Re: Avast or Zone Alarm using proxy server?

From: Roger Wilco (yesman_at_yourservice.invalid)
Date: 02/21/05 

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:27:09 -0500

"Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:42193600$0$977$44c9b20d@news2.asahi-net.or.jp...
> Roger Wilco wrote:
> > "Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:42145270$0$975$44c9b20d@news2.asahi-net.or.jp...
> >>>He's not all wrong - and I wonder why he makes a distinction
between
> >>>XP's firewall and another. Anybody serious about security will have
> > a
> >>>dedicated firewall device not some software running on the machine
> > that
> >
> >>>hopes to be protected. He is absolutely correct about not battling
> >>>security with complexity.
> >>
> >>Which firewall do you mean with "another"?
> >
> > XP's firewall. To me XP's firewall is a PFW - just not an
aftermarket
>
> Sorry I don't follow. "XP's firewall and another" with another = "XP's
> firewall"?

Sorry - XP's firewall and "another" PFW.

> > one. Is there something sprcial about XP's firewall that makes it
any
> > more "real" than any other software running locally?
>
> It's not preferable to a HW FW. But it is magnitude better than a
> standard commercial PFW that does protect the user against everything
> and anything including himself. From the software design point of view
> the XP SP2 FW is much more likely to do what it is supposed to to and
> less vulnerable than a PFW.

How is it "less vulnerable" to have a PFW bundled with an OS as popular
as XP? Wouldn't a certain anount of diversity be better? Aside from the
integration with the OS being better, what else is there about the XP
firewall that makes it better?

> > PFW's do come with a lot of nifty security related features in
addition
> > to control of ports, like application control, logging, packet
> > inspection etc...but a real firewall sits between and if it gets
>
> Yes, but these features only work in limited scenarios and are never
> 100% secure. The problem is, people rely on things like application
> control and are extremely surprised when you demonstrate how easy it
is
> for an application to send data out although the PFW is running. The
PFW
> does nice things but you have to know what is actually does and can
> accomplish. The marketing people of PFWs won't tell you that...

That is what I meant - these "value-added" featues aren't really what
firewalls are all about, and what firewalls are all about isn't covered
by having PFW software running on the machine you hope to protect. How
is XP's any better in this respect than any "other" PFW?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can I protect myself against network attacks?
    ... > can peacefully coexist with a PFW. ... > because there are effects from the attack; ... after it disabled the firewall. ... listening and the IP stack would just drop packets for any port. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Can I protect myself against network attacks?
    ... I consider the SP2 PFW "half a firewall", and many I've read say it ... or listening in, and no virus or trojans from a system scan via KAV. ... After all, the attacks did ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Firewall yes, but where?
    ... The PFW solutions do have a ... Control that can be fooled. ... A real firewall has some specific characteristics ... people do use a PFW solution on a gateway computer as well, ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Why you should use a firewall on Win98
    ... > filtering firewall or indeed any firewall, ... If you like the outbound firewall you can use it. ... With a PFW it's all there and nobody ... message the warning that there is a phising e-mail in my Trashbin once ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Billige Notebooks
    ... Welche Personal Firewall würdest du denn auf einem Windows-PC installieren? ... Mein Internetprovider bietet mir bei meinem Tarif *kostenlos* "Norton ... eine PFW ganz sparen. ... weil sie eben dabei ist. ...
    (de.comp.sys.notebooks)
Quantcast