Windows Firewall and Routers

Is it true that if you have a router with Windows firewall you have a pseudo
firewall built in to your system? I heard that the router itself acts as a
firewall. But I don't know if this is true. Educate me?

go to start/run, and type:
CMD
At that prompt, type:
IPCONFIG
note the "Default Gateway" address

It may be http://192.168.0.1 , (and if it is, clicking this link will open
your router software, and let you see your firewall settings.) If you don't
know the id/pass you need, Google for that router's default id/pass.
(admin/admin?)

--
Mark L. Ferguson
..
"Umma Gumma" wrote in message
...
Is it true that if you have a router with Windows firewall you have a
pseudo firewall built in to your system? I heard that the router itself
acts as a firewall. But I don't know if this is true. Educate me?

Umma Gumma wrote:
Is it true that if you have a router with Windows firewall you have a pseudo
firewall built in to your system?

Well, yes, in a manner of speaking. The built-in WinXp "firewall" is
sort of a pseudo-firewall; the router has nothing to do with that.

I heard that the router itself acts as a
firewall. But I don't know if this is true. Educate me?




If you use a router with NAT, it's still a very good idea to use a
3rd party software firewall. Like WinXP's built-in firewall,
NAT-capable routers do nothing to protect the user from him/herself (or
any "curious," over-confident teenagers in the home). Again -- and I
cannot emphasize this enough -- almost all spyware and many Trojans and
worms are downloaded and installed deliberately (albeit unknowingly) by
the user. So a software firewall, such as Sygate or ZoneAlarm, that can
detect and warn the user of unauthorized out-going traffic is an
important element of protecting one's privacy and security, alerting you
to an unwanted malware application's activity. (Remember: Most antivirus
applications do not even scan for or protect you from adware/spyware,
because, after all, you've installed them yourself, so you must want
them there, right?)

I use both a router with NAT and Sygate Personal Firewall, even
though I generally know better than to install scumware. When it
comes to computer security and protecting my privacy, I prefer the old
"belt and suspenders" approach. In the professional IT community,
this is also known as a "layered defense." Basically, it comes down
to never, ever "putting all of your eggs in one basket."


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

"Mark L. Ferguson" wrote in message
...
go to start/run, and type:
CMD
At that prompt, type:
IPCONFIG
note the "Default Gateway" address

It may be http://192.168.0.1 , (and if it is, clicking this link will open
your router software, and let you see your firewall settings.) If you
don't know the id/pass you need, Google for that router's default id/pass.
(admin/admin?)

--
Mark L. Ferguson
.

Thanks Mark. Been there, done that. Repeatedly. I give it admin/admin for
password. Or blank. Whatever. It won't let me in!

"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...
Umma Gumma wrote:
Is it true that if you have a router with Windows firewall you have a
pseudo firewall built in to your system?
..snip.

If you use a router with NAT, it's still a very good idea to use a 3rd
party software firewall. Like WinXP's built-in firewall, NAT-capable
routers do nothing to protect the user from him/herself (or any "curious,"
over-confident teenagers in the home). Again -- and I cannot emphasize
this enough -- almost all spyware and many Trojans and worms are
downloaded and installed deliberately (albeit unknowingly) by the user.
So a software firewall, such as Sygate or ZoneAlarm, that can detect and
warn the user of unauthorized out-going traffic is an important element of
protecting one's privacy and security, alerting you to an unwanted malware
application's activity. (Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even
scan for or protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

I use both a router with NAT and Sygate Personal Firewall, even
though I generally know better than to install scumware. When it
comes to computer security and protecting my privacy, I prefer the old
"belt and suspenders" approach. In the professional IT community,
this is also known as a "layered defense." Basically, it comes down
to never, ever "putting all of your eggs in one basket."


--

Bruce Chambers

Thanks Bruce. I do use XP's firewall plus F-Secure. It's rebranded by my ISP
as Shaw Secure. Works.

I DID lower all firewalls and such when I was trying to establish a home
network (still working on that one). And you know what? In the space of ten
minutes they got in. I'm under a constant barrage of the stuff. I think it's
because I'm on cable and my IP is static.

Umma Gumma wrote:
"Mark L. Ferguson" wrote in message
...
go to start/run, and type:
CMD
At that prompt, type:
IPCONFIG
note the "Default Gateway" address

It may be http://192.168.0.1 , (and if it is, clicking this link
will open your router software, and let you see your firewall
settings.) If you don't know the id/pass you need, Google for that
router's default id/pass. (admin/admin?)

--
Mark L. Ferguson
.

Thanks Mark. Been there, done that. Repeatedly. I give it admin/admin
for password. Or blank. Whatever. It won't let me in!

On mine, it's blank, then admin.

What is the make and model of your router?

"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or protect you
from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've installed them yourself,
so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications such as
AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate action.

Kayman wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or
protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate
action.

Wrong.

The free version of AntiVir (and most other antiviruses, AFAIK) do *not*
scan for spyware/adware. See:

http://www.free-av.com/antivirclassic/index.html

"Daave" wrote in message
...
Kayman wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or
protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate
action.

Wrong.

The free version of AntiVir (and most other antiviruses, AFAIK) do *not*
scan for spyware/adware. See:

Courtesy Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

Q: Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the other
ones?
A: Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability to
scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than some of
the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even Trend Micro in
some packages, are among the most *inefficient* applications out there,
whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings are among the most efficient.
After that, it's a question of the definitions used, and whether or not
they're free has absolutely no bearing on those stats.
--
Understand, many of the best offerings are offered to home users for free by
huge companies that make their money serving business and industry clients,
and their logic is that the more home machines they can get protected,
preventing them from becoming zombies that distribute malware, the better
off business and industry are.

Kayman wrote:
"Daave" wrote in message
...
Kayman wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or
protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate
action.

Wrong.

The free version of AntiVir (and most other antiviruses, AFAIK) do
*not* scan for spyware/adware. See:

Courtesy Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

Q: Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the
other ones?
A: Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability
to scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than
some of the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even
Trend Micro in some packages, are among the most *inefficient*
applications out there, whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings
are among the most efficient. After that, it's a question of the
definitions used, and whether or not they're free has absolutely no
bearing on those stats.

So? That doesn't contradict what Bruce wrote at all. Gary's talking
about viruses, and Bruce is talking about spyware and adware.

"Daave" wrote in message
...
Kayman wrote:
"Daave" wrote in message
...
Kayman wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or
protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate
action.

Wrong.

The free version of AntiVir (and most other antiviruses, AFAIK) do
*not* scan for spyware/adware. See:

Courtesy Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

Q: Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the
other ones?
A: Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability
to scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than
some of the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even
Trend Micro in some packages, are among the most *inefficient*
applications out there, whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings
are among the most efficient. After that, it's a question of the
definitions used, and whether or not they're free has absolutely no
bearing on those stats.

So? That doesn't contradict what Bruce wrote at all. Gary's talking
about viruses, and Bruce is talking about spyware and adware.

Of course

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:48:00 -0400, "Daave"
wrote:

Kayman wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...

(Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or
protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate
action.

Wrong.

The free version of AntiVir (and most other antiviruses, AFAIK) do *not*
scan for spyware/adware. See:

http://www.free-av.com/antivirclassic/index.html

I use the free Avast , and twice it`s told me of suspicious newsgroup
articles which I`ve then deleted before they get to my newsreader .
Jim

Kayman wrote:


Nonsense. If you 'force-install' malware even (free) AV applications
such as AntiVir or AOL's AVS will detect and prompt for appropriate action.


News Flash:

Not all malware is of the "virus" variety, so anti-virus applications
are useless against much of it.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Kayman wrote:

Courtesy Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

Q: Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the other
ones?
A: Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability to
scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than some of
the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even Trend
Micro in
some packages, are among the most *inefficient* applications out there,
whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings are among the most efficient.
After that, it's a question of the definitions used, and whether or not
they're free has absolutely no bearing on those stats.


You do realize that that passage isn't even relevant, don't you? Not
all malware is of the "virus" variety.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:55:09 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:48:00 -0400, "Daave"
wrote:

I use the free Avast , and twice it`s told me of suspicious newsgroup
articles which I`ve then deleted before they get to my newsreader .


If you read all messages as plain text, and refrain from opening any
attachments they contain, all messages are safe. It's only html and
attachments that can be dangerous.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup