Re: XP's Firewall
- From: B. Nice <b__nice@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:00:28 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:27:02 -0600, Dan <spamyou@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
BTW, I am still waiting for an article or documentation on how the
Windows Firewall is better than the Zone Alarm Professional Firewall.
And I am waiting for your explanation to your "breaking the windows
firewall". So what exactly is your point?
For the last time: Windows and other perssonal "firewalls" are pretty
equal on inbound protection. And outbound protection is unreliable and
foolish too, since you can't control malware already allowed to run.
You should not run it at all. Therefore adding additional code to try
and control that is, from a security standpoint, the wrong choice. To
stop malware from running you use a good anti-malware product - but
first and foremost: your brain.
I tried to explain that to you. You just once again chose to neglict
what was replied to you and then shift the subject completely (this
time by pasting a lot of irrelevant ZA bragging that any decent
firewall would just have blocked and otherwise kept silent about) and
elegantly snipping away any comments instead of providing some
additional comments or counter-arguments.
Kerry Brown made some very good points too.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: David J. Craig
- Re: XP's Firewall
- References:
- XP's Firewall
- From: B.W.
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: B . Nice
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: B . Nice
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: B . Nice
- Re: XP's Firewall
- From: Dan
- XP's Firewall
- Prev by Date: Re: XP's Firewall
- Next by Date: Re: XP's Firewall
- Previous by thread: Re: XP's Firewall
- Next by thread: Re: XP's Firewall
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|