64-Bit Firewall

Windows NT 4.0 for DEC Alpha, Windows XP IA64, Windows XP x64, Windows Server 2003 IA64 or Windows Server 2003 x64?

Ehm... are there any?

Eh... isn't that a virus scanner?

Linux? BSD? That's why I'd use for a firewall.

Windows XP x64. AVG is a firewall and a virus scanner. Not sure what you meant by "Linux? BSD? That's why I'd use for a firewall."

AFAICS AVG only includes a known lousy host-based packet filter, but nothing suitable for any firewall.

Well, exactly that. Is there any good reason why you have to run Windows XP for your firewall?

AVG Anti-Virus plus Firewall

Well how do you mean? I do need to run Windows XP as my OS if that's what you're asking.

Argh! So basically you wanted to run a packet filter on your workstation and call that construct a firewall?

That's not new, that's wrong. It is a known lousy host-based packet filter, unsuitable to build any real firewall.

basically you wanted to run a packet filter on your workstation

I suppose you can put it that way...Windows Firewall isn't suitable because it only scans inbound traffic.

Well, then you should think about your concept again.

Windows Firewall is a host-based packet filter. As it does not know about the Nat states of Windows ICS, it obviously isn't suitable as a firewall.

Anyway, it does scan outbound traffic. Of course, since it has to capture the relevant states to allow related inbound traffic. I guess you meant that one cannot disable and/or expand the internal ruleset that is applied, which is, well, merely interesting, as one would have to add such a rule anyway.

concept again.

traffic.Windows Firewall is a host-based packet filter. As it does not know about

Well then what do you suggest I do? I have a router that has a built in hardware firewall that I don't use, should I be using that instead?

At first, think wisely if you actually need any firewall. Most likely you don't. If you really do, then think about your requirements, policies and available resources. At least you should understand the difference between a firewall (which is a concept to separate network segments with different trust levels at a perimeter) and host-based packet filters (where there isn't anything to separate anymore).

You router is a router. It might have a packet filter included, which is written in software. It's only hardware as far it's implemented on a dedicated hardware and might, most likely doesn't, include hardware acceleration for some operation.

In replacement for a real, serious firewall? Most likely not. Implementations on common consumer-class routers are usually so f***ed up...

need any firewall. Most likely you

router is a router. It might have a packet filter included, which is

Most likely not.

Well I most definitely need a firewall. ZoneAlarm for example, doesn't work on Windows x64. Anything similar to ZoneAlarm that works on x64 would be great.

Can you tell a good reasoning?

ZoneAlarm for example is neither a firewall nor related to security. Anyway, didn't you still understand what a firewall is?

Not similar, but actually working and effective, the Windows Firewall. Or Wipfw. Anyway, these are host-based packet filters.

Maybe you should think about it, because Windows is very complex and maybe not a very good choice for a platform of a firewall implementation.

Yours, VB.

What do you want to achive?

You're lucky.

I doubt that.

Yours, VB.

Reading the rest of the thread, one may notice that he doesn't even notice the difference between a firewall and a host-based packet filter. The latter is what he actually wants to implement.

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote: : Reading the rest of the thread, one may notice that he doesn't even notice : the difference between a firewall and a host-based packet filter. The : latter is what he actually wants to implement.

He states that he wants something similar to ZoneAlarm, an application aware firewall. I guess Vista will have such an animal included when it's released in a few weeks.

Lars

Maybe, maybe not.

1. ZoneAlarm is no firewall.
2. Application awareness is utter nonsense from a security perspective.

The real problem is his persistent ignorance.

Who cares? Vista is unusable in any reasonable understanding, because you always need to fear that the kernel-integrated DRM isn't used against you - and this is trivial, even for non-DRMed data.