Kerry Brown said:
No firewall that runs on your computer can be relied upon to stop
outgoing traffic. Once your computer is owned by malware the malware
can go around the firewall or disable the firewall. Relying on a
firewall to warn you about outgoing malicious traffic gives you a
false sense of security. The fact that some 3rd party firewalls warn
you about some malicious outgoing traffic only enforces this
perception. A firewall is an important layer of your security but
don't rely on it to do something it can't. I don't use XP any more but
most of the computers I support run XP. I use the XP firewall on them
but I don't rely solely on the firewall. The firewall is the second
layer of the inbound defense. It is only one of many layers. For most
users the Windows firewall (both XP and Vista) is more than good
enough.
--
Yes, I certainly don't rely on a firewall alone (Comodo). I have all the
usual programs in place - AVG, Ad-Aware, SuperAntispyware, Spybot S&D,
Windows Defender etc.
I run XP but the question was about my son's Vista machine. My original
question was:
"Reading some threads in this NG gives me the impression that Vista's
firewall is an improvement over XP's in that it blocks both incoming AND
outgoing attempts.
Is it still recommended to run a third party firewall with Vista? I run
Comodo on my XP machine".
I then got involved with some stupid posts.
It is obvious that you think Vista's firewall is adequate (with
associated anti-nasty programs). Fair enough, thank you.
As regards XP's firewall, I take your point about third party firewalls
not necessarily being able to stop outgoing traffic when the machine is
infected but at least some (unlike XP's) are designed to at least try.