Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 61278	2005-08-30 13:23:00	What is the best firewall(software)	Bazman (6587)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
384858	2005-09-01 13:06:00	I personally would rather not accept the disk from a friend without scanning it first for viruses. I use NAT at home and thats all. I setup my Grandfathers laptop with ZoneAlarm but it just slowed the machine down far too much. Back to the standard SP2 Firewall and he's happy. Ive got him setup with Anti-Spyware and Avast4Home edition so that does enough :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
384859	2005-09-01 22:56:00	Quote: If your a Home user with XP, then the built in firewall with SP2 is actually not bad (ie built in stealth, won’t reply to pings etc), and won't annoy you every 6 seconds . XPs firewall is a joke and everybody knows that . It only stops incoming threats not outgoing . So you could get a disk from a friend etc,Which has stuff on it and then it can communicate back to the internet and you would be stuffed as the XP firewall wont stop it as it only works one way (incomeing only,not outgoing) . You could go to a lan and get infected as well and be stuffed as well . A half pie job done yet again from Microsoft . :groan: Next You will say IE is the best . :yuck: Zone Alarm rocks,its free with free updates, its got stealth mode,incoming and outgoing protection . I would have thought anybody would wont to know whats happening to their computer . Better to be alerted then not know,and then wonder whats happened to their computer afterwards when its to late . Woa woa woa your sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong . SP2 buddy . Before SP2 the built in firewall was useless I agree . After SP2 it queries you if you choose to let an application (or something nasty) access the internet . After Sp2 the built in firewall became decent (not the best didn't say that) . You can also configure port forwards and exceptions etc for the more advanced user . For the AVERAGE HOME user the SP2 firewall is more than enough, and is fairly idiot proof . Your wrong wrong wrong wrong Did I mention you are wrong? And by the way, your meant to be running a virus scanner to protect you from those nasty infected disks . A good virus scanner and the SP2 firewall is more than enough for the home user . I agree with the guy that posted above, ZA is a performance killer, uninstall it for a few weeks then re-install it you will see what I mean, you've gotten use to a piggy machine .	Battleneter (60)
384860	2005-09-02 01:00:00	After SP2 it queries you if you choose to let an application (or something nasty) access the internet . notice how the xp firewall dosn't ask for access for ALL aplications?? thats what makes it pointless and useless . For the AVERAGE HOME user the SP2 firewall is more than enough, and is fairly idiot proof . not really . if it dosn't ask for all programs then its simply not enough . i see heaps of infected pc's with sp2 firewall on and it dosn't stop infections accessing the net . its not idiot proof . . . . . its just DUMB ! in typical MS style they simply dumb down the sicurity to make it "easy to use" . ie favour ease of use over sicurity which is why we get so many infected pc's . frankly if they can't use ZA free then they shouldn't be useing a pc! there are other firewalls which are less hoggy but i've yet to see any that are simple to use . eg try alterting a program access setting in nortons sicurity or mcafee sicurity . . . . . arghhhh!	tweak'e (69)
384861	2005-09-02 01:01:00	ZA has no performance hit on a modern machine. Windows Firewall is a pos, only useful if the intended user has no hope in hell of dealing with a real one.	Metla (12)
384862	2005-09-02 01:15:00	ZA has no performance hit on a modern machine . Windows Firewall is a pos, only useful if the intended user has no hope in hell of dealing with a real one . I have a AMD 64 3700+ with 2 gig of ram, last time I gave ZA (6 . ?) a run I noticed it . Client machines that come in I notice it . General lag with O/S and internet operations still . I have seen many programs improve substantially over time and have tested/tried ZA on many occasions over the years . ZA has stability issues on many machines, I personally haven’t had that prob but I have had friends and clients have definite issues . AND my pet hate of all with ZA, when you disable it you would expect it to be disabled but no . I have seen guys at lans spend an hour plus pissing around trying to get there machine on workgroups AFTER disabling it . After an uninstall of ZA connectivity happens, usually followed by a lot of swearing lol . . . . . . and then "I told u so" .	Battleneter (60)
384863	2005-09-02 01:17:00	notice how the xp firewall dosn't ask for access for ALL aplications?? thats what makes it pointless and useless . not really . if it dosn't ask for all programs then its simply not enough . i see heaps of infected pc's with sp2 firewall on and it dosn't stop infections accessing the net . its not idiot proof . . . . . its just DUMB ! in typical MS style they simply dumb down the sicurity to make it "easy to use" . ie favour ease of use over sicurity which is why we get so many infected pc's . frankly if they can't use ZA free then they shouldn't be useing a pc! there are other firewalls which are less hoggy but i've yet to see any that are simple to use . eg try alterting a program access setting in nortons sicurity or mcafee sicurity . . . . . arghhhh! Seriously you are forgetting about the role of a virus scanner in your arguement . No it doesn't ask about every program and it doesn't need to! if you think about it carefully .	Battleneter (60)
384864	2005-09-02 01:23:00	I have seen guys at lans spend an hour plus pissing around trying to get there machine on workgroups AFTER disabling it . idiots! ANY decent firewall when disabled IS MENT TO DISABLE NET/NETWORKING ! ! thats built in by design . if a nasty program tries to disable it, it only lets through what programs already have permision or if damaged to much stops all networking to stop it spreading . the same goes for most progs that use LSP, spyware included . you break it your net connection dies . Seriously you are forgetting about the role of a virus scanner in your arguement . No it doesn't ask about every program and it doesn't need to! if you think about it carefully . virus scanner makes no difference . not all programs aka spyware are nasty . for eg MS firewall (by memory) will let keyboard driver access the net costing you a fair few $$$ in bandwidth . antivirus won't flag it . the only "thing" that can decide what SHOULD access the net is the person useing the pc . no program can decide that for them .	tweak'e (69)
384865	2005-09-02 01:33:00	idiots ! ANY decent firewall when disabled IS MENT TO DISABLE NET/NETWORKING ! ! thats built in by design . if a nasty program tries to disable it, it only lets through what programs already have permision or if damaged to much stops all networking to stop it spreading . the same goes for most progs that use LSP, spyware included . you break it your net connection dies . Well yes, but read what I said . Your talking about an attack that has nothing to do with the price of fish . I mean they manually dissabled ZA with there logon . Other firewalls dissable/turn off fully why doesn't ZA? at least not always . At the end of the day, I am guessing I know 50+ (i really can't say) Home users that run Virus protection and the SP2 firewall that are happy and don't have problems . A real Hacker will get throught the SP2 firewall BUT a REAL hacker is not interested in "Mr Smiths" home PC, he has better things to be doing . A home user wants to try and stop the 14 year old freakers that use trojans and keylogger that they trade on P2P networks etc, and SP2 and virus protection with security updates is more than enough to do that . There is a lot of fear and miss-information spread by third party firewall developers . Unfortenately for them MS have built in a reasonable firewall for the home user with SP2 .	Battleneter (60)
384866	2005-09-02 01:46:00	are you talking about running the GUI or actually disableing the actual firewall? disabing the firewall (there is no option to do it as it always runs which is the same with most firewalls) is concidered an attack even if its the user doing it delibirately. if they want to disable it they need to uninstall it and even then it should ask if its the user doing it or a program uninstalling it (it checks to see if a program is controlling keyboard and mouse drivers when you click yes to uninstall it)	tweak'e (69)
384867	2005-09-02 01:56:00	A real Hacker will get throught the SP2 firewall BUT a REAL hacker is not interested in "Mr Smiths" home PC, he has better things to be doing. A home user wants to try and stop the 14 year old freakers that use trojans and keylogger that they trade on P2P networks etc, and SP2 and virus protection with security updates is more than enough to do that. LOL home pc's are a very comman target by hackers. not so much to actually hack but to "infect" so they have somebody to hide behind. makes the real hacking harder to trace. the trojens/keyloggers will go straight through MS firewall along with passwords etc and the user will never know about it. antivirus MIGHT pick it up but decent firewall will stop it provided the user is not a village idiot and let it straight through. the user can then use other tools such as AV to find it and kill it. if its a newish one it may be a few days before the AV company releases the defs to detect it. at least its contained on the pc, not sending back onfo or infecting others. MS firewall is a case of "ignorance is bliss"	tweak'e (69)
1 2 3 4