Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (
More info?)
Maybe he (she) should be calling himself / herself "unknowing" instead of
unknown.
Anyone posting who won't identify himself (herself) might not want to
embarrass themselves.
--
Joe
=====================================
ALL INCOMING AND OUTGOING MESSAGES ARE SCANNED BY NORTON ANTIVIRUS 2004
=====================================
"Crusty (-: Old B@stard
" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Oj805DiXEHA.1652@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are so wrong!
>
> --
> Regards:
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:cUfEc.30350$eH1.14358348@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > Once again, there is no need to monitor outgoing traffic if the incoming
> > is
> > blocked.
> > "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
> > news:e%23rcvcXXEHA.3676@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> Greetings --
> >>
> >> That's completely wrong. WinXP's built-in ICF is certainly better
> >> than nothing, but it's no substitute for a real firewall.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> "The Unknown P" <( mikisiw@msn.com )> wrote in message
> >> news:2CBF146F-B7A2-496A-8FE0-A07780BE4887@microsoft.com...
> >> > What's wrong with the free firewall that comes installed in XP? It
> >> is robust enough that your computer will be virtually invisible to the
> >> internet. As it is designed for and is in XP there aren't really any
> >> better free ones. SP2 has some improvements to the firewall. Go into
> >> the network connections in the control panel and double click on your
> >> connection to open the configurations windows. Then click the
> >> properties button on the general tab and then the advanced tab will
> >> give you access to the firewall. Good luck. {:~)
> >> > --
> >> > There are three types of people in computing, those that can count
> >> and those that can't.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>