norton antivirus and ms firewall

[Guest]

i am running win xp pro sp2 and have just installed norton antivirus 2005.
NAV recommends i use it instead of windows for my default firewall
protection. should i turn off the windows firewall and rely just on the
norton antivirus, (which checks for worms, trojan horeses, etc by default),
or run both?

thanks

 

[Shenan Stanley]

i am running win xp pro sp2 and have just installed norton antivirus
2005. NAV recommends i use it instead of windows for my default
firewall protection. should i turn off the windows firewall and rely
just on the norton antivirus, (which checks for worms, trojan
horeses, etc by default), or run both?

Then you did not install Norton Antivirus 2005.
You installed a Norton SUITE.. Because a Firewall and an AntiVirus software
have little in common.

Although the Norton Internet Security (or whatever it is called now) does a
lot - I find it cluttered and a resource hog. When the normal user would
happily get by with the Windows "Firewall", some antivirus application
(Norton's included) and antispyware applications (along with the other
normal maintenance/backup routines) - they instead get some software that
claims to do it all for them and then wonder why their machine has slowed
down or they keep getting asked "Should I allow this?"

Go with simplicity and security - not the claim of it.

If you have broadband - get a NAT router - like a Linksys/Netgear/D-Link/etc
that allow you to connect your computer and several others to the same
high-speed internet connection behond the saftey of the router. Then turn
on your Windows Firewall, install your favorite antivirus software and set
it to auto-update, set your Automatic Updates to On (Windows XP) and
download/install and occassionally update/scan/immunize with a few
AntiSpyware applications. Don't forget to start some scheduled backups and
change your password(s) once every 3 to 6 months.. Then you should be good
to go.

 

[Malke]

Then you did not install Norton Antivirus 2005.
You installed a Norton SUITE.. Because a Firewall and an AntiVirus
software have little in common.

Actually, that isn't true. NAV 2005 has a firewall called "Internet Worm
Protection" which is basically equivalent to the Windows Firewall; it
is one-way protection. So the answer is it really doesn't matter which
firewall the OP uses in this case since they are basically doing the
same thing.

Malke

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Then you did not install Norton Antivirus 2005.
You installed a Norton SUITE.. Because a Firewall and an AntiVirus
software have little in common.

Actually, that isn't true. NAV 2005 has a firewall called "Internet
Worm Protection" which is basically equivalent to the Windows
Firewall; it is one-way protection. So the answer is it really
doesn't matter which firewall the OP uses in this case since they are
basically doing the same thing.

Wow - okay - that is frightening in a way.. yet another "firewall" out
there for users.
Thanks for the correction, Malke - something for me to research. =)

 

[Guest]

Malke, you are correct. The product I installed is the antivirus application
only, not the suite. You are further correct in pointing out it's
"anti-worm, etc" capability, which, incidently, was in the 2004 edition,
also. I don't recall it being in earlier editions, but I may be wrong. The
thrust of my question was whether a) norton,s was better than ms's firewall,
and b) if one had any features that were noteworthy that the other didn't.
You seemed to cover it well. Do you, or anyone else out there, think one is
better than the other
Thanks, Hal

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

Hal: I don't have the URLs in front of me, but FWIW, my research indicates
that the Windows Firewall actually provides more inbound protection than the
NAV Internet Worm Protection. I've disabled the IWP and use the Windows XP2
firewall in conjunction with my Linksys router.

Tom
| Malke, you are correct. The product I installed is the antivirus
application
| only, not the suite. You are further correct in pointing out it's
| "anti-worm, etc" capability, which, incidently, was in the 2004 edition,
| also. I don't recall it being in earlier editions, but I may be wrong.
The
| thrust of my question was whether a) norton,s was better than ms's
firewall,
| and b) if one had any features that were noteworthy that the other didn't.
| You seemed to cover it well. Do you, or anyone else out there, think one
is
| better than the other
| Thanks, Hal
|
| "Malke" wrote:
|
| > Shenan Stanley wrote:
| >
| > > Hal wrote:
| > >> i am running win xp pro sp2 and have just installed norton antivirus
| > >> 2005. NAV recommends i use it instead of windows for my default
| > >> firewall protection. should i turn off the windows firewall and rely
| > >> just on the norton antivirus, (which checks for worms, trojan
| > >> horeses, etc by default), or run both?
| > >
| > > Then you did not install Norton Antivirus 2005.
| > > You installed a Norton SUITE.. Because a Firewall and an AntiVirus
| > > software have little in common.
| >
| > Actually, that isn't true. NAV 2005 has a firewall called "Internet Worm
| > Protection" which is basically equivalent to the Windows Firewall; it
| > is one-way protection. So the answer is it really doesn't matter which
| > firewall the OP uses in this case since they are basically doing the
| > same thing.
| >
| > Malke
| > --
| > MS-MVP Windows User/Shell
| > Elephant Boy Computers
| > www.elephantboycomputers.com
| > "Don't Panic"
| >

 

[Malke]

Hal: I don't have the URLs in front of me, but FWIW, my research
indicates that the Windows Firewall actually provides more inbound
protection than the
NAV Internet Worm Protection. I've disabled the IWP and use the
Windows XP2 firewall in conjunction with my Linksys router.

Thanks for the information, Tom. Since I think all Norton products are
garbage anyway, I don't have any comparison research on them. If you do
remember the url you used, it would be great if you'd post it.

Malke

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

Malke: I spent quite some time Googling and came up with a lot of forums I
perused. Sorry I can't be more specific, as I didn't think I was ever going
to be having to share the information.

Wish I could be of more help.

Tom

| | >
| Thanks for the information, Tom. Since I think all Norton products are
| garbage anyway, I don't have any comparison research on them. If you do
| remember the url you used, it would be great if you'd post it.
|
| Malke
| --
| Elephant Boy Computers
| www.elephantboycomputers.com
| "Don't Panic!"
| MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Guest]

I guess my question really is, is it advisable to have the norton av worm
protection feature enabled and at the same time have the microsoft firewall
enabled?
Thanks,
Hal

 

[Guest]

I would appreciate more feedback on this topic. I first asked the same
questions as Hal, when installing NAV 2004, the first version I'm aware of
that came with Internet Worm Protection (IWP). But I asked Symantec
directly, figuring it was best to get the answers directly from them. But
what a joke -- I now have NAV 2005 with IWP, and I'm still trying to get some
straight (and definitive) answers from Symantec.

What they "have" told me, is that NAV's IWP is "not" a full fledged firewall
(FW), and that it should not be used "instead" of a full fledged FW. On
this, they have been consistent for the most part.

But there are a couple of questions I have "not" been able to get straight
answers for. e.g. I've asked:

1. Since IWP is "not" a full fledged FW, can it be run it along side XP's
FW without causing conflicts, or does it have to be run with Symantec's FW?

I've been told it definitely should "not" be run along side XP's FW as it
"will" cause conflicts.

BUT...

I've also been told it's "fine" to run it along side XP's FW.


2. If it "is" safe to run IWP along side XP's FW, are there any specific
configuration processes that should be followed.

I've been directed to a Symantec web site that draws a distinction between
two FW applications within XP. It says one of the apps is called "ICF" and
the other is simply called "Windows Firewall. It goes on to say that if the
user has XP SP2, he/she will also have Windows Firewall -- otherwise he/she
will have ICF. It then gives one set of instructions for configuring IWP to
run along side ICF, and another set of instructions for configuring it to run
along side Windows Firewall.

BUT...

I've also been told via e-mail from Symantec Tech Support, the "because" I
have XP SP2, my install of XP will be using ICF vs. Windows Firewall -- this
is just the opposite of what the web site says.


I'm also trying to work with Symantec on some more serious issues with
another one of their apps and am finding that process to be equally
unpleasant. But that's another story...

Any additional feedback on Hal's topic would be appreciated.

 

[Leythos]

I would appreciate more feedback on this topic. I first asked the same
questions as Hal, when installing NAV 2004, the first version I'm aware of
that came with Internet Worm Protection (IWP). But I asked Symantec
directly, figuring it was best to get the answers directly from them. But
what a joke -- I now have NAV 2005 with IWP, and I'm still trying to get some
straight (and definitive) answers from Symantec.

What they "have" told me, is that NAV's IWP is "not" a full fledged firewall
(FW), and that it should not be used "instead" of a full fledged FW. On
this, they have been consistent for the most part.

But there are a couple of questions I have "not" been able to get straight
answers for. e.g. I've asked:

1. Since IWP is "not" a full fledged FW, can it be run it along side XP's
FW without causing conflicts, or does it have to be run with Symantec's FW?

I've been told it definitely should "not" be run along side XP's FW as it
"will" cause conflicts.

BUT...

I've also been told it's "fine" to run it along side XP's FW.


2. If it "is" safe to run IWP along side XP's FW, are there any specific
configuration processes that should be followed.

I've been directed to a Symantec web site that draws a distinction between
two FW applications within XP. It says one of the apps is called "ICF" and
the other is simply called "Windows Firewall. It goes on to say that if the
user has XP SP2, he/she will also have Windows Firewall -- otherwise he/she
will have ICF. It then gives one set of instructions for configuring IWP to
run along side ICF, and another set of instructions for configuring it to run
along side Windows Firewall.

BUT...

I've also been told via e-mail from Symantec Tech Support, the "because" I
have XP SP2, my install of XP will be using ICF vs. Windows Firewall -- this
is just the opposite of what the web site says.


I'm also trying to work with Symantec on some more serious issues with
another one of their apps and am finding that process to be equally
unpleasant. But that's another story...

Any additional feedback on Hal's topic would be appreciated.

I can't directly address IWP, but, if you have a DSL or Cable connection
you should get a cheap NAT Router and then it doesn't matter what you
use for a firewall as long as you have antivirus software and use a NON-
Microsoft browser.

I personally don't run any firewall software on my computers, but I have
a firewall appliance in front of my network. I also have many friends
that can't afford a real firewall appliance that use cheap NAT routers
and in conjunction with quality AV software and using FireFox, they have
never been compromised - in fact, I know people that have used just a
NAT router for more than 5 years without any compromise, but they also
practiced safe browsing habits.

One thing - since the personal firewall software won't do much to tell
you what's actually going in/out of your network, the router with
logging works perfectly. It lets you see what's happening in real time.

 

[Guest]

Leythos,

Thanks for your input. I'm still using a dial-up connection -- while slow,
it's been my impression that one benefit of dial-up is that it tends to have
less exposure / be less risky than DSL or Cable. But I'm not sure if that's
true. I don't know what a NAT router is, but based on your comment, it
sounds like it may not be applicable to me since I'm using dial-up. Is that
true?

Regarding browsers, I've always used IE, but have wondered about some of the
others, like FireFox. I guess it's time to take one out for a test drive.

 

[Leythos]

Leythos,

Thanks for your input. I'm still using a dial-up connection -- while slow,
it's been my impression that one benefit of dial-up is that it tends to have
less exposure / be less risky than DSL or Cable. But I'm not sure if that's
true.

Dialup is JUST as exposed as Cable/DSL, it's just slower. The other day
I was helping an elderly lady (part of our 4H advisors team) setup
NetZero on her computer, she was getting messenger pop-ups while using
Dial-Up until we enabled the Windows XP SP2 firewall. After that, I ran
a full AV and spyware scan to see if she had been compromised while not
using the SP2 Firewall - she had the File and Printer sharing enabled,
as it is by default, so we disabled it.

I've seen hundreds of Dial-Up systems compromised - one developer we
know was running a webserver on his laptop over dial-up for testing - he
was caught by the SQL slammer worm and a couple others, and he only used
Dial-Up.

I don't know what a NAT router is, but based on your comment, it
sounds like it may not be applicable to me since I'm using dial-up. Is that
true?

In your case, a NAT router isn't really available, but, there are
devices which allow users to connect a NAT box to a external modem and
they connect their computers to the NAT Box - when they want to access
the internet the NAT box dials out for them, connects to the ISP, and
provides the same layer of protection that the cable/dsl users have.

Regarding browsers, I've always used IE, but have wondered about some of the
others, like FireFox. I guess it's time to take one out for a test drive.

IE is only secure if you follow the Microsoft documented recommendations
for making it secure - which then means that most public sites won't
display correctly. I'm not saying that FireFox is perfect, and you're
still going to need IE for banking sites, but FireFox sure limits your
exposure to a lot of exploits out there currently.