Re: Router & Firewall?

From: Richard G. Harper (rgharper_at_email.com)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 20:02:11 -0400

I can't say it would be "terribly" unwise, if you practice safe computing
habits the combination of NAT plus XP's firewall is probably plenty of
protection. But if you're in the habit of opening unexpected attachments
and/or surfing sites whose pedigree you don't know for sure then you may
wish to consider added protection. 

-- 
Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x]  rgharper@email.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all.  Private mail is usually not replied to.
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
"David Angelovich" <dangelovich@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWIqvVkYEHA.4068@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Suppose I were to not install a firewall of any kind (or maybe just leave
> the XP one on), and port forwarding were disabled...
> Would that be terribly unwise?
>
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ecXlxHkYEHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Ah ... that's different.  :-)
> >
> > NAT provides a fair amount of protection for the computers behind the
> > router.  In theory the presence of NAT means that the computer(s) behind
> the
> > router are invisible to the Internet.  In practice this may depend on
the
> > configuration of the router, especially if it's forwarding ports to any
PC
> > inside the NAT barrier.
> >
> > Adding a firewall to the network setup will provide further protection -
> or
> > at least alert you if unwanted traffic is getting to your PC.  If you
add
> a
> > third-party firewall (as opposed to the built-in XP firewall) you will
get
> > both incoming and outgoing alerts and protection - which could come in
> handy
> > if you have let something inside that's establishing a connection you
> don't
> > want to the outside world.
> >
> > -- 
> > Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x]  rgharper@email.com
> > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> > * for the benefit of all.  Private mail is usually not replied to.
> > * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >
> >
> > "David Angelovich" <dangelovich@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:OZuYYYjYEHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Sorry, what I meant was it has built-in Router.... not firewall.... i
> > typed
> > > the wrong thing.....
> > >
> > > - David Angelovich
> > >
> > > "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:uYwYmIjYEHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > If your DSL modem contains a firewall, that is a "hardware"
firewall.
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > > Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x]  rgharper@email.com
> > > > * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> > > > * for the benefit of all.  Private mail is usually not replied to.
> > > > * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "David Angelovich" <dangelovich@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:eqzB6diYEHA.1656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got a DSL modem (with built in firewall) running on my
network
> > with
> > > > > NAT....
> > > > > Should I also have a hardware firewall?
> > > > > Someone told me that NAT and the router's capabilities act as a
> > firewall
> > > > > anyway..... Is this true?
> > > > >
> > > > > - David Angelovich
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages
Loading