Re: Don't use a Firewall other than Windows Firewall?

From: Jason Edwards (none1_at_invalid.invalid)
Date: 09/16/05


Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:38:21 +0100


"Sam" <sam.sam@sam.samsam.com> wrote in message
news:dgdsuf$m9p$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Ok, so Volker Birk makes what seem to me to be some pretty good
> arguments why it's a waste of time running software firewalls offering
> outbound protection (on the basis that any software wanting badly enough
> to "call home" would in any case be able to bypass that firewall).
>
> But I haven't seen anyone supporting or for that matter refuting
> Volker's view. I'm talking here about basic firewalls such as ZA free,
> not something like ZASS which may well offer other advantages.
>
> So what's the view - should I reclaim much-needed cpu cycles by ditching
> ZA free or any other basic 2-way firewall altogether and just rely on
> Windows Firewall, and of course an antivirus scanner? And, of course,
> not installing anything I don't trust.

I'm currently sitting at a P3 550MHz with 256MB RAM and Radeon 7000
graphics.
The OS is Windows 2000.
It cost nothing to build because it's built of a mixture of parts discarded
by others.
It has no personal firewall software, no anti-virus software, no unnecessary
services and no unnecessary running processes.
Its performance at anything I want to use it for, including DVD playback, is
mostly indistinguishable from a recent 3GHz P4. No doubt there are tasks
which would go faster on a 3GHz P4, but it can work on those while I'm
asleep and have the result ready in the morning.
I don't believe in increasing complexity without good reason.
A system is easier for me to understand if it's less complex.
This makes it easier for me to secure it.
Increasing the complexity by adding more software would therefore make it
_less_ secure.

Jason

>
> You views very much appreciated.
> --
> Sam