Re: Can't Disable Firewall on XP Home Ed.

From: Bruce Chambers (bchambers_at_nospamcableone.net)
Date: 04/16/04 

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:25:20 -0600

Greetings --

    I understand and concur with your concerns, but I'm afraid I can't
answer your questions. Uncertainly in this area is one reason I
usually recommend that anyone with an always-on, broadband Internet
connection use a router with NAT between their PC and the cable/DSL
modem.

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
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message 
news:prsq70950c5o38nsl6eq9oh3idq3pe845p@4ax.com...
>
> Yes, but I was thinking specifically about the window of 
> vulnerability
> between onset of networking and the startup of the 3rd-party 
> firewall.
>
> AFAIK from reading docs on the topic, SP2 addresses this by having
> XP's firewall in place and active from the moment networking starts;
> the firewall starts with restrictive initial settings, then once
> everything's up and running it adjusts to the user's chosen 
> settings.
>
> Where the user's settings are to disable the firewall, does the
> firewall then exit?  Or if disabled, does it not startup in the 
> first
> place, thus leaving the PC at risk until the 3rd-party gets going?
>
> I can think of one problem with the former (malware-safer) approach,
> namely that the built-in firewall effect may tangle the 3rd-party
> firewall's initialization.  This isn't a new issue; one often sees
> Zone Alarm dialogs to the effect that it's trying to init the
> TrueVector engine, when other startup fleas are calling home etc.
>
> Presumably this happens to other firewalls that don't show a
> (non-)progress indication?
>
>
>
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -   -
>    "If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have
>     killed it myself"   (PKD)
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - -  -   -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ZA Conceptual Question
    ... > There is plenty you can do with the firewall settings. ... > Program controls will not by themselves control traffic to a server ... > port 80 for example you would have to use the firewall controls to ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: ZA Conceptual Question
    ... I set the internet zone firewall to high, ... ZA leaves it to program controls in either case. ... > There is plenty you can do with the firewall settings. ... > port 80 for example you would have to use the firewall controls to ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: XP Less Secure than 98 for Sharing Files
    ... Ever tried chasing up settings ... > that and/or your firewall supports it) or running with no firewall. ... If you have TCP/IP loaded at all, regardless of NetBEUI, and have Internet ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Turning off Windows Firewall
    ... Firewall settings in Group Policy Editor are in: ... Administrator action. ... The Resultant Set of Policies feature in the Group Policy Management Console ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Norton Personal Firewall 2003
    ... Read the documentation. ... This could be due to your settings or rules. ... so seamlessly through a firewall. ... For example some windows patches and service packs tighten up registry ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
Quantcast