XP Firewall

William B. Lurie wrote:
I see some flak about what the XP Firewall does and doesn't do.
How about a reference from our MVPs as to what it is supposed
to do, and what evidence it gives that it is actually doing
anything? I've had mine "on" for a couple of months, and it
gives no evidence that it is doing anything. Maybe that's
really good! A program that just does its thing and doesn't
brag about it.


WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
do, is give you any kind of alerts or other indication that it's working
or has blocked any attempted intrusions. It also does not 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 Windows Firewall 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.

Description of a Personal Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;321050

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

Bruce Chambers wrote:
William B. Lurie wrote:

I see some flak about what the XP Firewall does and doesn't do.
How about a reference from our MVPs as to what it is supposed
to do, and what evidence it gives that it is actually doing
anything? I've had mine "on" for a couple of months, and it
gives no evidence that it is doing anything. Maybe that's
really good! A program that just does its thing and doesn't
brag about it.



WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
do, is give you any kind of alerts or other indication that it's working
or has blocked any attempted intrusions. It also does not 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 Windows Firewall 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.

Description of a Personal Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;321050

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.


Thank you, Bruce. I appreciate the informative response.

Bill

"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...
| When you install the latest version of ZoneAlarm it will automatically
shut
| down the SP2 firewall. This, when you think about it is a bit scary. If
| ZoneAlarm can do it, why not some form of spywear. Another reason to dump
| the Windows XP firewall.
|
| --
| Regards,
|
| Richard Urban
|
| aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
|
|

"Spywear"--is that a trenchcoat and dark glasses?

Thanks for the tips.


"Stan" wrote in message
...
Mike,

I will be getting my first XP system soon. From your post I understand
that
I should leave XP firewall on for the fist internet visit until I get Zone
Alarm, etc. d/led. After ZA is in place I should disable XP firewall?


"Mike Hall" wrote in message
...
William

There is nothing better than the feeling of being 'needed'.. thanks for
the
vote of confidence in all of the people that come here to help that are
NOT
MVPs..

There seems to be little point in me telling you that the XP firewall
exists
primarily to protect the OS on its first visit to the internet, such
that
it
can be updated without fear of being attacked within the first few
seconds..
that if MS attempted to place a fully fledged firewall into XP that they
would be flooded with lawsuits.. that MS also recommend use of a third
party
software firewall..

.. And there is no point in me telling you to do a Google search for
free
software firewalls and what they offer over and above the SP2 offering
either, because I am not an MVP..

Happy New Year to ya..

Mike Hall




"William B. Lurie" wrote in message
...
I see some flak about what the XP Firewall does and doesn't do.
How about a reference from our MVPs as to what it is supposed
to do, and what evidence it gives that it is actually doing
anything? I've had mine "on" for a couple of months, and it
gives no evidence that it is doing anything. Maybe that's
really good! A program that just does its thing and doesn't
brag about it.
--
William B. Lurie

William B. Lurie wrote:

Thank you, Bruce. I appreciate the informative response.

Bill



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