Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 76706	2007-02-13 04:51:00	NOD32 and compatible free Firewall	Gordon62 (11771)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
524376	2007-02-15 06:04:00	Thanks for all the feedback. I have installed Comodo and it is doing the job well and no conflicts with NOD32. As I mentioned in a previous post I still have trouble with some programmes not starting automatically (taskbar or toolbar I'm not sure about). Normally in the right hand bottom of the screen those programmes that would normally start automatically by customising them via the Taskbar & start Menu Properties such as Comodo, NOD32 etc. refuse to obey no matter what I do. Using the customise, "always display"/OK/Apply does not solve the problem when I restart. Any advice would be appreciated. BTW I have a suspicion that this may have occurred after a M/S update and it seemed just too much of a coincidence. The update I believe was to IE7 but I can't see how this would have affected the ability to configure startup programmes?	Gordon62 (11771)
524377	2007-02-15 06:16:00	So, what programs are you talking about? If u can post a screenshot of your desktop / these programs upload it here (http://imagef1.net.nz/)	Speedy Gonzales (78)
524378	2007-02-15 06:21:00	What Speedy said is misleading, a program sending packets will need a response to establish a connection which is when the basic windows firewall can alert you. As i said a good AV program like NOD32 is essential for windows and it makes a firewall redundant in terms of protection. The only point i was trying to make is that firewalls dont offer any protection that your router and AV dont already give you i.e they are worthless. And i was laughing at the comment by Foxy because it was ridiculous. I ran Zonealarm to see what it reports as a test for a fews days and its logfile showed dozens of apparently denied attempts to gain access to my system. It was running behind a smoothwall linux box so it was really a load of rubbish, probably just internal MS processes listening on various ports for connections.	dolphinJuice (11882)
524379	2007-02-15 06:48:00	What Speedy said is misleading, a program sending packets will need a response to establish a connection which is when the basic windows firewall can alert you. Since u think u know more than most of us, tell us or give us a link saying the Windows XP firewall can BLOCK outgoing connections, to prove us wrong. As i said a good AV program like NOD32 is essential for windows and it makes a firewall redundant in terms of protection Wrong, it doesnt matter if u have just an AV program. I bet you'll get hit by something without a firewall of some kind. Read some of the posts here with hijackthis logs. The ones with no mention of a firewall in them. Most of them were infected, because they didn't have a firewall, or they couldn't be bothered keeping windows up to date. Give up, while u can.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
524380	2007-02-15 07:07:00	The update I believe was to IE7 but I can't see how this would have affected the ability to configure startup programmes? Unfortunately MS have deemed that IE is essential to the orderly [sic] behaviour of Windows, i.e. they have given a mere application, and one that accesses the net on a regular basis at that, the ability and authority to do tasks that would ordinarily be given to the OS itself to do. What this has done to enhance the misery of computer users all over the world does not bear thinking of. Have you looked in the programmes options/preferences rather than via the System Tray? If that doesn't work, odds are even more favourable that it's a Windows (& poss it's buddy IE) issue, not an app issue.	Murray P (44)
524381	2007-02-15 08:01:00	The only point i was trying to make is that firewalls dont offer any protection that your router and AV dont already give you i . e they are worthless . And i was laughing at the comment by Foxy because it was ridiculous . I ran Zonealarm to see what it reports as a test for a fews days and its logfile showed dozens of apparently denied attempts to gain access to my system . It was running behind a smoothwall linux box so it was really a load of rubbish, probably just internal MS processes listening on various ports for connections . A NAT router is not a firewall . Smoothwall does have that capability as it's name suggests, but why were you using Smoothwall with it's firewall capabilities configured if you don't believe in firewalls? Seem to me that that's a bit peculiar, why not test ZA with only your NAT router between you and the net? Anyway, once again your logic [sic] is flawed . One instance (using a firewall many wouldn't touch with a barge pole, I might add . See what I did there, heh heh!) does not make for irrefutable evidence, just as seeing one black swan does not prove all swans are black (but it certainly proves that not all swans are white) . Given those pearls of wisdom, perhaps you're not as good at configuring Smoothwall as you think you are orrrr, perhaps Smoothwall is not as good as you think it is . Damn, there's a quandary, which one, you or Smoothwall? Hang on though, before you get too comfortable, perhaps you don't know anything about firewalls and thus botched the configuration of ZA . Enjoy .	Murray P (44)
524382	2007-02-15 08:48:00	The only point i was trying to make is that firewalls dont offer any protection that your router and AV dont already give you i . e they are worthless . And i was laughing at the comment by Foxy because it was ridiculous . I ran Zonealarm to see what it reports as a test for a fews days and its logfile showed dozens of apparently denied attempts to gain access to my system . It was running behind a smoothwall linux box so it was really a load of rubbish, probably just internal MS processes listening on various ports for connections . A NAT router is not a firewall . Smoothwall does have that capability as it's name suggests, but why were you using Smoothwall with it's firewall capabilities configured if you don't believe in firewalls? Seem to me that that's a bit peculiar, why not test ZA with only your NAT router between you and the net? Anyway, once again your logic [sic] is flawed . One instance (using a firewall many wouldn't touch with a barge pole, I might add . See what I did there, heh heh!) does not make for irrefutable evidence, just as seeing one black swan does not prove all swans are black (but it certainly proves that not all swans are white) . Given those pearls of wisdom, perhaps you're not as good at configuring Smoothwall as you think you are orrrr, perhaps Smoothwall is not as good as you think it is . Damn, there's a quandary, which one, you or Smoothwall? Hang on though, before you get too comfortable, perhaps you don't know anything about firewalls and thus botched the configuration of ZA . Enjoy .	Murray P (44)
524383	2007-02-15 08:49:00	Christonabike, haven't managed a double in a while. :D	Murray P (44)
524384	2007-02-15 09:04:00	Well done Murray, that's a really rare feat these days, especially when the posts are 47 mins apart. :p	FoxyMX (5)
524385	2007-02-15 09:45:00	A NAT router is not a firewall . Yes and most NAT routers have separate firewall functionality built in dont they?? :groan: Smoothwall does have that capability as it's name suggests, but why were you using Smoothwall with it's firewall capabilities configured if you don't believe in firewalls? Seem to me that that's a bit peculiar, why not test ZA with only your NAT router between you and the net? I used to use Smoothwall to do my all my NAT and act as a firewall as a personal preference because my modem/router it was getting overloaded with too many concurrent connections with bittorrent . Now im using a modem in halfbridge mode with a separate router . A linux box acting as a firewall is a hardware firewall, can use smoothwall, pfsense, monowall whatever takes your fancy . Anyway from your comments its pretty clear to me you dont know what you are on about .	dolphinJuice (11882)
1 2 3 4 5