Firewall with low overhead?
From: Russell (rwkeating-remove_at_comcast.net)
Date: 03/14/04
- Next message: jealous xmp: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Previous message: Dan: "IS anyone using Symantec 5400 Gateway Firewall?"
- Next in thread: jealous xmp: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: jealous xmp: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: Duane Arnold: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: Kerodo: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: jch: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: harry wong: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: Whacky Tabaccy: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:31:25 -0600
I am running Windows XP Pro and Kerio 4.0.13. What are some
recommendations for a firewall with less overhead (processing and memory
use)?
I originally started years ago with Tiny Firewall as it seamed to fit
the bill. When Tiny changed to Kerio I went to Kerio 2.XX. When Kerio
4 came along I changed to that mostly because I was reading about
concerns of compatibility with XP and Kerio 2 (although I didn't see any
problems.)
It seams like Firewalls (along with so many other programs now a days)
start expanding their rolls and bloating out as time goes on.
Thanks,
Russell
- Next message: jealous xmp: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Previous message: Dan: "IS anyone using Symantec 5400 Gateway Firewall?"
- Next in thread: jealous xmp: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: jealous xmp: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: Duane Arnold: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: Kerodo: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: jch: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: harry wong: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Reply: Whacky Tabaccy: "Re: Firewall with low overhead?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|