I have a home network using a Linksys WAG54G router, WEP enabled, all computers using Win XP (some Pro, some Home). I surf, email, download from bona-fide sites, usenet (text only).
There is reference to the router having a built in firewall and it is active.
I also have the Win XP firewall active on all computers.
From browsing and asking questions in this group I have removed software "firewalls".
So two questions now - i) is the router's firewall sufficient and ii) could someone point me to references that will guide me through the XP settings to maximise security from attack and control outgoings.
I believe that most of those are personal opinions, there are still a lot of people that agree that software firewalls are (usually) good things. It depends on which one you use and how you set it up.
The WindowsXP firewall only blocks incoming, it does not even look at outgoing, pretty much what your router already does. Again, there seems to be a very vocal group here saying to turn off / do not use software firewalls, I just wonder if that has anything to do with the million machine bot-net that was just 'discovered'. When someone tells me to turn off my firewall, I _seriously_ wonder about their motivation for such advice. It may be fine for them, but they may be forgetting that everyone that comes here is not up to their level in understanding this stuff. So, with the router and XP firewall on, you should be fairly well covered from unrequested incoming stuff, but if anything is already on, or somehow gets onto your machine, they will not even blink an eye when all of a sudden your machine is sending out 1,000 emails an hour. Actually, for that, even other firewall programs will let them go out _if_ you have given the sending program permission, but the router and XP firewall will not even ask.
*sigh* - the "outgoing" argument again. Do you have anything new to add to this discussion, "ArtDent"?
It seems, that you're trying to replace arguments you don't have with weak allegations. But for that point:
Whom should be trusted - a person, who writes with full name here, and who easily can be found in real life, or an anonymous, who even is too chicken- hearted to stand behind what he or she is publicizing?
Please decide, what you want to allegate. Your two accusations are conflicting.
And the "other" firewalls won't, too, if the malware is not completely dumb and does not use one of the well-known possibilities to communicate ignoring any "Personal Firewall".
Not really, but I felt it was relevant to the OP question(s).
If you truly want to 'find' me, do a whois on my organization name with a dot com or a dot net after it. I use a 'nym' because of the bots that troll these ng's looking for email addresses to send their spam to. Saying that, I am not sure what your 'problem' here is, I was putting forth my personal opinion there, just like many others have done in this ng. I figured the OP should at least have the option of hearing a dissenting view.
I was trying to say that it seems to me that some of the 'regs' here seem to think that everyone that finds their way here is up to the 'guru' level. They seem to like to give technical answers when the questions are 'beginning' level. Again, just my opinion.
That has changed 'lately'. Quite a few personal firewalls now do checksums or some other method to make sure that the program(s) you give permissions to acces the net, stays its pristine self. Yes, ok, _some_ malware can 'sneak' past _some_ personal firewalls, but, having one is USUALLY better than not having one - FOR THE NEWER USERS, whom are the ones usually asking the questions about this.
Let me ask you, do you LIKE having all these bot-nets available to the highest bidder to do whatever illegal activities the 'customer' desires?
I was trying to suggest that uneducated users should use a personal firewall. If they educate themselves enough to not need one, then all the better for everybody, but in the meantime, those users that are not that knowledgeable about computers in general should use one - in my opinion, which has been formed from reading computer magazines like PC-World and PCmagazine, as well as a couple security newsletters I receive.
Well, after you snipped the part where I said that I thought it was relevant to the OP, perhaps you could indeed read it that way.
What, can't take disagreement? Or, me stating a personal opinion about my thought processes when I see someone tell someone else to turn off their firewall was somehow an insult to you? If so, well, you know what they say about "If the shoe fits..."
I am not sure I understand this request, are you asking me to name brand names here or what? If so, that is not my job, I leave that to those that get paid to test such things, and then read their reviews and try to make up my mind then.
I think you took that a little too personally, it was more in the line of a hypothetical question. I am trying to point out that most of these computers making up these bot-nets were _probably_ unsecured machines that are now clogging the net and flooding our inboxes with spam, and if having a personal firewall keeps only 50% of the machines running one safe, then that is a lot better than 0%.
What types of flaws are you talking about here, and are they truly applicable for _all_ or even most malware? If a firewall stops 90% instead of its supposed 100% of malicious behavior, to me that is still better than 0%.
I do not understand your reasoning here, you say they should use something that does half the job that some other fw does (or at least tries to).
You can read that in my postings here. At least read
They're affecting all users.
If "Personal Firewalls" would do that, and would not have extra security drawbacks beside that, would not open additional attack vectors, then I would not agree with you, but I could understand, that this would be a possible view.
The problem is, that no "Personal Firewall" I ever saw offered more security, but all of the ones, I had to see, added attack vectors a user does not have with the Windows-Firewall.
Weak? Perhaps. But damn valid. Look, I am not a computer security 'expert'. Nobody pays me to test this stuff. I am just someone that has used computers for the last 30 years and try to keep up with the prevailing info, and according to all the people that _do_ get paid to write about this stuff, a personal firewall (other than WindowsXP fw) is a good idea.
This is not true. The German Heise-Verlag, for example, does not.
I have the feeling, that most of the journalists are writing what others write - on so such a message spreads. But: why not offering sensible technical arguments instead of referencing what you believe?
In real world testing, in 20 different users homes, where before installation of the PFW solution they were compromised, after cleaning their machines and installing a PFW, they remained compromise free for more than 6 months - where they were compromised in under a week each time before.
Seems technical enough for me - a Windows Firewall does not protect the users from much of anything, most of the PFW applications (like ZAP) protect users from more than Windows Firewall ever thought of - and it seems to keep them clean for a long time.
I'm not saying that PFW solutions can't be misused or misconfigured, we all know they can, but they help a lot more than Windows Firewall does and a lot more than using nothing.
Bull crap - it's seen all the time, but zillions of users, and just doesn't fit your crappy OPINION of how the world works.
VB, you just don't have a clue about real world security threats and real world user interaction. Maybe if you stopped taking your lithium and got out and talked with real users you might be worth listening too.
What part do you think is untrue? That that was what I was trying to say? Or that ZAP (for example) is better than WindowsXP fw for protecting a users pc IN THE REAL WORLD? If you are dissing ZAP - with no proof - they may be calling their lawyers regarding _your_ libel. If you mean that the Windows fw _does_ protect from some things, well, yes, but the point here is that others do that and more.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.