Re: NIS or XP firewall

From: Bruce Chambers (bchambers_at_cable0ne.n3t)
Date: 08/12/05 

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:19:03 -0600

R. wrote:
> Should I use Norton's IS firewall or XP's firewall?
>
> Tks! R.
>
>

        If those are the only choices you're allowed, go with NIS. It'll
consume more computer resources, but it'll provide better protection.

    WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

     ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate. 

-- 
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having 
both at once. - RAH

Relevant Pages
Quantcast