Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious
From: Steven L Umbach (n9rou_at_n0-spam-for-me-comcast.net)
Date: 02/06/05
- Next message: Arthur Hagen: "Re: Is complete home security possible?"
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious"
- In reply to: Beauregard T. Shagnasty: "Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious"
- Next in thread: Steven L Umbach: "Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:52:49 -0600
Sounds good. I agree a firewall must be used. I have seen NAT routers for as
low as $9 after rebates, but human nature being what it is most will go for
free every time. I advise novice users to use Zone Alarm, not because it
think it is the best, but because it is good enough and seems to be the
least confusing to configure and to periodically go to a self scan site such
as http://scan.sygatetech.com/ to verify that they are getting the degree of
protection they expect. --- Steve
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:36mukqF505aisU1@individual.net...
> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>
>> I did mention I use a firewall device in my original post.
>
> Yes, I see that now. Sorry for missing that. Still, a better description
> of the device would have helped. <g>
>
>> It is also my opinion that if you take other precautions, as I
>> referred to, that a basic NAT firewall such as the $70 Netgear
>> ProSafe model is sufficient for many users who do not want to be
>> bothered by a software firewall pop messages. Many if not most
>> users simply do not understand how to configure a software firewall
>> to stop doing such and if they make the wrong selection they can
>> either open a hole in their firewall or block an application they
>> want to use.
>
> Nevertheless, if the newbie has a software firewall, they have at least a
> 50-50 chance to get it right, eh? Much better than no firewall at all.
>
>> Once that happens to them they tend to select yes to every popup. Many
>> seem to use a software firewall to be a "trojan detector". I prefer to
>> leave that to my antivirus program.
>
> I prefer to leave that to my anti-trojan program. Most anti-virus programs
> look for .. viruses .. and not most trojans.
>
>> There certainly are situations where a software firewall excel such
>> as when you have multiple users who use a computer, for a roaming
>> laptop, and you want to restrict their internet access and to
>> specific applications and when you want to protect your computer
>> from other computers on the local network .
>
> Good advice.
>
>> In my opinion anyone who has a cable/dsl connection should be using
>> first a firewall device such as a NAT router and then decide
>> whether or not they want or need the extra protection of a software
>> firewall balancing their desire of convenience versus additional
>> security. With a high speed internet connection, using a software
>> firewall alone brings the risk of misconfiguration and software
>> firewall being disabled due to malware interference or even a
>> conflict with other legitimate installed applications. --- Steve
>
> Trouble is, many people will not spend the extra $$ for the router. Mostly
> because they do not know they *should*. A software firewall is free and
> easy. And .. routers do not generally check Outbound calling at all.
>
> And I guess we have beat this topic about as far as it can go now... <g>
>
> --
> -bts
> -This space intentionally left blank.
- Next message: Arthur Hagen: "Re: Is complete home security possible?"
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious"
- In reply to: Beauregard T. Shagnasty: "Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious"
- Next in thread: Steven L Umbach: "Re: sygate personal firewall over cautious"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
