McAfee vs Windows firewall

[Guest]

I have McAfee virus scan which has been updated to include a firewall and
other services. The recent Windows update also has a firewall installed, and
now I'm informed that Time Warner Cable will have firewall and virus scan
included. My computer has already slowed significantly with these updates.
Do I need 3 firewalls? Which one shall I disable?

 

[Guest]

No. You should have only one firewall and one (memory-resident ) AV.

The Windows firewall is adequate so long as you're not providing outside
services from your computer, such a as a website. McAfee AV is far from
reliable, I'd suggest AVG as a better choice.

I see this recent policy of bundling firewalls (and other services) with AV
as a bad development; it effectively removes the choice from the user. Seldom
are all of the components in these bundled packages of good quality.

 

[null2006]

I disagree with your statement that the Windows firewall is adequate. Just
because you aren't (knowingly) providing "outside services" from your computer,
doesn't mean you shouldn't have a firewall that provides some protection from
applications that initiate outgoing packets. A good, robust, updated AV package
isn't going to protect you from everything that you download or install
(knowingly or not), and a good home firewall isn't an unreasonable thing to have.

I do agree with your assessment that seldom is an all-in-one suite of AV,
Firewall, antispam, and safe-surfing applications as good as buying well-chosen
specific software packages for each purpose. It may be more expensive, but worth
it, IMHO. Comodo is a very good (free) firewall, for example.

 

[B. Nice]

I disagree with your statement that the Windows firewall is adequate.

I would put it this way: The windows firewall together with a little
knowledge, precaution and common sense is far better than any personal
firewall combined with ignorance.

Just because you aren't (knowingly) providing "outside services" from your computer,
doesn't mean you shouldn't have a firewall that provides some protection from
applications that initiate outgoing packets.

Only malware would make unsolicited outgoing connections you would
need to stop - in which case it is already too late.

A good, robust, updated AV package
isn't going to protect you from everything that you download or install
(knowingly or not),
Agreed.

and a good home firewall isn't an unreasonable thing to have.

That depends. I would promote the use of common sense instead of
relying on application control at any time.

I do agree with your assessment that seldom is an all-in-one suite of AV,
Firewall, antispam, and safe-surfing applications as good as buying well-chosen
specific software packages for each purpose. It may be more expensive, but worth
it, IMHO.

Agreed. Security suites really are becoming big horrible chunks of
code. Furthermore they tend to invent more and more useless functions
in order to look great in the "security" market.

Comodo is a very good (free) firewall, for example.

Based on what criteria do you think it is good?

You need to be a techie to understand its pop-ups - especially its
so-called "security concerns" messages. Once you are skilled enough to
understand those and can act properly according to its messages, you
will also understand that you don't need it any longer.

/B. Nice

 

[null2006]

I would put it this way: The windows firewall together with a little
knowledge, precaution and common sense is far better than any personal
firewall combined with ignorance.

Of course, common sense isn't so common. ;-)

Only malware would make unsolicited outgoing connections you would
need to stop - in which case it is already too late.

It's not too late if you haven't downloaded and installed the malware yet.

That depends. I would promote the use of common sense instead of
relying on application control at any time.

There's that common sense problem again. ;-)

Agreed. Security suites really are becoming big horrible chunks of
code. Furthermore they tend to invent more and more useless functions
in order to look great in the "security" market.


Based on what criteria do you think it is good?

You need to be a techie to understand its pop-ups - especially its
so-called "security concerns" messages. Once you are skilled enough to
understand those and can act properly according to its messages, you
will also understand that you don't need it any longer.

You make good points there, for if a home user just allows everything to connect to the
Internet that asks to do so, then the firewall is pretty useless. But since the Windows
firewall lets everything outbound that wants to, then it's the same thing as that, it
just takes the user out of the loop.

Once you understand how to use it (Comodo), you still need it for those very rare
instances that even an experienced user can err with.

I cannot agree that the Windows firewall is the preferred way to go, as far as firewalls
are concerned.

Have a nice day.

 

[B. Nice]

Of course, common sense isn't so common. ;-)

Unfortunately not ;-)

It's not too late if you haven't downloaded and installed the malware yet.

Right. But outbound connection control is about controlling programs
that are already running.

There's that common sense problem again. ;-)

When did common sense become a problem? ;-)

You make good points there, for if a home user just allows everything to connect to the
Internet that asks to do so, then the firewall is pretty useless. But since the Windows
firewall lets everything outbound that wants to, then it's the same thing as that, it
just takes the user out of the loop.

Once you understand how to use it (Comodo), you still need it for those very rare
instances that even an experienced user can err with.

And you can only hope that Comodo has'nt already been taken out at
that time.

I cannot agree that the Windows firewall is the preferred way to go, as far as firewalls
are concerned.

Depends what you expect from a firewall. In my terminology a firewall
deals with network traffic. It does not try to control what goes on
within an uncontrollable windows environment.

The windows firewall deals with incoming traffic - something which is
highly managerable. Controlling outbound from an already running
process is'nt.

/B. Nice

 

[Richard Urban]

But, if you combine that knowledge, precaution and common sense to a
firewall known to be better than the Windows Firewall, you really have a
winning combination.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[B. Nice]

But, if you combine that knowledge, precaution and common sense to a
firewall known to be better than the Windows Firewall, you really have a
winning combination.

Not really. When you gain knowledge, you also start to understand that
the extra "protection" from so-called personal "firewalls" are a
complete waste of time and ressources. At times they are even
counter-productive.

/B. Nice

 

[Guest]

Is this conflict between McAfee and Microsoft, played out in my computer, the
cause of my McAfee VirusScan being disabled and enabled it seems randomly
throughout every day?

Does this conflict between the software giants account for the threatening
balloons at the bottom right of my screen telling me I am not protected?

Probably I should ditch Windows and McAfee. But I'm not that tech savvy.
So how do I get Windows to leave my McAfee product alone?

 

[Richard Urban]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I just find it extremely
amusing that your opinion contradicts almost everything that you read on the
security web sites.

Users beware!

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[B. Nice]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Thank you. And so are you

I just find it extremely amusing that your opinion contradicts almost
everything that you read on the security web sites.

And I find it extremely amusing what nonsense security software
vendors can get away with in the name of security. They really make my
day

Users beware!

Sure! - Beware of being fooled by marketing hype and "common
knowledge". Instead start thinking for yourselves and learn how to use
your computer with security in mind.

Just as a foot-note, I can tell you that I have assisted several
average windows homeusers on security issues. Unless they insist on it
themselves, they are not running any personal firewall. Instead I
harden their machines and teach them about security. Believe it or
not. They seldom have problems.

I personally don't run any personal firewalls on my machines. I don't
run any resident anti-virus software. I don't run any resident
anti-spyware software. I don't run resident anti-adware software.
And still - when I occasionally do a scan, all that shows up are a few
harmless cookies and my eicar files. Now, how can that be? I should be
infected with all kinds of crap, should'nt I?

See, within computer security reducing complexity (e.g. by limiting
the processes running) is better than adding complexity. You don't
make a computer safe by adding a "security product" to an an insecure
base. You make your base as secure as possible (and keep it updated)
and then you run only applications with a reputation of being
relatively safe - which, for example, rules out IE for web surfing.

/B. Nice

 

[Richard Urban]

And you are behind what kind of router?

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[B. Nice]

And you are behind what kind of router?

A simple NAT router - because I do file sharing.

If you are not providing any network services you can connect directly
to the net without one.

/B. Nice