firewall

[sue]

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

If I have the built in firewall for xp enabled, do I need
to install another one? Will that be enough for dialup?

 

[Guest]

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

In news:474a01c47fdc$952ec720$a601280a@phx.gbl,
Sue <Sue10264@Hotmail.com> typed:

> If I have the built in firewall for xp enabled, do I need
> to install another one? Will that be enough for dialup?


The fact that it's dialup is irrelevant.

The XP firewall monitors incoming traffic, but does nothing to
stop spyware programs trying to call home. It also is much less
configurable than other choices (although that's improved in
SP2).



For those reasons I recommend the free version of ZoneAlarm
instead. You don't need and shouldn't run two firewalls


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

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

I have never had or used a third party firewall and find the free one in XP
HE adequate for my stand alone home use computer. The fact that it doesn't
monitor outgoing traffic as suggested by Ken is irrelevant. There really
isn't a need to monitor outgoing if you learn how to keep your computer clean
of spyware\adware and do not allow any programs including windows to
autoupdate. Manual updating is the best and safest method of keeping programs
up to date. {]:~)

 

[Guest]

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

In news:47D54A70-CA96-4103-A85E-A6C981CBEBF9@microsoft.com,
The Unknown P <( mikisiw@msn.com )> typed:

>I have never had or used a third party firewall and find the
>free one
> in XP HE adequate for my stand alone home use computer. The
> fact that
> it doesn't monitor outgoing traffic as suggested by Ken is
> irrelevant.


I completely disagree; it is far from irrelevant. You may do
whatever you think best for your own computer, but that's
irresponsible advice to give others.


> There really isn't a need to monitor outgoing if you
> learn how to keep your computer clean of spyware\adware and do
> not
> allow any programs including windows to autoupdate.


You are willing to make the assumption that what you to do to
keep your computer clean of spyware\adware is perfect. I am never
willing to make that assumption, so I prefer the belt *and*
suspenders approach.

That's especially true, since there are adequate freeware
programs that provide that extra protection. That way I have the
belt and add the suspenders for free.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

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

You're response is not only wrong, it's irresponsible. You can go to a
website and click a link that surreptitiously places something unintended on
your system. The only way you'd know if this item began calling out is if
you had something to alert you. You're response does not leave room for
human error or the various surreptitious means of which items can end up
placed on a user's system; even the most careful of individuals can get
burned.

The fact it may never have happened to you is irrelevant and Ken's post is
quite relevant.

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"The Unknown P" <( mikisiw@msn.com )> wrote in message
news:47D54A70-CA96-4103-A85E-A6C981CBEBF9@microsoft.com...
>I have never had or used a third party firewall and find the free one in XP
> HE adequate for my stand alone home use computer. The fact that it doesn't
> monitor outgoing traffic as suggested by Ken is irrelevant. There really
> isn't a need to monitor outgoing if you learn how to keep your computer
> clean
> of spyware\adware and do not allow any programs including windows to
> autoupdate. Manual updating is the best and safest method of keeping
> programs
> up to date. {]:~)
>

 

[Guest]

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

Greetings --

WinXP's built-in firewall is _adequate_ at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. It doesn't give you any
alarms, or any other kind of indication, to tell you that it is
working, though. Nor is it very easily configurable. What WinXP also
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 ICF 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


"Sue" <Sue10264@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:474a01c47fdc$952ec720$a601280a@phx.gbl...
> If I have the built in firewall for xp enabled, do I need
> to install another one? Will that be enough for dialup?