Firewalls

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

My new XP computer was delivered with a 90-day trial copy of McAfee Personal
Firewall, together with antivirus, etc.

The alternative offering was Norton Personal Firewall which I found a
considerable pain-in-the-buttocks on my old Windows-ME machine.

As Windows-XP has a firewall built-in, is there any real need for additional
firewall protection?

Regards


Les King
5 answers Last reply
More about firewalls
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Software firewalls warn of outgoing nasties as well as anything incoming..
    SP2 firewall is only good for incoming..

    --
    Mike Hall
    MVP - Windows Shell/user

    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


    "MIcrosoft news" <lesking@eurofileit.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:OrBUNrlIFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > My new XP computer was delivered with a 90-day trial copy of McAfee
    > Personal Firewall, together with antivirus, etc.
    >
    > The alternative offering was Norton Personal Firewall which I found a
    > considerable pain-in-the-buttocks on my old Windows-ME machine.
    >
    > As Windows-XP has a firewall built-in, is there any real need for
    > additional firewall protection?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    >
    > Les King
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    MIcrosoft news wrote:
    > My new XP computer was delivered with a 90-day trial copy of McAfee Personal
    > Firewall, together with antivirus, etc.
    >
    > The alternative offering was Norton Personal Firewall which I found a
    > considerable pain-in-the-buttocks on my old Windows-ME machine.
    >
    > As Windows-XP has a firewall built-in, is there any real need for additional
    > firewall protection?
    >
    >


    WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

    ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
    built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
    free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
    available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
    although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
    ZoneAlarm or Sygate.

    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Silly me

    Put the service description in the name box

    Les King

    "MIcrosoft news" <lesking@eurofileit.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:OrBUNrlIFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > My new XP computer was delivered with a 90-day trial copy of McAfee
    > Personal Firewall, together with antivirus, etc.
    >
    > The alternative offering was Norton Personal Firewall which I found a
    > considerable pain-in-the-buttocks on my old Windows-ME machine.
    >
    > As Windows-XP has a firewall built-in, is there any real need for
    > additional firewall protection?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    >
    > Les King
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Thanks Mike and Bruce

    I now have a much better idea of the Windows firewall issues and
    limitations.

    Regards

    Les


    "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    news:e0BMfgmIFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > MIcrosoft news wrote:
    >> My new XP computer was delivered with a 90-day trial copy of McAfee
    >> Personal Firewall, together with antivirus, etc.
    >>
    >> The alternative offering was Norton Personal Firewall which I found a
    >> considerable pain-in-the-buttocks on my old Windows-ME machine.
    >>
    >> As Windows-XP has a firewall built-in, is there any real need for
    >> additional firewall protection?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    > and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    > do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    > else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    > It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    > IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    > questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    > have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    > therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    > because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    > assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    > Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
    >
    > ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
    > built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
    > free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
    > available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
    > although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
    > ZoneAlarm or Sygate.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Les King wrote:
    > Thanks Mike and Bruce
    >
    > I now have a much better idea of the Windows firewall issues and
    > limitations.
    >

    You're welcome.

    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
Ask a new question

Read More

Firewalls Windows XP