Re: XP SP2 and firewall
From: xfile (cou-cou_at_remove.msn.com)
Date: 08/23/04
- Next message: Menno Hershberger: "Re: help... i have soo many pop ups"
- Previous message: TongSlinger: "Re: SP@"
- In reply to: peter: "Re: XP SP2 and firewall"
- Next in thread: Bruce Chambers: "Re: XP SP2 and firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:22:02 +0800
Hi:
I am using NIS 2004 and XP Pro.
What I did for upgrading to SP2 is the following: (1) I downloaded the full
version of SP2 from MS TechNet site, (2) I updated all NIS 2004 files
"before" run SP2 file.
The update process was smooth (I guess I was lucky) and when I rebooted the
system, it asked me if I want to use NIS to manage the security (firewall)
and I selected "yes" and which also disabled Windows firewall. I guess that
option is from the NIS for working with the new SP2.
After that, I make sure all windows firewall option (in Control Panel) is
set to "off" while I continue to let NIS 2004 to do the firewall and
anti-virus protections.
In my case, I did not un-install NIS and according to Symantec's site, it
seems no need to do so.
One final reminder, SP2 also provides pop-up blocker and NIS and other
utilities also provide similar functions. Although I did not experience
conflicts between any of those, but I did find out that if I need to allow
pop-up windows, I need to set all pop-up blocker to allow for the site, and
in this case, that means Windows pop-up blocker, NIS's pop-up blocker, and
MSN tool bar's pop-up blocker. If any of those has not set to allow for a
particular site, it will not allow pop-up windows to come up.
Just to share with u.
"peter" <pjar@hotmail.com> ¦b¶l¥ó
news:sCfWc.1913$izj1.1530@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> Thanks Bruce for the explanation.
> Sometimes you get advise from others, but I think it's up to the
individual
> to determined if it's good or not (like the one about uninstalling
Symantec
> firewall) didn't sound right to me.
> But from the many response I am a little more educated now than before.
>
> Peter
> "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eudLbmFiEHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Greetings --
> >
> > The "next generation" Windows Firewall included with SP2, while
> > vastly superior to the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability
> > and configurability, is still rather lacking, as a solid security
> > component. It still can't supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it
> > intended to do so; rather, it's intended to complement them. And, like
> > the original ICF, it will not monitor out-going traffic.
> >
> > It's most important virtues, I think, are it's improved
> > compatibility with internal LANs and its configurability via group
> > policies. Now, there's a simple, cheap tool that system admins can
> > use to protect the LAN workstations from that occasional - but not
> > rare enough - fool who manages to bypass the perimeter firewall and
> > manually install some malware that could then spread throughout the
> > LAN via shared drives.
> >
> > WinXP's built-in firewall is _adequate_ at stopping incoming
> > attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. 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.
> >
> > SP2's Windows Firewall is intended to complement
> > 3rd-party firewalls, so it won't hurt anything to leave it enabled
> > whilst using another software firewall, but it also won't do much
> > good, except as extra "insurance."
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > "peter" <pjar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:0_MVc.11258$UYx.3680@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> SP2 has an updated fire wall built in, if one is using Symantec's
> >> firewall, would there be a conflict with the two firewall?
> >> Symantec internet security fire wall is running at the moment do I need
> >> to disable before installing sp2? or disable sp2 firewall after the
> >> installation?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Menno Hershberger: "Re: help... i have soo many pop ups"
- Previous message: TongSlinger: "Re: SP@"
- In reply to: peter: "Re: XP SP2 and firewall"
- Next in thread: Bruce Chambers: "Re: XP SP2 and firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
