OT/Thoughts On This...

On Apr 19, 8:28*am, RnR wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:57:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:09*am, RnR wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
here is the consensus...if you use this utilityhttp://seconfig.sytes.net/
and the Windows XP firewall (yes, even the one-way) or Vista firewall,
and a real-time anti-virus...you will have as much security as
necessary in a Windows/Network environment.

Forgot to mention that someone like Steve Gibson (grc.com) may not
approve because he says if you block ports it's advertising there is
something out there to attack and prefers shielding. *This is not my
opinion but supposedly Steve Gibson is one of the firewall gurus.

Steve has many believers...and detractors!
http://web.archive.org/web/200706220....grcsucks.com/

There, something we both agree on !!!

Actually, your security notions are close to mine!

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 07:21:58 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
RnR typed on Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:06:47 -0500:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 18, 3:14 pm, Ben Myers wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:18 am, "William R. Walsh"
wrote:
Hi!

There's nothing wrong with the Windows firewall. It got quite an
improvement in Windows XP Service Pack 2 and later, and does have
some capability to block applications that are trying to provide
externally available services over TCP/IP.

Turning off unnecessary services is always a good idea since the
ones that aren't running can't cause security problems.

And of course, computer security is always more of a journey than
a destination.

This utility could be interesting, and very practical if it
performs as advertised. I think it could be very useful to anyone
still on versions of Windows prior to XP that don't include any
firewall built in.

William

I thought XP didn't have a Windows firewall with original release
and SP1?

AFAIK, the firewall in Windows XP remains a one-way firewall,
blocking only attempts by outsiders to get into a computer. There
are far better software firewalls that also monitor attempts by
software in a computer to access the big, bad outside world. These
firewalls are higher maintentance in the sense that you need to tell
them that it is OK for certain programs to access the internet. Once
you've said a program is OK, the firewall does not bother you about
it again, until maybe it gets an update. Many people do not like
being prompted by their firewall to approve a program going onto the
internet, and, I am sure that the Microsoft dumbed-down approach to
firewalls fits their perception of a marketplace full of ignorant
computer owners. But, hey, why not do a real two-way firewall
pre-initialized to monitor only inbound traffic?

Then a more astute computer user can enable the monitoring of the
outbound traffic too. As far as I am concerned the weak Microsoft XP
firewall is an intellectually bankrupt effort that does not address
security concerns adequately, and these are security concerns
created by Microsoft's swiss cheese approach to computer security...
Ben Myers

Alas...you procrastinate. Any comments on OP or XP having a FW with
SP1?

To my knowledge, Ben is correct and I agree with him. I have not kept
up with SP3 but as far as I know and read, SP2 is a one way firewall.
Personally I turn it off and use a commercial firewall that is 2 way.
Of course there are times when, as Ben stated, you have to educate the
firewall.

Nope, William is right. Since SP2 something, Windows XP has a two way
firewall. And I personally see two way firewalls as useless anyway. As
you are going to allow it anyway if you trust the application in the
first place. As why would you run applications you didn't trust? That
doesn't make any sense.

Also remember that software firewalls aren't so hot anyway. As they can
be fooled or become corrupted. It is best to get a hardware firewall and
be done with it. They are one way firewalls, but that is all you need
anyway. As you only run trusted applications right?


Nope, my reading says SP2 is one way !!!
Actually I think a two way is better even if marginal and having a
hard and software firewall simultaneously running is still a little
better. When I use my software firewall, even if I allow applications
by, it creates rules that all apps must live by unless I opt to
customize that. My hardware firewall is in my router or dsl modem (I
chose to use my router's as I couldn't get the modem's to work
correctly for me).

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 07:49:21 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
RnR typed on Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:26:44 -0500:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:30:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 18, 9:16 pm, RnR wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
here is the consensus...if you use this
utilityhttp://seconfig.sytes.net/ and the Windows XP firewall
(yes, even the one-way) or Vista firewall, and a real-time
anti-virus...you will have as much security as
necessary in a Windows/Network environment.

Consensus according to who?

Consensus of some...theory to others.
The concept that maybe we are doing more than necessary...over-kill,
if you will, to keep out the malware.
The utility closes vulnerable ports and services...instead of letting
it in and then...trying to stop it.


Over kill, probably not. Even using a hardware and software firewall,
virus and spyware checkers, I'm still NOT bulletproof. As far as I
know, firewalls are supposed to close or stealth ports. Some don't do
a good job of it.

For those truly paranoid. You can always install MS EWF (if you are
running Windows XP). That makes your system drive as read only. Thus if
a zero day type ever makes it through all of your defenses, EWF blocks
any infections anyway. And performance is as fast or faster than without
EWF. And you can turn it on and off as well.

If you are not willing to have a read only system drive, there is always
the also free Sandboxie. This creates a box around your Internet used
applications. And whatever it picks up, stays in the box.


Thanks Bill. I've heard of Sandboxie but never used it. I never
heard of MS EWF till yesterday or the day before. Now that I think
about it, I thought I read from users of Sandboxie some problems but
I'm a little hazy on this so I may be mistaken.

Thanks again Bill for the good tips.

Hi!

Nope, my reading says SP2 is one way !!!

Not exactly. I think you should check your sources:

Windows XP, in its "gold" (SP0) release and SP1 releases had a very simple
firewall. At first it wasn't even on by default, and its capabilities were
limited. It only prohited unsolicited traffic from other computers on the
network.

Windows XP SP2 was a massive reworking of nearly every Windows component in
order to improve security. Microsoft added support for processors supporting
the NX bit, which is used to help keep them from executing program code in
data only areas. This is a common avenue of attack--find a vulernable
program, call it up/get the user to call it up, crash it and take advantage
of the corrupted state to inject your own and typically hostile code. This
capability was only extended to Windows services and a few core components
by default, because it had the potential to really break some software. You
can enable it system wide and exclude troublesome programs as well.

Automatic updates was set to give you a choice at the end of service pack
setup to turn it on, and you were encouraged to do so. The firewall would
also prompt in this fashion. And of course there was the security center, to
let you have a quick look at all the various puzzle pieces.

The firewall also got a massive overhaul. Programs and services that would
open (in TCP/IP terms this is known as "listening") ports and act as network
or Internet facing servers with the Windows firewall enabled would now
generate the following message:

"To help protect your computer, Windows Firewall has blocked this program."
The program name would be shown. Worms that attempt to listen to ports and
open them up would trigger this alert, as will other programs that need this
functionality for one reason or another (such as FTP/HTTP servers).

The firewall would block the request until you had responded to the message
one way or another. If you chose to be asked again later, the program would
remain blocked.

That is a two-way firewall. It blocks programs and services from listening
to ports that others could see as being open from their systems, and it also
blocks unsolicited data coming in from the network or Internet if said data
doesn't match anything that the firewall is to allow through.

Third party firewalls take this a step further by monitoring more than
Windows' own firewall does. Programs that don't listen to ports but only
establish temporary connections as needed are noticed as an additional
security measure with these other firewalls. This results in users getting a
whole lot of "cancel" or "allow", in some cases for things that they don't
understand the function of. They just want it to work, and so everything
tends to gather an "allow" response.

The nice thing about the Windows firewall is that it's just *there*. It runs
as a compact and quiet system service. It can be set up appropriately for a
given environment by turning it on and checking off what should be allowed.
It doesn't harass users about things they don't know (for the most part). It
isn't the fullest featured piece of firewall software you'll see, but it is
simple, lightweight, unobtrusive, places only low demands on the system, and
usually just works. If I saw any other third party firewall software that
did the same--and did it no matter where the machine is while it is powered
on (yes, I've seen some that had to be at the desktop with a logged in user
to work)--then I would recommend it.

In any event, the best thing you can do is to use a cheap and simple home
router of some kind (with built in wireless if you need it) that features
both a firewall and NAT functionality. Nearly anything you'll find on the
market today does. That, combined with keeping your software up to date,
running as a limited rights user whenever you can, controlling what software
gets installed on your computer, using a browser other than Internet
Explorer in any release, and maintaining anti-virus software on your system
will go a long way to solve a lot of the problems that can be encountered.

William

On Apr 19, 7:49*pm, "William R. Walsh"
m wrote:
Hi!

Nope, my reading says SP2 is one way !!!

Not exactly. I think you should check your sources:

Windows XP, in its "gold" (SP0) release and SP1 releases had a very simple
firewall. At first it wasn't even on by default, and its capabilities were
limited. It only prohited unsolicited traffic from other computers on the
network.

Windows XP SP2 was a massive reworking of nearly every Windows component in
order to improve security. Microsoft added support for processors supporting
the NX bit, which is used to help keep them from executing program code in
data only areas. This is a common avenue of attack--find a vulernable
program, call it up/get the user to call it up, crash it and take advantage
of the corrupted state to inject your own and typically hostile code. This
capability was only extended to Windows services and a few core components
by default, because it had the potential to really break some software. You
can enable it system wide and exclude troublesome programs as well.

Automatic updates was set to give you a choice at the end of service pack
setup to turn it on, and you were encouraged to do so. The firewall would
also prompt in this fashion. And of course there was the security center, to
let you have a quick look at all the various puzzle pieces.

The firewall also got a massive overhaul. Programs and services that would
open (in TCP/IP terms this is known as "listening") ports and act as network
or Internet facing servers with the Windows firewall enabled would now
generate the following message:

"To help protect your computer, Windows Firewall has blocked this program.."
The program name would be shown. Worms that attempt to listen to ports and
open them up would trigger this alert, as will other programs that need this
functionality for one reason or another (such as FTP/HTTP servers).

The firewall would block the request until you had responded to the message
one way or another. If you chose to be asked again later, the program would
remain blocked.

That is a two-way firewall. It blocks programs and services from listening
to ports that others could see as being open from their systems, and it also
blocks unsolicited data coming in from the network or Internet if said data
doesn't match anything that the firewall is to allow through.

Third party firewalls take this a step further by monitoring more than
Windows' own firewall does. Programs that don't listen to ports but only
establish temporary connections as needed are noticed as an additional
security measure with these other firewalls. This results in users getting a
whole lot of "cancel" or "allow", in some cases for things that they don't
understand the function of. They just want it to work, and so everything
tends to gather an "allow" response.

The nice thing about the Windows firewall is that it's just *there*. It runs
as a compact and quiet system service. It can be set up appropriately for a
given environment by turning it on and checking off what should be allowed.
It doesn't harass users about things they don't know (for the most part). It
isn't the fullest featured piece of firewall software you'll see, but it is
simple, lightweight, unobtrusive, places only low demands on the system, and
usually just works. If I saw any other third party firewall software that
did the same--and did it no matter where the machine is while it is powered
on (yes, I've seen some that had to be at the desktop with a logged in user
to work)--then I would recommend it.

In any event, the best thing you can do is to use a cheap and simple home
router of some kind (with built in wireless if you need it) that features
both a firewall and NAT functionality. Nearly anything you'll find on the
market today does. That, combined with keeping your software up to date,
running as a limited rights user whenever you can, controlling what software
gets installed on your computer, using a browser other than Internet
Explorer in any release, and maintaining anti-virus software on your system
will go a long way to solve a lot of the problems that can be encountered..

William

Thanks WRW!

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:49:34 GMT, "William R. Walsh"
m wrote:

Hi!

Nope, my reading says SP2 is one way !!!

Not exactly. I think you should check your sources:

Windows XP, in its "gold" (SP0) release and SP1 releases had a very simple
firewall. At first it wasn't even on by default, and its capabilities were
limited. It only prohited unsolicited traffic from other computers on the
network.

Windows XP SP2 was a massive reworking of nearly every Windows component in
order to improve security. Microsoft added support for processors supporting
the NX bit, which is used to help keep them from executing program code in
data only areas. This is a common avenue of attack--find a vulernable
program, call it up/get the user to call it up, crash it and take advantage
of the corrupted state to inject your own and typically hostile code. This
capability was only extended to Windows services and a few core components
by default, because it had the potential to really break some software. You
can enable it system wide and exclude troublesome programs as well.

Automatic updates was set to give you a choice at the end of service pack
setup to turn it on, and you were encouraged to do so. The firewall would
also prompt in this fashion. And of course there was the security center, to
let you have a quick look at all the various puzzle pieces.

The firewall also got a massive overhaul. Programs and services that would
open (in TCP/IP terms this is known as "listening") ports and act as network
or Internet facing servers with the Windows firewall enabled would now
generate the following message:

"To help protect your computer, Windows Firewall has blocked this program."
The program name would be shown. Worms that attempt to listen to ports and
open them up would trigger this alert, as will other programs that need this
functionality for one reason or another (such as FTP/HTTP servers).

The firewall would block the request until you had responded to the message
one way or another. If you chose to be asked again later, the program would
remain blocked.

That is a two-way firewall. It blocks programs and services from listening
to ports that others could see as being open from their systems, and it also
blocks unsolicited data coming in from the network or Internet if said data
doesn't match anything that the firewall is to allow through.

Third party firewalls take this a step further by monitoring more than
Windows' own firewall does. Programs that don't listen to ports but only
establish temporary connections as needed are noticed as an additional
security measure with these other firewalls. This results in users getting a
whole lot of "cancel" or "allow", in some cases for things that they don't
understand the function of. They just want it to work, and so everything
tends to gather an "allow" response.

The nice thing about the Windows firewall is that it's just *there*. It runs
as a compact and quiet system service. It can be set up appropriately for a
given environment by turning it on and checking off what should be allowed.
It doesn't harass users about things they don't know (for the most part). It
isn't the fullest featured piece of firewall software you'll see, but it is
simple, lightweight, unobtrusive, places only low demands on the system, and
usually just works. If I saw any other third party firewall software that
did the same--and did it no matter where the machine is while it is powered
on (yes, I've seen some that had to be at the desktop with a logged in user
to work)--then I would recommend it.

In any event, the best thing you can do is to use a cheap and simple home
router of some kind (with built in wireless if you need it) that features
both a firewall and NAT functionality. Nearly anything you'll find on the
market today does. That, combined with keeping your software up to date,
running as a limited rights user whenever you can, controlling what software
gets installed on your computer, using a browser other than Internet
Explorer in any release, and maintaining anti-virus software on your system
will go a long way to solve a lot of the problems that can be encountered.

William



Ok, since you made me beat this to death here is 3 sources that at
best, say it's a "partial" 2 way or at worst, not a 2 way firewall.
I think that's why the people in the know don't refer to it as a 2 way
firewall :

(inotherwords, I conclude that yes, it is a 2 way firewall in the pure
definition of the words 2 way but in the real world of security, it is
not a fully functional 2 way firewall which many in the know refuse to
call it a 2 way firewall... at least this is my take on it). FWIW, I
have and do a lot of reading and I really never read over the years,
anyone calling XP (any version) referred to a 2 way firewall and
that's why these 3rd party companies like ZoneAlarm got so popular.

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1219 (first sentence)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...2_wfintro.mspx
(reading this makes it sound like a one way at first but when I read
the entire article, it then sounds like 2 way but it only mentions IM
which leads me to believe it is a partial 2 way)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:... ent=firefox-a
(again here sounds like a partial 2 way firewall at best to me because
they say to get a real 2 way 3rd party software firewall)

In ,
RnR typed on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:10:51 -0500:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:49:34 GMT, "William R. Walsh"
m wrote:

Hi!

Nope, my reading says SP2 is one way !!!

Not exactly. I think you should check your sources:

Windows XP, in its "gold" (SP0) release and SP1 releases had a very
simple firewall. At first it wasn't even on by default, and its
capabilities were limited. It only prohited unsolicited traffic from
other computers on the network.

Windows XP SP2 was a massive reworking of nearly every Windows
component in order to improve security. Microsoft added support for
processors supporting the NX bit, which is used to help keep them
from executing program code in data only areas. This is a common
avenue of attack--find a vulernable program, call it up/get the user
to call it up, crash it and take advantage of the corrupted state to
inject your own and typically hostile code. This capability was only
extended to Windows services and a few core components by default,
because it had the potential to really break some software. You can
enable it system wide and exclude troublesome programs as well.

Automatic updates was set to give you a choice at the end of service
pack setup to turn it on, and you were encouraged to do so. The
firewall would also prompt in this fashion. And of course there was
the security center, to let you have a quick look at all the various
puzzle pieces.

The firewall also got a massive overhaul. Programs and services that
would open (in TCP/IP terms this is known as "listening") ports and
act as network or Internet facing servers with the Windows firewall
enabled would now generate the following message:

"To help protect your computer, Windows Firewall has blocked this
program." The program name would be shown. Worms that attempt to
listen to ports and open them up would trigger this alert, as will
other programs that need this functionality for one reason or
another (such as FTP/HTTP servers).

The firewall would block the request until you had responded to the
message one way or another. If you chose to be asked again later,
the program would remain blocked.

That is a two-way firewall. It blocks programs and services from
listening to ports that others could see as being open from their
systems, and it also blocks unsolicited data coming in from the
network or Internet if said data doesn't match anything that the
firewall is to allow through.

Third party firewalls take this a step further by monitoring more
than Windows' own firewall does. Programs that don't listen to ports
but only establish temporary connections as needed are noticed as an
additional security measure with these other firewalls. This results
in users getting a whole lot of "cancel" or "allow", in some cases
for things that they don't understand the function of. They just
want it to work, and so everything tends to gather an "allow"
response.

The nice thing about the Windows firewall is that it's just *there*.
It runs as a compact and quiet system service. It can be set up
appropriately for a given environment by turning it on and checking
off what should be allowed. It doesn't harass users about things
they don't know (for the most part). It isn't the fullest featured
piece of firewall software you'll see, but it is simple,
lightweight, unobtrusive, places only low demands on the system, and
usually just works. If I saw any other third party firewall software
that did the same--and did it no matter where the machine is while
it is powered on (yes, I've seen some that had to be at the desktop
with a logged in user to work)--then I would recommend it.

In any event, the best thing you can do is to use a cheap and simple
home router of some kind (with built in wireless if you need it)
that features both a firewall and NAT functionality. Nearly anything
you'll find on the market today does. That, combined with keeping
your software up to date, running as a limited rights user whenever
you can, controlling what software gets installed on your computer,
using a browser other than Internet Explorer in any release, and
maintaining anti-virus software on your system will go a long way to
solve a lot of the problems that can be encountered.

William



Ok, since you made me beat this to death here is 3 sources that at
best, say it's a "partial" 2 way or at worst, not a 2 way firewall.
I think that's why the people in the know don't refer to it as a 2 way
firewall :

(inotherwords, I conclude that yes, it is a 2 way firewall in the pure
definition of the words 2 way but in the real world of security, it is
not a fully functional 2 way firewall which many in the know refuse to
call it a 2 way firewall... at least this is my take on it). FWIW, I
have and do a lot of reading and I really never read over the years,
anyone calling XP (any version) referred to a 2 way firewall and
that's why these 3rd party companies like ZoneAlarm got so popular.

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1219 (first sentence)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...2_wfintro.mspx
(reading this makes it sound like a one way at first but when I read
the entire article, it then sounds like 2 way but it only mentions IM
which leads me to believe it is a partial 2 way)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:... ent=firefox-a
(again here sounds like a partial 2 way firewall at best to me because
they say to get a real 2 way 3rd party software firewall)

Well I was a big fan of Zone Alarm v2 through v6. Although all
throughout this time, it was becoming more and more clear what you call
a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody who
knows what they are doing anyway. And it becomes just a nuisance for
both the professional and the newbie. I guess those in the middle might
actually like them. But I found it to be virtually useless. As you are
going to allow it if you trust it and you shouldn't be running the
application in the first place if you don't trust it. So honestly, what
good are they over the built in found on XP?

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:36:08 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
RnR typed on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:10:51 -0500:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:49:34 GMT, "William R. Walsh"
m wrote:

Hi!

Nope, my reading says SP2 is one way !!!

Not exactly. I think you should check your sources:

Windows XP, in its "gold" (SP0) release and SP1 releases had a very
simple firewall. At first it wasn't even on by default, and its
capabilities were limited. It only prohited unsolicited traffic from
other computers on the network.

Windows XP SP2 was a massive reworking of nearly every Windows
component in order to improve security. Microsoft added support for
processors supporting the NX bit, which is used to help keep them
from executing program code in data only areas. This is a common
avenue of attack--find a vulernable program, call it up/get the user
to call it up, crash it and take advantage of the corrupted state to
inject your own and typically hostile code. This capability was only
extended to Windows services and a few core components by default,
because it had the potential to really break some software. You can
enable it system wide and exclude troublesome programs as well.

Automatic updates was set to give you a choice at the end of service
pack setup to turn it on, and you were encouraged to do so. The
firewall would also prompt in this fashion. And of course there was
the security center, to let you have a quick look at all the various
puzzle pieces.

The firewall also got a massive overhaul. Programs and services that
would open (in TCP/IP terms this is known as "listening") ports and
act as network or Internet facing servers with the Windows firewall
enabled would now generate the following message:

"To help protect your computer, Windows Firewall has blocked this
program." The program name would be shown. Worms that attempt to
listen to ports and open them up would trigger this alert, as will
other programs that need this functionality for one reason or
another (such as FTP/HTTP servers).

The firewall would block the request until you had responded to the
message one way or another. If you chose to be asked again later,
the program would remain blocked.

That is a two-way firewall. It blocks programs and services from
listening to ports that others could see as being open from their
systems, and it also blocks unsolicited data coming in from the
network or Internet if said data doesn't match anything that the
firewall is to allow through.

Third party firewalls take this a step further by monitoring more
than Windows' own firewall does. Programs that don't listen to ports
but only establish temporary connections as needed are noticed as an
additional security measure with these other firewalls. This results
in users getting a whole lot of "cancel" or "allow", in some cases
for things that they don't understand the function of. They just
want it to work, and so everything tends to gather an "allow"
response.

The nice thing about the Windows firewall is that it's just *there*.
It runs as a compact and quiet system service. It can be set up
appropriately for a given environment by turning it on and checking
off what should be allowed. It doesn't harass users about things
they don't know (for the most part). It isn't the fullest featured
piece of firewall software you'll see, but it is simple,
lightweight, unobtrusive, places only low demands on the system, and
usually just works. If I saw any other third party firewall software
that did the same--and did it no matter where the machine is while
it is powered on (yes, I've seen some that had to be at the desktop
with a logged in user to work)--then I would recommend it.

In any event, the best thing you can do is to use a cheap and simple
home router of some kind (with built in wireless if you need it)
that features both a firewall and NAT functionality. Nearly anything
you'll find on the market today does. That, combined with keeping
your software up to date, running as a limited rights user whenever
you can, controlling what software gets installed on your computer,
using a browser other than Internet Explorer in any release, and
maintaining anti-virus software on your system will go a long way to
solve a lot of the problems that can be encountered.

William



Ok, since you made me beat this to death here is 3 sources that at
best, say it's a "partial" 2 way or at worst, not a 2 way firewall.
I think that's why the people in the know don't refer to it as a 2 way
firewall :

(inotherwords, I conclude that yes, it is a 2 way firewall in the pure
definition of the words 2 way but in the real world of security, it is
not a fully functional 2 way firewall which many in the know refuse to
call it a 2 way firewall... at least this is my take on it). FWIW, I
have and do a lot of reading and I really never read over the years,
anyone calling XP (any version) referred to a 2 way firewall and
that's why these 3rd party companies like ZoneAlarm got so popular.

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1219 (first sentence)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...2_wfintro.mspx
(reading this makes it sound like a one way at first but when I read
the entire article, it then sounds like 2 way but it only mentions IM
which leads me to believe it is a partial 2 way)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:... ent=firefox-a
(again here sounds like a partial 2 way firewall at best to me because
they say to get a real 2 way 3rd party software firewall)

Well I was a big fan of Zone Alarm v2 through v6. Although all
throughout this time, it was becoming more and more clear what you call
a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody who
knows what they are doing anyway. And it becomes just a nuisance for
both the professional and the newbie. I guess those in the middle might
actually like them. But I found it to be virtually useless. As you are
going to allow it if you trust it and you shouldn't be running the
application in the first place if you don't trust it. So honestly, what
good are they over the built in found on XP?


I'll let someone more knowledgeable explain why. I only know that 3rd
party software got popular because of the limited MS firewall. Bill,
there are some that don't even believe in firewalls but they seem to
be in the minority so take your pick.

As to trusting an application, one scenario comes to mind. Often you
may let an application update itself. Suppose your old application
is trustworthy but upon automatic upgrade it becomes spyware, calls
home, etc.. . Remember applications in this scenario can be
commercial, shareware or freeware. I'm not saying tho all
applications go bad because they get upgraded but I was just giving
you here one scenario.

Last, one sentence you posted ...
Although all throughout this time, it was becoming more and more clear what you call
a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody who knows what they are doing anyway.
may have some truth to it. Remember I said earlier some don't even
believe in firewalls so this sounds like our sentences agree.

Bottom line is XP (prior to sp3) has never been considered a 2 way
firewall to the security gurus because it was limited at best. I do
not know about sp3 so I omit it from this discussion.

In ,
RnR typed on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:39:18 -0500:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:36:08 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:
Well I was a big fan of Zone Alarm v2 through v6. Although all
throughout this time, it was becoming more and more clear what you
call a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody
who knows what they are doing anyway. And it becomes just a nuisance
for both the professional and the newbie. I guess those in the middle
might actually like them. But I found it to be virtually useless. As
you are going to allow it if you trust it and you shouldn't be
running the application in the first place if you don't trust it. So
honestly, what good are they over the built in found on XP?

I'll let someone more knowledgeable explain why. I only know that 3rd
party software got popular because of the limited MS firewall. Bill,
there are some that don't even believe in firewalls but they seem to
be in the minority so take your pick.

I don't recall third party firewalls getting more popular during any
time with Windows XP. I remember they were popular long before XP. And
for a good reason. No Windows came with one.

As for the people who doesn't believe you don't need one. Well I sure
like to met one of them and chat. As I agree, you really don't need one
if you are really on the ball. But even a simple firewall (even XP's)
hides (running in stealth) your computer from unknown people. That alone
is a good reason to have one to me. Otherwise you have to run a tight
ship and know in fact your system has no security holes at all. Now or
in the future.

As to trusting an application, one scenario comes to mind. Often you
may let an application update itself. Suppose your old application
is trustworthy but upon automatic upgrade it becomes spyware, calls
home, etc.. . Remember applications in this scenario can be
commercial, shareware or freeware. I'm not saying tho all
applications go bad because they get upgraded but I was just giving
you here one scenario.

Well... instead of blocking, which I feel don't really tell you anything
really. What would be better is a program that would buffer outgoing
data and wait until you can view it and then give it your ok to send it
out. This to me is far better than blindly saying yes this application
is okay through a firewall. There are tools like this, but they won't
hold them for your ok. You can view only what was sent. If there was a
firewall which did this, I would be all for it.

Last, one sentence you posted ...
Although all throughout this time, it was becoming more and more
clear what you call
a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody who
knows what they are doing anyway.
may have some truth to it. Remember I said earlier some don't even
believe in firewalls so this sounds like our sentences agree.

Well one can get by without a firewall. But you announce to everybody
you are there and asking them to please try to hack into my system. This
is opening the door to millions and maybe a billion or more to try. A
simple firewall (including XP) cuts the number down to only the number
of websites you visit and by the applications you run. A zillion to one
difference.

Bottom line is XP (prior to sp3) has never been considered a 2 way
firewall to the security gurus because it was limited at best. I do
not know about sp3 so I omit it from this discussion.

Well I think it was SP2 was the big change, not SP3. And those third
party firewalls may seem to be a bit better, since it requires your ok.
But you still have no idea what is being sent or not anyway. Meaning you
can deny or say ok, but you still have no idea what is or isn't going on
anyway.

For example, a program you don't trust and you deny might only be
checking if you have the latest version. You just don't know. And let's
say you trust one program and you say ok, it could be scanning your hard
drive for passwords or anything. You really just don't know why it wants
an Internet connection. So it still boils down to if you trust it or
not. Although better is a buffer which holds all outgoing to be viewable
to you first.

Of course, once this idea of viewing catches on... some will start to
encrypt the data. Some are doing this now. Which would make viewing the
data worthless anyway. Do you see the real problem? As giving you the
choice to say ok or not is really meaningless as you have no idea what
is being transmitted anyway.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:47:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
RnR typed on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:39:18 -0500:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:36:08 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:
Well I was a big fan of Zone Alarm v2 through v6. Although all
throughout this time, it was becoming more and more clear what you
call a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody
who knows what they are doing anyway. And it becomes just a nuisance
for both the professional and the newbie. I guess those in the middle
might actually like them. But I found it to be virtually useless. As
you are going to allow it if you trust it and you shouldn't be
running the application in the first place if you don't trust it. So
honestly, what good are they over the built in found on XP?

I'll let someone more knowledgeable explain why. I only know that 3rd
party software got popular because of the limited MS firewall. Bill,
there are some that don't even believe in firewalls but they seem to
be in the minority so take your pick.

I don't recall third party firewalls getting more popular during any
time with Windows XP. I remember they were popular long before XP. And
for a good reason. No Windows came with one.

As for the people who doesn't believe you don't need one. Well I sure
like to met one of them and chat. As I agree, you really don't need one
if you are really on the ball. But even a simple firewall (even XP's)
hides (running in stealth) your computer from unknown people. That alone
is a good reason to have one to me. Otherwise you have to run a tight
ship and know in fact your system has no security holes at all. Now or
in the future.

As to trusting an application, one scenario comes to mind. Often you
may let an application update itself. Suppose your old application
is trustworthy but upon automatic upgrade it becomes spyware, calls
home, etc.. . Remember applications in this scenario can be
commercial, shareware or freeware. I'm not saying tho all
applications go bad because they get upgraded but I was just giving
you here one scenario.

Well... instead of blocking, which I feel don't really tell you anything
really. What would be better is a program that would buffer outgoing
data and wait until you can view it and then give it your ok to send it
out. This to me is far better than blindly saying yes this application
is okay through a firewall. There are tools like this, but they won't
hold them for your ok. You can view only what was sent. If there was a
firewall which did this, I would be all for it.

Last, one sentence you posted ...
Although all throughout this time, it was becoming more and more
clear what you call
a real two way firewall doesn't really do anything for somebody who
knows what they are doing anyway.
may have some truth to it. Remember I said earlier some don't even
believe in firewalls so this sounds like our sentences agree.

Well one can get by without a firewall. But you announce to everybody
you are there and asking them to please try to hack into my system. This
is opening the door to millions and maybe a billion or more to try. A
simple firewall (including XP) cuts the number down to only the number
of websites you visit and by the applications you run. A zillion to one
difference.

Bottom line is XP (prior to sp3) has never been considered a 2 way
firewall to the security gurus because it was limited at best. I do
not know about sp3 so I omit it from this discussion.

Well I think it was SP2 was the big change, not SP3. And those third
party firewalls may seem to be a bit better, since it requires your ok.
But you still have no idea what is being sent or not anyway. Meaning you
can deny or say ok, but you still have no idea what is or isn't going on
anyway.

For example, a program you don't trust and you deny might only be
checking if you have the latest version. You just don't know. And let's
say you trust one program and you say ok, it could be scanning your hard
drive for passwords or anything. You really just don't know why it wants
an Internet connection. So it still boils down to if you trust it or
not. Although better is a buffer which holds all outgoing to be viewable
to you first.

Of course, once this idea of viewing catches on... some will start to
encrypt the data. Some are doing this now. Which would make viewing the
data worthless anyway. Do you see the real problem? As giving you the
choice to say ok or not is really meaningless as you have no idea what
is being transmitted anyway.


I agree because I have had times when I could not tell why a program
wanted to call out. I could guess but without using a packet sniffer
or similar, I had no defnitive answer.... just guesses which didn't
make me feel too confidentl My philosophy tho is when in doubt,
block it. I think you are touching upon the fact too, that even some
firewalls get a bit hard to understand for the average joe blow so if
that's the case, it really doesn't matter how good they are.