firewall SP2 is good?

This is impossible to answer because we know nothing about you.

If you are a PC security expert then you may not have a lot to worry about. If you are a home user with your first PC and haven't touched a computer before, then it's probably a matter of days to first compromise, no matter what software (firewall or otherwise) is installed.

Security is not a matter of what software is installed or is in use on your PC. It is mostly a matter of whether the system administrator (I assume that's you) has sufficient experience and knowledge to make sure that the system is secure.

Which virus scanner do you have installed and is it up to date? And are you running XP pro with a limited user account or an administrator account?

Jason

Jason, those two statements don't seem to correlate.

Jones,

To remain calm, practise Safe Hex:

Ron :)

Well perhaps that's not quite true for the average home user who may be unable to keep viruses off their PC and will thus find a software solution better than nothing.

In any case the statement I made does not say that no virus scanner should be installed. I know people with virus scanners who still get compromised and the virus can't be removed except by a complete rebuild or booting from a cd (bartpe is useful for that).

I prefer not to need software security solutions on a workstation, they run on a firewall box, but this doesn't mean I would never recommend them to others.

Jason

Generally considered more than adequate to block unsolicited traffic into the computer. The single biggest compliant is the XP firewall does not block all unplanned outgoing traffic.

Supplement it with IPsec to stop outbound you can use the Analogx rules and set it to block the Windows Networking ports as an example.

If the machine has a direct connetion to the Internet (no router between the machine and the modem), then ypu need to go to the O/S and thighten to attack.

Duane :)

Okay, I gotta respond to this...

You know, I've been reading about "Safe Hex" since they invented the term. There was a day when Safe Hex worked. Don't click on anything if you don't know what it is! But guess what! That was the olden days. Today there are so many sophisticated automatic ways to become infected or hacked that Safe Hex is almost irrelevant. Your system, in the background, sorta "clicks on" stuff all the time! You need one hell of a lot more than Safe Hex anymore.

-Frank

the question is not the MS freebe wirewall, but some basics on security there's three fundamental positions for security;

1) do nothing, openly trust everyone & experience everything 2) proactive: learn to AVOID problems so you don't have to waste time Correcting problems. 3) reactive: somewhat like pretending there's always a 'magic pill' to cure every illness. in this case, pretending there's an antivirus(AV) or fixit program that will repair/cure my poor system.

Items in (2) include hardware like a NAT router and hardware firewall. These will avoid a large percentage of the problems the result in needing option (3) at all. The big exposure here is clicking on any/all email attachments. There is just no defense for a user that ignores guidance. if you're lucky, and have a reasonable AV, it may scan the file before opening it AND just be up-to-date enough to have a signature of the bug being delivered - - but then we never have 100% assurity, do we?

The other major exposure is the websites you visit - - opening your browser on a site is an open invitation to 'download whatever'. In this area, Java and ActiveX components are the major concerns.

when you implement: modem--router--firewall, you're need to scan with AV is greatly reduced and your experience is far more enjoyable.

setting High Security in your browser, and getting services to control or blacklist specific ActiveX components go a long way.

--- now that we're on the same page --- Identity theft is the BIG issue today. Theft requires three facilities; a) gaining access to the system b) finding the information to be stolen c) exporting the data to the intruder

a) is severely reduced by the above, but not 100% eliminated (consider file-shares and programs you download) b) the locations and files are not difficult to learn

c) this is where a good firewall shines. Take the worst case problem, where a-b have been compromised, your last defense is the attempt to 'phone-home'. If you can thwart the attempt to open the outbound connection, then it matters little that a-b have occurred.

We all have our favorite programs and some take the view that Microsoft can do no wrong -- I don't care to debate myopia. The whole point is to learn to invest some time in education, find some techniques you can use to reduce your risks, and then be diligent in being DEFENSIVE and not REACTIVE.

No.

Don't use Internet Exploder oder Outlook / Outlook Express, keep your software up to date, be careful with mailworms and phishing attacks.

Then you can relax a little bit. And keep an eye open. Or two.

Yours, VB.

Well I feel that Windows Firewall is not up to the mark. I installed windows XP with SP2 and always had the firewall on. As an example say, I did not add Yahoo Messenger in the exception list. I start Yahoo Messenger. A message pops up "yahoo.... is tring to connect to the internet...Unblock.....Block". While I see this message I find that Yahoo Messenger has already connected in the mean time. This is not what firewalls are supposed to do ? I don't know how to fix it so I installed some other firewall suite.

XP's firewall only blocks inbound connections, not outbound connections. This is reasonable, if you've already got the malware on your system it can and will defeat virtually anything that you (as a user) are capable of doing.

In other words, by the time you install malware, it's all but too late to use a firewall to stop it from connecting out again.