Which Firewall?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
PC, I have been recommended to use either Norton Personal Firewall
2004 or McAfee Personal Firewall, are these appropriate or can anybody
recommend suitable alternatives.

Thanks for any help.

Neil
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Neil Mort wrote:

> I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
> PC,

Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
third party so called 'firewall' software.

http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <c9kf6j$3o9$1@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
> Neil Mort wrote:
>
> > I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
> > PC,
>
> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
> third party so called 'firewall' software.
>
> http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

Which doesn't happen in the real world for most users - most of them can
barely follow instructions let alone configure their machines to work
properly.

Anyone with a home PC should get a border device, a NAT router, and then
run quality Anti-Virus software on their machine. These two things alone
will prevent more problems that most of the other solutions combined.

One more thing, if you set the internet explorer "Internet" security
settings to HIGH you are less likely to have problems while browsing
sites that may contain malicious code. Setting the security setting for
the internet zone to HIGH has it's own issues, but it's easy to work
with.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 

Mike

Splendid
Apr 1, 2004
3,865
0
22,780
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
news:c9kf6j$3o9$1@news.shlink.de...
> Neil Mort wrote:
>
> > I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
> > PC,
>
> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
> third party so called 'firewall' software.

I'm sorry but that is complete bollocks. The vast majority of computers
users can hardly configure their computers to print let alone configure the
operating system to make it secure. Even if they could they would be unable
to maintain it in the correct state.

Your advice is bad, wrong and downright unhelpful.

If you think your system really is secure, post your public IP address :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:54:57 +0100, "Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote:


>> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
>> third party so called 'firewall' software.
>
>I'm sorry but that is complete bollocks.

You're being charitable Mike.

>The vast majority of computers
>users can hardly configure their computers to print let alone configure the
>operating system to make it secure. Even if they could they would be unable
>to maintain it in the correct state.

Quite, to assume that they would just 'know' how to lock down a system
properly is nonsense.

>
>Your advice is bad, wrong and downright unhelpful.


Quite, his assertions in

Message-ID: <c9kin6$480$1@news.shlink.de>


w.r.t the sage advice of implementing defence in depth using a dedicated
router and host based measures are utterly ridiculous.


greg


>
--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote in
news:c9kin1$c81$1@thorium.cix.co.uk:

>
> "Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
> news:c9kf6j$3o9$1@news.shlink.de...
>> Neil Mort wrote:
>>
>> > I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a
>> > home PC,
>>
>> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any
>> suspisious third party so called 'firewall' software.
>
> I'm sorry but that is complete bollocks. The vast majority of
> computers users can hardly configure their computers to print let
> alone configure the operating system to make it secure. Even if they
> could they would be unable to maintain it in the correct state.
>
> Your advice is bad, wrong and downright unhelpful.


I work in customer support and can confirm that! Not only do most
users not know how to configure their computers for security, so many
of them don't want to learn how to get "under the hood" and do anything
but use the program(s) they purchase! They complain "you don't need to
know how to repair your car in order to drive, why should you need to
know how to <name just about anything necessary to update, configure,
etc> your computer to use it?"

Ppfflllt is what I'd like to say to them!

Sherry
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Neil Mort wrote:
> I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
> PC, I have been recommended to use either Norton Personal Firewall
> 2004 or McAfee Personal Firewall, are these appropriate or can anybody
> recommend suitable alternatives.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Neil

Despite what the others are arguing about. It is wise to configure a
firewall for your system. You have doubtless spent a good deal of time
and money on it.

I assume here that you are focusing on a host-base software solution, So
I will answer that question, and ALSO suggest that you look at getting a
hardware firewall too. The principle for doing so is sound and ancient,
defence-in-depth. If you were to have only a single line of defence then
once it is comprimised so are your assets. Two or more levels of
defence, perferably of different technologies will provide additional
levels of protection. On my home systems I run a hardware firewall AND
different software firewalls on different systems.

I use ZoneAlarm, but and very impressed with sygate. ZoneAlarm does a
good job byt the sygate systems seems to be more configurable and
responsive. Both are good tools.

Personally I don't like the Norton products anymore. If you were to try
to uninstall them it is likely that the uninstall will mess up the
entire system and not work correctly in the first place. Granted this
experience comes from my use of Norton Anti-Virus. But, I happened
multiple times, over many years, and on many systems. This is enough of
a reason for me to avoid Norton labeled products.

I would also suggest strongly that you enhance your 'defence-in-depth'
with other tools, like Antivirus, Spyware tools and refrain from using
MS IE and outlook.

Good luck
bk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> Anyone with a home PC should get a border device, a NAT router,

Unneccessary, as long as the sytem does not offer any services.

> and then run quality Anti-Virus software on their machine.

What for? To realize that this 'quality Anti-Virus software' will either
produce false positives and that a certain period exists, during which the
system is vulnerable due to the fact, that the scanner lacks the virus
pattern?

> These two things alone
> will prevent more problems that most of the other solutions combined.

One thing prevents them all: a secure configuration of the OS and a skilled
user.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <c9kin6$480$1@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > Anyone with a home PC should get a border device, a NAT router,
>
> Unneccessary, as long as the sytem does not offer any services.

If you feel that your advice is sound, then post a link that clearly
shows how to "fully secure" a Windows 98, Windows XP Home and Windows XP
Professional system against all viruses and exploits.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Mike wrote:

>> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
>> third party so called 'firewall' software.
>
> I'm sorry but that is complete bollocks.

It is not.

> The vast majority of computers
> users can hardly configure their computers to print let alone configure
> the operating system to make it secure.

The place for complaining about that is the manufacturer of the OS in
question.

> Even if they could they would be
> unable to maintain it in the correct state.

see above.

> Your advice is bad, wrong and downright unhelpful.

You can't secure a system by adding code. Esspecially you can't secure a
system by adding code from third party vendors if you don't have access to
the kernel sources. Mode code means more complexity, thus more
possibilities for errors.

> If you think your system really is secure, post your public IP address :)

Have you ever looked into the headers of my postings?

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Neil Mort wrote:
> I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
> PC, I have been recommended to use either Norton Personal Firewall
> 2004 or McAfee Personal Firewall, are these appropriate or can anybody
> recommend suitable alternatives.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Neil

software based firewalls are garbage IMO.
Take a look at the hardware based alternatives.
Can't go wrong with either soinicwall, watchguard or cisco PIX series.

-Sean Weintz

--
Copyright 2004 T. Sean Weintz
This post may be copied freely without
the express permission of T. Sean Weintz.
T. Sean Weintz could care less.
T. Sean Weintz is in no way responsible for
the accuracy of any information contained in
any usenet postings claiming to be from
T. Sean Weintz. Users reading postings from
T. Sean Weintz do so at their own risk.
T. Sean Weintz will in no way be liable for
premature hair loss, divorce, insanity,
world hunger, or any other adverse relults
that may arise from reading any usenet
posting attributed to T. Sean Weintz

ALSO - FWIW, The following WHOIS Record is years out of date:
Weintz, Sean (SW2893) tweintz@MAIL.IDT.NET
Sean Weintz
462 Sixth Street , #A
Brooklyn, NY 11215
 

mailMan

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
16
0
18,510
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Mike wrote:

>
> "Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
> news:c9kf6j$3o9$1@news.shlink.de...
>> Neil Mort wrote:
>>
>> > I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
>> > PC,
>>
>> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
>> third party so called 'firewall' software.
>
> I'm sorry but that is complete bollocks. The vast majority of computers
> users can hardly configure their computers to print let alone configure
> the operating system to make it secure. Even if they could they would be
> unable to maintain it in the correct state.

You most definitely should not be sorry. Politeness is fine but there are
limits...

> Your advice is bad, wrong and downright unhelpful.

I second that.
--
Mailman
 

mailMan

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
16
0
18,510
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <c9kf6j$3o9$1@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
>> Neil Mort wrote:
>>
>> > I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
>> > PC,
>>
>> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
>> third party so called 'firewall' software.
>>
>> http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
>
> Which doesn't happen in the real world for most users - most of them can
> barely follow instructions let alone configure their machines to work
> properly.

True.

> Anyone with a home PC should get a border device, a NAT router, and then
> run quality Anti-Virus software on their machine. These two things alone
> will prevent more problems that most of the other solutions combined.

False. Most (home) users do not need a high-end separate device - a good
software firewall (both Kerio and ZA are free and seem to do a reasonably
good job) is sufficient to keep out various worms and prevent most attacks
against known weaknesses. In any case if you use XP do not rely on the
built-in firewall - it will keep out bad stuff, but not alert you to things
already on your machine.

Good AV is important but not enough. Anti-spyware is at least as important.

> One more thing, if you set the internet explorer "Internet" security
> settings to HIGH you are less likely to have problems while browsing
> sites that may contain malicious code. Setting the security setting for
> the internet zone to HIGH has it's own issues, but it's easy to work
> with.

Good advice. In any case disable ActiveX (assuming you use IE - which is a
BAD idea). Java is optional.
--
Mailman
 

Mike

Splendid
Apr 1, 2004
3,865
0
22,780
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
news:c9kk29$4dr$1@news.shlink.de...
> Mike wrote:
>
> >> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
> >> third party so called 'firewall' software.
> >
> > I'm sorry but that is complete bollocks.
>
> It is not.
>
> > The vast majority of computers
> > users can hardly configure their computers to print let alone configure
> > the operating system to make it secure.
>
> The place for complaining about that is the manufacturer of the OS in
> question.
>
> > Even if they could they would be
> > unable to maintain it in the correct state.
>
> see above.
>
> > Your advice is bad, wrong and downright unhelpful.
>
> You can't secure a system by adding code. Esspecially you can't secure a
> system by adding code from third party vendors if you don't have access to
> the kernel sources. Mode code means more complexity, thus more
> possibilities for errors.
>
> > If you think your system really is secure, post your public IP address
:)
>
> Have you ever looked into the headers of my postings?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say...

Is it "Organization: SHLINK Internet Service" and I should be impressed
because you are from an ISP? If you are from an ISP you should know better.

Or is it "NNTP-Posting-Host: fw0.shlink.de" because you have hidden your ip
address? Which resolves to :

;; ANSWER SECTION:
fw0.shlink.de. 3600 IN A 212.60.1.4

telnet 212.60.1.4 25
Trying 212.60.1.4...
Connected to fw0.shlink.de (212.60.1.4).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 fw0.shlink.de (RBL/SPF) ESMTP

But wait! fw0? Could that be a firewall?? Firewall 0?? Nah! You couldn't
possibly be advocating users not to use a firewall while using one
yourself??

If you don't advocate firewalls, what are you doing in this group?

Your methods may well be correct and acceptable to you, but in the context
of the original poster who started by asking wether he needed a firewall and
was by inference a newbie, telling him to dig into the guts of his operating
system without even finding out what OS he had is; bad, wrong, stupid,
irresponsible and unhelpful.

EOT
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Greg Hennessy wrote:

> w.r.t the sage advice of implementing defence in depth using a dedicated
> router and host based measures are utterly ridiculous.

Well, I could get angry about that, but I keep calm ...

Of course there is nothing wrong with 'defence in depth' and several 'lines
of defense', if done properly and operated by skilled staff. However
telling unskilled users simply to 'set up a NAT device' has hardly anything
to to with 'defense in depth'. Several people giving this advice over and
over again do not get tired claiming that most users are unskilled and
therefore connot set up their systems properly. May I kindly ask those
people how these unskilled users can operate a proper 'defense in depth'
setup? If those users are unskilled (I have no doubt that many of them are
....) they will neither be able to read or understand the logs nor draw (the
right) conclusions from the logs.

Adding complexity to a system is never the solution when complexity itself
is the problem.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <c9knub$4uf$1@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
> > w.r.t the sage advice of implementing defence in depth using a dedicated
> > router and host based measures are utterly ridiculous.
>
> Well, I could get angry about that, but I keep calm ...
>
> Of course there is nothing wrong with 'defence in depth' and several 'lines
> of defense', if done properly and operated by skilled staff. However
> telling unskilled users simply to 'set up a NAT device' has hardly anything
> to to with 'defense in depth'. Several people giving this advice over and
> over again do not get tired claiming that most users are unskilled and
> therefore connot set up their systems properly. May I kindly ask those
> people how these unskilled users can operate a proper 'defense in depth'
> setup? If those users are unskilled (I have no doubt that many of them are
> ...) they will neither be able to read or understand the logs nor draw (the
> right) conclusions from the logs.
>
> Adding complexity to a system is never the solution when complexity itself
> is the problem.

There is no complexity when adding a router with NAT to the system -
most of them are unbox, connect, reboot, forget.

As with your comments, there is no way that simple users are going to be
able to secure their machines without "simple, clear" instructions.
Since most users can't even look for the instructions, don't run Windows
Update, don't really do anything, getting them a NAT device and quality
AV software is the next best thing to securing their system.

I don't expect users to be able to setup their systems correctly, and
you don't either, at least not based on any clear instructions you've
posted. A user will do as little as possible (or less).

The lady down the street from my house had a PC for several years, she
asked about Road Runner and I told her that she should ask them to
enable NAT or purchase a NAT device from the local computer store BEFORE
she got RR installed. Her PC is a Dell system that came configured and
ready to use with XP Home Edition. She didn't do anything, installed RR,
and was calling me within a couple days as her computer was constantly
shutting-down each time it booted. Needless to say, she didn't get the
Router, didn't get the AV software, and the McCrappy AV software on her
machine was never registered so it was not updating and didn't detect
the virus..... Do you really expect someone like that person to "stop
services" or even know what a service is?

When you post a clear and concise set of instructions that a typical
user (like Tracker) could follow, and then see that every home user is
provided it and follows it, I'll believe that your idea is sound.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> It's in the details - and most users don't know the details. That's why
> a NAT device and AV software are so important.

If they lack knowledge they will not be able to operate the additional
device/s or software as well.

If complexity is the problem making a setup more complex is _not_ the
solution.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <c9kon2$4uf$3@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > It's in the details - and most users don't know the details. That's why
> > a NAT device and AV software are so important.
>
> If they lack knowledge they will not be able to operate the additional
> device/s or software as well.
>
> If complexity is the problem making a setup more complex is _not_ the
> solution.

Um, I don't thing you read the instructions that I posted - Open Box,
Connect Cables, Turn on Power, Reboot computer. Done. Easier than
installing a lightbulb.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> When you post a clear and concise set of instructions that a typical
> user (like Tracker)

Come on, though I admit that many users are more or less unskilled,
comparing them with Tracker is insulting.

> could follow, and then see that every home user is
> provided it and follows it, I'll believe that your idea is sound.

http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

seems simple enough to me.

Add :
1. Use good passwords for _all_ acounts
2. Never work as administrator unless for sofwtare installation and system
maintainance tasks. Actually I can't do anything about the fact that the
vendor of the most widespread operating systems delivers versions of their
software that allow blank passwords for accounts with administrator
rights), so could you plaese discuss those topics with Mr. Gates ;-)

3. and a few more lines what alternative software to use instead of the well
known virus/worm spreading tools like Outbreak.


and that is it.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <c9kpt0$56r$1@news.shlink.de>, wolfgang@shconnect.de says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > When you post a clear and concise set of instructions that a typical
> > user (like Tracker)
>
> Come on, though I admit that many users are more or less unskilled,
> comparing them with Tracker is insulting.
>
> > could follow, and then see that every home user is
> > provided it and follows it, I'll believe that your idea is sound.
>
> http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

Nice site, but there is one problem with it (as quoted from the site):

Blaster/RPC-Patch:
Important: don't connect your W2K/XP-PC to the WWW before the RPC patch
was installed and the security hole in RPC-service (Remote Procedure
Call, Port 135) was closed. Download this patch on a non-comprommised or
non-affected system (i.e. Knoppix or Unix/Linux):
=>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=824146
Which RPC-patch still missed or if it was installed correctly:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=827363 and
http://www.pcwelt.de/downloads/system/system-utilities/33185/


It clearly stats not to connect the computer to the internet until
"Downloading" the patch - how are home users going to do that?

If the users were sitting behind a router with NAT they would not have a
problem being connected, downloading the updates, and staying uninfected
during the process.

So, we're back to NAT and AV being the best method to implement at home
users networks and then getting them to harden their machines second.

The one thing the site you posted doesn't cover well is users that have
a laptop and a workstation that want to share files and such between
their systems - if we followed your idea, they would be hooked to the
internet via a switch and two public IP, and hacked in a minute.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Leythos wrote:


>> If they lack knowledge they will not be able to operate the additional
>> device/s or software as well.
>>
>> If complexity is the problem making a setup more complex is _not_ the
>> solution.
>
> Um, I don't thing you read the instructions that I posted - Open Box,
> Connect Cables, Turn on Power, Reboot computer. Done. Easier than
> installing a lightbulb.

And this has what effect? OK, assuming that the NAT implementation of the
device is functioning correctly (there has been quite some buggy firmware
in those devices around) this strategy should prohibit all external
connection attempts. No doubt that this is an important thing to have it is
but nothing more than a system offering no services.

And that is all that the NAT device running default configuration will do.
Nothing more, nothing less. Operating an 'in depth security system' means a
bit more, you know, I know, the unskilled user doesn't, that is the point.

Wolfgang
--
A foreign body and a foreign mind
never welcome in the land of the blind
Peter Gabriel, Not one of us, 1980
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On 2 Jun 2004 03:49:32 -0700, neil_shetland@hotmail.com (Neil Mort)
wrote:
>
>I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
>PC, I have been recommended to use either Norton Personal Firewall
>2004 or McAfee Personal Firewall, are these appropriate or can anybody
>recommend suitable alternatives.
>

Buy a hardware firewall. It will allow you to connect as many PC's as
you want to share the same Internet connection while providing true
firewalling services.

http://shopping.nowthor.com/0760559110178.html
 

Mike

Splendid
Apr 1, 2004
3,865
0
22,780
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
news:c9kpt0$56r$1@news.shlink.de...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > When you post a clear and concise set of instructions that a typical
> > user (like Tracker)
>
> Come on, though I admit that many users are more or less unskilled,
> comparing them with Tracker is insulting.
>
> > could follow, and then see that every home user is
> > provided it and follows it, I'll believe that your idea is sound.
>
> http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
>
> seems simple enough to me.
>
> Add :
> 1. Use good passwords for _all_ acounts
> 2. Never work as administrator unless for sofwtare installation and system
> maintainance tasks. Actually I can't do anything about the fact that the
> vendor of the most widespread operating systems delivers versions of their
> software that allow blank passwords for accounts with administrator
> rights), so could you plaese discuss those topics with Mr. Gates ;-)

More bollocks and misinformation. It is possible to have a blank root
password in *nix. Stupid, but possible.

Baseline. A badly configured system, regardless of the OS involved is a
badly configured system.

In addition you have amplified the point that you cannot trust users to
correctly configure their own computers. As Leythos has pointed out several
times and you seem to be unable to comprehend, with at least a NAT router,
insecure admin passwords are less of a problem and the solution requires
zero user input.


> 3. and a few more lines what alternative software to use instead of the
well
> known virus/worm spreading tools like Outbreak.

So what client should the corporate user use to connect to Exchange server?

Your view of the world is so narrow.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Hi,

Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> non-affected system (i.e. Knoppix or Unix/Linux):
> It clearly stats not to connect the computer to the internet until
> "Downloading" the patch - how are home users going to do that?

Knoppix is an excellent piece of software, directly running from a cd.
Have a look at it.

Greetings,
Jens
 

graham

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Wolfgang is quite correct. Please a DOS 6.2 machine on the net
with no services running and guess what ... no problems

this is the base theory for any hardware firewall. take the OS
make sure all services are stopped then add the right IP / kernel
rules to allow forwarding / blocking / inspection etc.

However To answer the original Question. For you home box I suggest
ZoneAlarm Pro ... easy to install, your systems knowledge does not need
to be fantastic and it does the job well. Also better idea to get a
hardware solution which will give a more effective protection overall

Cheers

Graham


On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:54:58 +0200, Wolfgang Kueter wrote:

> Neil Mort wrote:
>
>> I am interested to know which type of firewall is adequate for a home
>> PC,
>
> Simply configure your system properly and you don't need any suspisious
> third party so called 'firewall' software.
>
> http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
>
> Wolfgang