TIA
Ken
why the internal firewall with Windows XP (ICF, or Internet Connection
Firewall) is better or worse than third party alternatives such as
Norton or Zone Alarm?
I don't need the extra bells and whistles, such as the pop up
blockers, ad blockers, parental controls, productivity controls,
anti-spam measures, etc., that come with the third party programs.
I'm interested solely in the performance of the native XP firewall
versus the performance of the alternatives.
I am aware that the XP firewall blocks only incoming traffic, while
third party firewalls also block certain outgoing traffic. If that's
the only "advantage" of the third party firewall, I'll take that as an
explanation. But are there others?
TIA
Ken