Norton Internet Security 2005 Personal Firewall slows down Windows XP startup

No they don't - the typical home users sub $100 unit is just a NAT router and does not provide any form of firewall. Sure, NAT, as a general rule, when used in these devices, blocks unsolicited inbound traffic, but that's only a firewall "like" feature and is how NAT works in these devices, it's not a firewall.

This is absolutely true - this is how many systems are compromised, just because the drive-by can't get into your machine doesn't mean you are not vulnerable. You need to do the basics - like running as a limited account, not using IE/OE (except as MS states to set it up in HIGH-SECURITY MODE), not using File Sharing programs like Kazaa, Morphious, LimeWire, etc... Not installing IE Tool Bar helpers from Yahoo/Google and other places. Always running a quality AV product.....

Between routers that provide real-time logs, combined with WallWatcher, and then AV/antispyware, you can't do much better on the home front - while it's easy to misconfigure, a personal firewall running on the computer can sometimes save you.

Your Linksys is not a firewall, it's just a NAT device. Which version of their product are you using. I just disabled / enabled the "firewall" on a BEFSR41 unit and it had no impact on the users ability to reach the internet. Inbound is always blocked unless you create a "Port Forwarding" and that's not the same as a firewall, neither is NAT.

If you read my post you will see that I specifically said "sub $100" meaning routers under $100. I work with those devices daily, I've not missed anything about them - not even the marketing hype the try and put over on the ignorant. None of the ones under $100 offer firewall protection, it a direct method related to the NAT implementation.

Well, NAT routers usually do have a packet-filter that blocks the access ports of the router. My linksys for example blocks ports 80 and 443 if the "firewall" is turned on. Otherwise it is open to the internet.

Gerald

I think the questions becomes what you definiton of a firewall is and why you think NAT routers fall short as for me I don't really care what your definition is or about being right just want to inform the poster I think the poster has enough info to decide time to move on

/p32

The post concerns a home computer user not a business who's software firewall chioce is causing sartup delays a possible solution has been suggested I see the point your tryin to make I don't nessasaraly disagree its just not relevant for a home user /p32

To be specific, you said "firewall is turned on" and that indicated you believed the hype to me.

Sorry, I have remote management disabled, it doesn't respond to any port

We're on the same page her G., but, by not finding the proper recipient the packet is dropped.

Well, I would hate to see what your definition of GREEN or RED or BLUE is if you don't follow clearly established definitions that have been around for years.

You can use your own personal definition, but it does not change the definition that the rest of the world uses. The problem is not the proper definition, it's the marketing drones that miss-use the term in order to sell more products.

A NAT router for home users is an ideal solution as long as they under stand the one-way protection and that it's not a true firewall.

I did not say that my Linksys is a firewall. I said it does packet filtering on the administration web interface depending on the setting of what Linksys calls "Firewall".

Try to connect to port 80 of your router from the internet with "firewall" disabled. With "firewall" off my Linksys does present the normal administration web interface that I usually access from the inside (e.g. http://192.168.0.1/). This is a pure observation. The naming of features of Linksys is not my fault. If they call it "firewall" I have in this context to reference it as "firewall" even if it is not a firewall (without quotes).

And NAT does not "block" anything at all. It tries to find a proper recipient for a packet and if it does not find any just drops the packet.

Gerald

What is your definition of firewall, then?

Gerald

Look.. I don't disagreed but what short hand would you recommend using you need to read NAT router is not a true firewall every time a NAT router is referenced ? thats silly I don't argue that they are I simply used the term firewall to describe the protection a NAT router would offer given the users concerns read the original post again this thread turned some where and the orginal topic got lost....

/p32

tell you what lets round all the venders up who use the term firewall when describing the protection there NAT routers offer and lets sue them all for false claims geez.... /p32

Some NAT routers, those included in firewalls, are part of a firewall, I only call people out on it when it's clear they THINK they own a firewall but they obviously don't.

And again, you would be wrong, completely, as the protection offered by NAT in those simple devices does not in any form make them a firewall. With you calling them Firewalls you are helping to perpetuate the misconception and actually harming users. If you can't call the device by it's true function/name then don't call it at all.

Your personal definition, unless it's correct does not help the many readers of this group that don't know any better.

I don't have the time or money for something like that. If you inform one person that takes away the proper definition from this group, that one person will likely pass that information on two two or more and then it expands. In this group we reach thousands, so it doesn't take long.

what I suggested was correct

your comments were just confusing the guy

I say NAT routers offer some firewall features

you say no, its firewall like

We all know (well most of us do) that NAT is not a firewall technology, and a router with NAT does not a firewall make.

I generally tell them it is not a firewall, but it does some functions that a firewall does, then briefly explain public/private addresses and how NAT and SPI works. I quite often get the 'glazed over eyeballs' syndrome from people.

Anyone got any ideas on how to explain this to plebs without resorting to technobabble? E.

Only partially correct, big difference.

It doesn't appear that way, in fact, once he learned it wasn't a firewall he started asking great questions about security - you're comments would not have prompted that type of interaction.

And I'm not ignorant enough to believe that something called NAT makes the device a firewall. Us old net guys are what keeps companies safe and secure, because we don't FALL FOR THE HYPE and MISINFORMATION spread by people like you. You can disagree all you want, but a NAT box is nothing like a firewall, doesn't protect a network like a firewall, and does not offer the same features as a firewall.

What you need to go is learn something from us OLD guys so that when you're old you may still be in this field instead of working at McDonalds.