Re: Good desktop firewall.

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:51:06 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:54:32 +0100, "SPAMCOP User"
<spamcop_user@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




I also used to recommend third-party firewalls over the Windows one
because they were two-way, and the Windows firewall only monitored
incoming traffic.

I've become convinced, however, that outbound protection is
meaningless. Once one of the nasties gets into your computer, it can
essentially do whatever it wants, including circumventing the
firewall. So the extra protection provided by a firewall that monitors
outbound traffic is more apparent than real.



I'd have to disagree to a certain extent, Ken.


That's OK, Bruce. We don't have to have the same opinions.


Yes, some types of
malware can "subvert" a personal firewall and render out-bound checking
meaningless, but not all can malware do so. Some will leave a trail. I
think it's better to be warned about at least some of the out-going
suspicious traffic than none at all. No, it's not 100%, but nothing
ever is, after all. Further, investigation of identified problems may
well lead the user to discovering his/her other "vulnerabilities."



Although it may be true that "not all can malware do so," the problem
with using a two-way firewall is that almost everybody who uses one
believes that it provides much greater protection--either 100% or
something very close to it. In reality, if it adds any protection at
all it's very little. In my view, having a false idea of how much
extra protection it provides is an extremely dangerous place to be,
since it makes many people less cautious.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.