Re: Is additional firewall necessary?

In article <Xns98C162B4F8F2Bjuergennieveler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Xp fw only protects you from incoming packets.

Just like any other software packet filter running on the same machine.

If the malware is active on your machine, it can deactivate any
"Desktop Firewall".

And burglars can pick locks, so there's no point in locking your door.

You lock your door to prevent a burglar from getting out?

That's irrelevant to the point I was addressing. His claim was that
software firewalls are useless because they can be defeated by the
malware they're supposed to be protecting against. My analogy is that
door locks can be defeated by the burglars they're supposed to protect
against, but that doesn't make them useless.

In another response, someone pointed out that you don't depend solely on
door locks if you have very valuable items. I can understand that --
multiple lines of defense are a good idea. But how does that imply that
you should NOT use a software firewall? It's simply another line of
defense.

HOWEVER, my personal experience has been that outgoing checks tend to be
more annoying than protective. I've frequently had problems using
ordinary applications like Yahoo! Messenger, which turned out to be a
software firewall blocking connections. I can't recall ever having my
firewall pop up an alert about something trying to make an outgoing
connection, and deciding to block it. BUT, I've mostly only used
Windows in well-protected, corporate environments (my home computers
have always been Macs), and I don't visit lots of random web sites that
are likely to try to infect my computer. AFAIK, I've never had a virus
on a computer I've used, so I've gotten complacent about this.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
.

Quantcast