Re: Windows Xp Firewall
From: Paul (Paul_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 09/18/04
- Next message: Gordie: "Re: Splash Screen Changed After SP2"
- Previous message: Norman Rosenthal: "Programs not installing with Username - How to supply username"
- In reply to: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Windows Xp Firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:45:02 -0700
I have a XP Pro with SP2 Install now but there another problem of Norton
Anti-virus 2005 software is messing up the XP SP2 but if I install the
upgrade the Norton Anti-Virus personel firewall software that I don't know
weather if this will mess up the XP SP2 firewall system block up the net both
way, has any of you install the Norton Anti-virus personel firewall 2004 with
XP Pro SP2, was it work ok or not, please help me I need to know this later
if this ok to install the Norton Anti-virus personel firewall 2004 software
to my xp sp2 pc. Thank guys.
"Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> Peach wrote:
> > I have read on several occasions that the Windows XP firewall is not
> > very good, is this true?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
- Next message: Gordie: "Re: Splash Screen Changed After SP2"
- Previous message: Norman Rosenthal: "Programs not installing with Username - How to supply username"
- In reply to: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Windows Xp Firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
