XP Firewall efficiency

I switched to a Windows XP system about 3 months ago and
have installed all Windows Critical Updates since then. I
have enabled the XP Firewall, but on doing a Symantec
(Norton) Security Scan today the latter says I have a
Hacker Response Risk. Looking at their details, there
were about 3 items shown as open to risk of hacking. How
can this be when I have enabled XP Firewall (I double-
checked this!). Do I ignore Norton, or disenable XP
Firewall and switch to Norton or other Firewall? Help
please!

[Testy]

Norton's one and only goal is to sell you their crappy software.

Testy

> wrote in message
...
> I switched to a Windows XP system about 3 months ago and
> have installed all Windows Critical Updates since then. I
> have enabled the XP Firewall, but on doing a Symantec
> (Norton) Security Scan today the latter says I have a
> Hacker Response Risk. Looking at their details, there
> were about 3 items shown as open to risk of hacking. How
> can this be when I have enabled XP Firewall (I double-
> checked this!). Do I ignore Norton, or disenable XP
> Firewall and switch to Norton or other Firewall? Help
> please!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 4/28/2004

[Bruce Chambers]

Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin:148066

Greetings --

I suspect Symantec is more concerned with selling their product
than offering an impartial evaluation.

WinXP's built-in firewall is _adequate_ at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. It doesn't give you any
alarms to tell you that it is working, though. Nor is it very easily
configurable. What WinXP also does not do, is protect you from any
Trojans or spyware that you (or someone else using your computer)
might download and install inadvertently. It doesn't monitor
out-going traffic at all, other than to check for spoofed IP
addresses, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
because the ICF is a "stateful" firewall, it will also assume that any
incoming traffic that's a direct response to a Trojan's out-going
signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even Symantec's Norton
Personal Firewall is superior by far, although it does take a heavier
toll of system performance then do ZoneAlarm or Sygate.


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


> wrote in message
...
>I switched to a Windows XP system about 3 months ago and
> have installed all Windows Critical Updates since then. I
> have enabled the XP Firewall, but on doing a Symantec
> (Norton) Security Scan today the latter says I have a
> Hacker Response Risk. Looking at their details, there
> were about 3 items shown as open to risk of hacking. How
> can this be when I have enabled XP Firewall (I double-
> checked this!). Do I ignore Norton, or disenable XP
> Firewall and switch to Norton or other Firewall? Help
> please!

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

You're welcome.

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


> wrote in message
...
> Many thanks to Bruce Chambers and "Testy" for very useful
> response to mine of 29/04/04/