Re: Windows Firewall and Antivirus Security For Both Win ME and XP
From: S. Pidgorny [MVP] (slavickp_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/23/03
- Next message: Ionut Boldizsar: "Re: How safe is NATing ?"
- Previous message: Dion: "IM spam"
- In reply to: R Rutledge: "Windows Firewall and Antivirus Security For Both Win ME and XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:11:57 +1000
NO, a 3rd-party firewall isn't necessary. However, it will have many
benefits in terms of additional (to XP's own ICF) controls and overall
usability. Symantec solution cannot be named the undisputed leader but is a
good one.
See the FAQ at http://securityadmin.info/faq.htm for details
-- Svyatoslav Pidgorny, MS MVP, MCSE -= F1 is the key =- "R Rutledge" <ross911@att.net> wrote in message news:066601c36941$a1996040$a401280a@phx.gbl... > I have two systems one running Windows ME ver4.90 on a PC > w ith 512 ram and A P-III 750. > > I want to know when I should upgrade to Win XP pro mainly > for virus and security protection, if the overall system > is fast enough etc. for Xp and the firewall and virus > recomendations likely necessary for Xp. > > The second system is running Win XP Pro 512 ram with oneG > PIII. Just ran the Win XP-KB823980 patch and fix tool > from symantic W32 blaster.worm tool with good success. > > Question is what 3rd party firewall is necessary or > overall better then the xp firewall, and is the > Norton/Symantic virus app the best protection? > > Thanks, R Rutledge
- Next message: Ionut Boldizsar: "Re: How safe is NATing ?"
- Previous message: Dion: "IM spam"
- In reply to: R Rutledge: "Windows Firewall and Antivirus Security For Both Win ME and XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|