| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 36580 | 2003-08-13 12:05:00 | Windows XP Firewall v Zone Alarm Free Edition | Smurf (506) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 167519 | 2003-08-13 12:05:00 | Given the reply to my previous question re the free edition of Zone Alarms and installing on a laptop, can anyone tell me about the merits of the built in firewall in Windows XP as opposed to an external firewall such as Zone Alarm. Given the vulnerability of XP to the virus W32.Blaster.Worm (which incidently infected my computer, the time is even more crucial to take added precautions such as installing a firewall as well as keeping virus definitions current. Comments please? |
Smurf (506) | ||
| 167520 | 2003-08-13 12:18:00 | Kerio Personal Firewall (free) seems very good and user friendly. The in-built XP one is one way only (in) whereas the others monitor in and out. Just don't have both active at the same time as they can negate each other and be equivalent to none. Ignore the "laptop" issue, if you are not connecting to different network domains (large company networks) then its simply no different to any home PC. There is nothing special or different about a laptop apart from the portability. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 167521 | 2003-08-13 12:20:00 | Zone Alarm is quite good, but also have the Win Xp one on, personally i'd use Norton Internet Security. cheers, v.K |
vk_dre (195) | ||
| 167522 | 2003-08-13 12:22:00 | > Just don't have both > active at the same time as they can negate each other > and be equivalent to none. Really? Damn. i alwas thought that it was better to run both Norton and the Win Xp one....oh well, seems i was wrong. |
vk_dre (195) | ||
| 167523 | 2003-08-13 12:37:00 | If the writers of each firewall program have allowed that their product will "share" control, then thats fine. However I doubt that they have. When two programs are competing to control the same device, someone must lose. Sometimes it may be possible then that both will lose. At the best the first loaded has absolute control, and the second one should have nothing to do. A single properly configured firewall should be adequate. In my case I hide behind a NAT router, which is usually adequate. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 167524 | 2003-08-13 21:18:00 | Thanks for the replies. Godfather, I will take your advice and go for a free edition of a firewall on my laptop wich I will primarily be using from home. | Smurf (506) | ||
| 167525 | 2003-08-13 21:34:00 | IMO go with Kerio, Outpost or Zone Alarm in that order. As GF says you want inward as well as outward monitoring and blocking of, both ports and applications. I prefer Kerio because it has caused me the least issues in setting up and is flexible. Personal experience taught me that ZA and Outpost do not get on together. Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 167526 | 2003-08-13 21:50:00 | > Just don't have both active at the same time as they can negate each other and be equivalent to none . Not true Godfather . I run Kerio and until fairly recently also had the Win XP one running as well and tests showed that my firewall/s was working . I agree that running two could mean that one (Win XP?) may "have nothing to do" but there is no issue of conflict where they would spit the dummy like usually happens if you try to run two anti-virus programs at the same time . I turned off my Win XP firewall because I could not receive files through IM until it was disabled . Otherwise there was no harm done in leaving it on . |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 167527 | 2003-08-13 22:11:00 | You may have greater chances of success with the in-built XP one as its actually integrated with Windows itself, true . But why would you want to? Can you provide any proof that they will not interact when both trying to block the same port? You are unlikely to know about it until its too late . Its not a risk I would want to take when I do not have to, software is flakey enough without having such issues added to the mix . One uses the assumption here that each program writer based their code on their program being the only one accessing the port controls . |
godfather (25) | ||
| 167528 | 2003-08-13 22:19:00 | I recently read an article where a group of hobbyists tested under a similar situation, in a bid to see if more then one firewall actually helped or hindered, in most cases as soon as 2 were installed leaks were found with their testing programs. Fraid i have no idea what the site was so i can't post a link for verification, so dismiss it as you see fit :D Although i do remember winxp inbuilt firewall was not part of the test, Seems they quite rightly gave it the respect it deserves...and pretended it didn’t exist |
metla (154) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||