Re: Firewall etc
- From: Nonny <nonnymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:20:36 -0500
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:50:55 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
"Nonny" <nonnymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:20:08 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
Personally I use either a hardware firewall or a Linux box as a
gateway device for doing this kind of stuff. Even most home
routers have these features now. Use the appropriate tool for
the job. Software firewalls aren't really the appropriate tool to
stop malware once it's on your computer.
I am using only my router's firewall. Another "MVP" (don't recall who
it was) advised that people like me should also be running Vista's
firewall for the additional outbound protection.
Your post and another I just read from Ken Blake seems to downplay the
need for ANY kind of outbound protection using the argument that a
good piece of malware can easily bypass such protection.
I think I'm fine with the hardware firewall. Am I correct?
Have you disabled Vista's firewall? I wouldn't recommend that. I don't
enable outbound protection but inbound protection is very useful.
Why would it be needed when I'm running behind a hardware firewall?
recommend the Vista firewall in it's default configuration be used at all
times. I don't bother configuring it for outbound protection. If that's
needed I use an appropriate external device.
To answer your question. Yes with a NAT router (preferably with a built in
firewall of some type) and the Vista firewall you're fine as far as
firewalls go. You do need other protection like AV and anti-spyware. I
currently recommend the following setup.
Router, Vista firewall, Windows Defender, and NOD32 (or Avast if you want a
free AV). You may want to run another anti-spyware as a scanner only once in
a while. You don't want it monitoring in real time. My current favourite for
this is Superantispyware.
I have all the A/V and malware protection I could possibly need.
- Re: Firewall etc
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: Firewall etc