so-called updates

glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s), they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember
anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s),
they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications
that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think
that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of
the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just
poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/

"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember
anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s),
they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications
that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think
that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of
the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just
poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/

glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s), they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications
that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.

You are right - it is part of a business firewall.

But I have heard some disparage NAT routers as insufficient (even with
NO DMZ). I've actually got a modem that supplies 1 NAT and the router
another!

glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s), they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications
that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.

You are right - it is part of a business firewall.

But I have heard some disparage NAT routers as insufficient (even with
NO DMZ). I've actually got a modem that supplies 1 NAT and the router
another!

"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember
anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s),
they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but
applications
that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think
that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you
say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with
some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of
the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just
poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit
runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you
DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware
appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for
a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.

You are right - it is part of a business firewall.

But I have heard some disparage NAT routers as insufficient (even with
NO DMZ). I've actually got a modem that supplies 1 NAT and the router
another!

NAT routers work fine. Routers with SPI are even better. In lieu of an
appliance like yours, a software firewall (even a simple one like the
Windows firewall) should be run...there are those who will insist the
firewall is a waste of time, just as there will be those who will insist
a NAT router is no help.

No matter what you use, malware can find its way through, and it only
takes one user clicking the wrong thing and allowing something to run,
to make it all superfluous. That's where updates to patch
vulnerabilities can help. Not installing security updates is just not a
good idea. Reviewing the history of exploits that brought down
unpatched servers should show you that security updates are as important
as your hardware firewall.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/

"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
glee wrote:
"Rick Merrill" wrote in message
...
Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
On 01-03-10 20:28, Unknown wrote:
You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember
anyone
having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s),
they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own
firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update
problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but
applications
that
need unsafe access.

"Rick wrote in message
...
Unknown wrote:
Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.


For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think
that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you
say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with
some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of
the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just
poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit
runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you
DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware
appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for
a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.

You are right - it is part of a business firewall.

But I have heard some disparage NAT routers as insufficient (even with
NO DMZ). I've actually got a modem that supplies 1 NAT and the router
another!

NAT routers work fine. Routers with SPI are even better. In lieu of an
appliance like yours, a software firewall (even a simple one like the
Windows firewall) should be run...there are those who will insist the
firewall is a waste of time, just as there will be those who will insist
a NAT router is no help.

No matter what you use, malware can find its way through, and it only
takes one user clicking the wrong thing and allowing something to run,
to make it all superfluous. That's where updates to patch
vulnerabilities can help. Not installing security updates is just not a
good idea. Reviewing the history of exploits that brought down
unpatched servers should show you that security updates are as important
as your hardware firewall.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/