XP Firewall

[Newbie]

Hi,

I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will the
built in option suffice?

[Kelly Cotter]

"Newbie" > wrote in message

> Hi,
>
> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
> enabled. Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal
> Firewall, or will the built in option suffice?

the windows firewall is as basic as you can get it stops incomming but not
outgoing. i recomend zonealarm pro v4.5


--
If the information posted above helps then let me know.
If it doesn't more fool you for believing me.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

[NoNoBadDog!]

Windows Firewall is very very basic...better than nothing, but not much. I
would recommend Norton Personal Firewall over ZoneAlarm (Free or Pro). I
have used both, and find the Norton to be a much better firewall. If you
pick up Norton Internet Security, you have a very well rounded package that
gives you a very high degree of protection, a common interface for all of
its components, and the ability to automatically update all the modules.


Bobby

"Newbie" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
> Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will
> the
> built in option suffice?
>
>

[Will Denny]

Hi

The XP Firewall monitors incoming access from the Internet, but does not
monitor outgoing access to the Internet. May I suggest that you install a
3rd party 2-way Firewall, such as ZoneAlarm:

http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/information/zap/releaseHistory.html

Download the 4.5 version for the moment.

--

Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups


"Newbie" > wrote in message
...
| Hi,
|
| I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
| Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will
the
| built in option suffice?
|
|

[Dannie]

I happen to use the free Windows XP firewall AND also the free Sygate
firewall. I say "AND" because some will say you should not use two firewalls
at same time but I seem to have no problem.
Dannie

"Newbie" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
> Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will
the
> built in option suffice?
>
>

[Unknown]

The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
"Newbie" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
> Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will the
> built in option suffice?
>
>

[Kelly Cotter]

"Unknown" > wrote in message

> The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
> "Newbie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
>> enabled. Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal
>> Firewall, or will the built in option suffice?

no it's not
spyware/adware/trojans can all access the net with the windows "firewall"
you NEED a third party firewall that can alert and block outgoing traffic



--
If the information posted above helps then let me know.
If it doesn't more fool you for believing me.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

[Tom]

"Unknown" > wrote in message
...
> The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.

Really, in what way? Most would consider any user (Home user) some of the
least understanding of the PC and internet world. You tell others never to
use anti-virus software, only then to now say to use something that monitors
internet activity one way. If they have no anti-virus, then there is no way
for the user to tell if they attained a Trojan with the inadequate XP
built-in firewall, since that virus/Trojan can broadcast back out over the
net from their locations. You're giving really bad advice as one should have
at least have a firewall that is good in both directions.

Only an MS zealot like Carey Frisch would say that MS can totally take care
of your PC for you, don't fall into that claptrap spiel also.

[JAX]

Unknowns statement is true, if you don't mind some, inadvertently installed,
malware sending your personal information out to others!! Both incoming and
outgoing traffic need to be monitored for security. I use ZoneAlarm free
with no problems. I am prejudiced against Norton products but, that is up to
you.

FWIW, JAX

"Unknown" > wrote in message
...
> The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
> "Newbie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
enabled.
> > Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will
the
> > built in option suffice?
> >
> >
>

[The Unknown P]

Oh Kelly take a pill. The firewall that comes with XP is robust enough for any stand alone home user. If you don't believe me or anyone then go to an independent test site yourself and have a look. I have had the firewall enabled since the day I installed
XP over 2-1\2 yrs ago and have never been compromised. I now have XP SP2 RC2 installed and the firewall is better than ever. I simply don't see the need to waste anyones money when the one designed for and installed in XP works great. XP SP2 should be read
y for general release later this year and you will also get a pop-up blocker that is also adequate for the job. Have fun. {:~)
--
There are three types of people in computing, those that can count and those that can't.

[GrandpaTCAM]

Define 'Adequate'

"Unknown" > schreef in bericht
...
> The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
> "Newbie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
enabled.
> > Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will
the
> > built in option suffice?
> >
> >
>

[David Candy]

adequate

adequate ad=A2i=ADkwit or =ADkwat,=20
adjective sufficient; competent.=20
ad'equacy (=ADkwe=ADsi) noun.=20
ad'equately adverb.=20
ad'equateness noun.=20
ad'equative adjective.=20
[Latin adaequatus made equal, from ad to, and aequus equal]

(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant06132004.html
"GrandpaTCAM" > wrote in message =
...
> Define 'Adequate'
>=20
> "Unknown" > schreef in bericht
> ...
> > The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
> > "Newbie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
> enabled.
> > > Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, =
or will
> the
> > > built in option suffice?
> > >
> > >
> >
>=20
>

[Griff.carol]

Dear Newbie

Your built in option is a very basic firewall. You need the protection of Norton or
Mcafee to stay protected. Also make sure you have virus protection, as firewall and virus protection are two different things. Norton is brill for virus protection and you can do no better than install the free version of Zone Alarm for your firewall.

Hope this helps.

"Newbie" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall enabled.
> Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or will the
> built in option suffice?
>
>
>

[David Candy]

Why do you need Norton or McAfee to stay protected? What is wrong with =
basic firewalls.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant06132004.html
"Griff.carol" > wrote in message =
...
> Dear Newbie
>=20
> Your built in option is a very basic firewall. You need the =
protection of Norton or
> Mcafee to stay protected. Also make sure you have virus protection, =
as firewall and virus protection are two different things. Norton is =
brill for virus protection and you can do no better than install the =
free version of Zone Alarm for your firewall.
>=20
> Hope this helps.
>=20
> "Newbie" wrote:
>=20
> > Hi,
> >=20
> > I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall =
enabled.
> > Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or =
will the
> > built in option suffice?
> >=20
> >=20
> >

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Well, WinXP's built-in ICF is certainly better than nothing, but
it's no substitute for a real firewall.

WinXP's built-in firewall is _adequate_ at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. It doesn't give you any
alarms, or any other kind of indication, 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 IP-spoofing, 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 or
spyware'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 the commercially
available 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


"Newbie" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I am a single pc home user with a Win XP Pro OS with the Firewall
enabled.
> Should I get a third party Firewall eg Norton Personal Firewall, or
will the
> built in option suffice?
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

No, that's very wrong. WinXP's ICF is enough for an advanced
computer user who takes additional precautions, but it's no where near
good enough for the "average" home computer user.

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


"Unknown" > wrote in message
...
> The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.

[Unknown]

Hogwash. If you don't allow trash in, you needn't worry about what's going
out. Please don't use that 'outgoing is not checked' routine.
"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> No, that's very wrong. WinXP's ICF is enough for an advanced
> computer user who takes additional precautions, but it's no where near
> good enough for the "average" home computer user.
>
> 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
>
>
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
>
>

[JAX]

I think Bruce's key word there was, "AVERAGE". The average PC user has no
idea how to prevent malware from being loaded to their machines, other than
install 3rd party software to do it for them.

The "additional precautions" that Bruce refers to would be over the heads of
the vast majority of computer users. Their only interest in the machine is
that it works good enough to do e-mail, surf the net, and play games. They
have no knowledge of the computer itself.

Bruce is quite capable of defending his own statement but, I just wanted to
say, the "Hogwash" is coming from your direction.

IMNSHO, JAX

"Unknown" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Hogwash. If you don't allow trash in, you needn't worry about what's going
> out. Please don't use that 'outgoing is not checked' routine.
> "Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Greetings --
> >
> > No, that's very wrong. WinXP's ICF is enough for an advanced
> > computer user who takes additional precautions, but it's no where near
> > good enough for the "average" home computer user.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > "Unknown" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
> >
> >
>

[Unknown]

On the contrary, once the firewall is turned on the Average user need not
concern himself/herself
about the firewall again. IMNSHO you have a fear phobia as big as Bruces.
"JAX" > wrote in message
...
> I think Bruce's key word there was, "AVERAGE". The average PC user has no
> idea how to prevent malware from being loaded to their machines, other than
> install 3rd party software to do it for them.
>
> The "additional precautions" that Bruce refers to would be over the heads of
> the vast majority of computer users. Their only interest in the machine is
> that it works good enough to do e-mail, surf the net, and play games. They
> have no knowledge of the computer itself.
>
> Bruce is quite capable of defending his own statement but, I just wanted to
> say, the "Hogwash" is coming from your direction.
>
> IMNSHO, JAX
>
> "Unknown" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> > Hogwash. If you don't allow trash in, you needn't worry about what's going
> > out. Please don't use that 'outgoing is not checked' routine.
> > "Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Greetings --
> > >
> > > No, that's very wrong. WinXP's ICF is enough for an advanced
> > > computer user who takes additional precautions, but it's no where near
> > > good enough for the "average" home computer user.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > "Unknown" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The XP firewall is more than adequate for any home user.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[JAX]

You are missing the point here. That is, what the "average" user needs. They
are not computer enthusiasts and need someone/something to look out for
their best interests. Anyway, what harm would it do to install a more
effective firewall, especially if it's free?

JAX

"Unknown" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> On the contrary, once the firewall is turned on the Average user need not
> concern himself/herself
> about the firewall again. IMNSHO you have a fear phobia as big as Bruces.
> "JAX" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think Bruce's key word there was, "AVERAGE". The average PC user has
no
> > idea how to prevent malware from being loaded to their machines, other
than
> > install 3rd party software to do it for them.
> >
> > The "additional precautions" that Bruce refers to would be over the
heads of
> > the vast majority of computer users. Their only interest in the machine
is
> > that it works good enough to do e-mail, surf the net, and play games.
They
> > have no knowledge of the computer itself.
> >
> > Bruce is quite capable of defending his own statement but, I just wanted
to
> > say, the "Hogwash" is coming from your direction.
> >
> > IMNSHO, JAX

[Don J]

I've been screwed by Symantec on 'Internet Security'. I've had a number of
Windows XP crashes which has forced me to reinstall 'Internet Security' a
number of times. On about the 4th reinstallation I found that when I had
completed the installation and had hit the button to register, Symantec
apparently kept track of a count of the number of times it had been
installed. I was no longer able to use it! There is nothing in the
literature that tells you that this is going to happen, so it came as a big
surprise.

Windows XP apparently does the same thing. However, unlike Symantec they do
tell you about it. I've reinstalled XP several dozen times, and never had a
problem. Microsoft tells you that they generate a record the first time you
register of the parameters of your system, and will let you proceed if,
subsequently, things don't change. Once when I had bought a new PC I didn't
even have a problem Microsoft tells you that if you do get a new PC they
will let you reinstall once.

I called Symantec on the problem. It was clear that they didn't believe
that my system had crashed multiple times. I called a second time and was
told that I had stolen the software. Guess what, I will never purchase
another Symantec product again!

[Husky]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:28:39 -0400, "Don J" > wrote:


Pass this on to them. I just got a complete new machine with XP pro.
I was crashing left and right till I removed the modem and put a working one
in.
Though I can't say it required me to reinstall anything but a different modem.
This was on a 1 day old machine.

>I've been screwed by Symantec on 'Internet Security'. I've had a number of
>Windows XP crashes which has forced me to reinstall 'Internet Security' a
>number of times. On about the 4th reinstallation I found that when I had
>completed the installation and had hit the button to register, Symantec
>apparently kept track of a count of the number of times it had been
>installed. I was no longer able to use it! There is nothing in the
>literature that tells you that this is going to happen, so it came as a big
>surprise.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html