Rick.Pearl wrote:
> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>
> Thank you.
>
start\settings\control panel\security center\
>Rick.Pearl wrote:
>> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
>> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>start\settings\control panel\security center\
Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Windoze Firewall
Check the box "Enable firewall".
Then go to the Exceptions tab and make sure that Windoze File and
Print Sharing are NOT checked as an exception. There may be some
other services of dubious value that don't need to be accepting
incoming connections. If you're not sure, check the box "Don't allow
exceptions" on the first page where you enabled the firewall.
On May 20, 8:33 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote:
> Pen <pen34usnos...@hotmailnospam.com> hath wroth:
>
> >Rick.Pearl wrote:
> >> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
> >> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>
> >> Thank you.
>
> >start\settings\control panel\security center\
>
> Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Windoze Firewall
> Check the box "Enable firewall".
>
> Then go to the Exceptions tab and make sure that Windoze File and
> Print Sharing are NOT checked as an exception. There may be some
> other services of dubious value that don't need to be accepting
> incoming connections. If you're not sure, check the box "Don't allow
> exceptions" on the first page where you enabled the firewall.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Or, mo-betta IMHO, go to http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/,
download and install. Comodo firewall is 2-way (incoming/outgoing),
and can be readily instructed on the fly as to what to block/pass.
Of course, if using Comodo's, disable Windows firewall. And be
fussy as to what to allow. Sometimes, just getting notice of what
process is trying to send outgoing traffic is very informative.
It does help to understand what the significance of ports is.
>Or, mo-betta IMHO, go to http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/,
>download and install. Comodo firewall is 2-way (incoming/outgoing),
>and can be readily instructed on the fly as to what to block/pass.
>
>Of course, if using Comodo's, disable Windows firewall. And be
>fussy as to what to allow. Sometimes, just getting notice of what
>process is trying to send outgoing traffic is very informative.
>
>It does help to understand what the significance of ports is.
>
>J
There isn't a single 3rd party firewall product that doesn't claim to
be better than the Windoze firewall. Everyone starts with the
features of the Windoze firewall and then adds value (features,
functions, support, glitch, etc). The Windoze firewall does have the
limitation in that it only inspects incoming traffic, which was all it
was ever intended to do. There are other firewall products that will
also inspect outgoing traffic.
The problem with the stock Windoze firewall is that most users don't
know how to configure, troubleshoot, or add/delete ports and services.
<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875357>
Microsoft didn't make it very easy, and if done wrong, it's a PITA to
find and fix. Various programs that modify the firewall configuration
add complexity. For example, the typical AOL installation will have
up to 12 almost identical entries in the exceptions list. I don't
consider ZoneAlarm, Norton or McAfee firewalls to any easier to deal
with. The firewall is also the number one target of virus and worm
attacks. Yeah, it can always be done better. Whether better is
really necessary depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how
much complexity you want to deal with.
On May 20, 9:40 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
> On May 20, 8:33 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pen <pen34usnos...@hotmailnospam.com> hath wroth:
>
> > >Rick.Pearl wrote:
> > >> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
> > >> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>
> > >> Thank you.
>
> > >start\settings\control panel\security center\
>
> > Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Windoze Firewall
> > Check the box "Enable firewall".
>
> > Then go to the Exceptions tab and make sure that Windoze File and
> > Print Sharing are NOT checked as an exception. There may be some
> > other services of dubious value that don't need to be accepting
> > incoming connections. If you're not sure, check the box "Don't allow
> > exceptions" on the first page where you enabled the firewall.
>
> > --
> > Jeff Liebermann j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> > Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
> Or, mo-betta IMHO, go tohttp://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/,
> download and install. Comodo firewall is 2-way (incoming/outgoing),
> and can be readily instructed on the fly as to what to block/pass.
>
> Of course, if using Comodo's, disable Windows firewall. And be
> fussy as to what to allow. Sometimes, just getting notice of what
> process is trying to send outgoing traffic is very informative.
>
> It does help to understand what the significance of ports is.
>
> J- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
After reading an informative essay by a security expert* on why
Windows firewall DOES work, I'm now recommending to only use it. Why?
because the others have more overhead, cause constant confusion about
what to accept, because Windows FW is already there and works with
most everything.
Most any software you install will consider that Windows firewall is
present. Zone Alarm, Kerio whatever is an additional issue that may
have to be dealt with.
I have not had any trouble setting up ports, exceptions etc in
Windows. Most programs do it automatically.
*In sum, the "expert" comments the Windows Firewall is mostly derided
for being one-way.
In fact keeping intruders out is what we NEED and keeping intruders IN
is a stop-gap at best. At that point, you are already in trouble.
Closing the barn-door and all that.
I do use Win-Patrol as a general system watchdog as well. Keeps you
informed on things that are trying to change your system. I find it
easier for novices to manage than the firewalls.
Have about a dozen pcs on Window firewall and no problems for years.
On May 21, 11:56 am, seaweedsteve <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 9:40 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 8:33 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Pen <pen34usnos...@hotmailnospam.com> hath wroth:
>
> > > >Rick.Pearl wrote:
> > > >> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
> > > >> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>
> > > >> Thank you.
>
> > > >start\settings\control panel\security center\
>
> > > Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Windoze Firewall
> > > Check the box "Enable firewall".
>
> > > Then go to the Exceptions tab and make sure that Windoze File and
> > > Print Sharing are NOT checked as an exception. There may be some
> > > other services of dubious value that don't need to be accepting
> > > incoming connections. If you're not sure, check the box "Don't allow
> > > exceptions" on the first page where you enabled the firewall.
>
> > > --
> > > Jeff Liebermann j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> > > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> > > Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> > > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
> > Or, mo-betta IMHO, go tohttp://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/,
> > download and install. Comodo firewall is 2-way (incoming/outgoing),
> > and can be readily instructed on the fly as to what to block/pass.
>
> > Of course, if using Comodo's, disable Windows firewall. And be
> > fussy as to what to allow. Sometimes, just getting notice of what
> > process is trying to send outgoing traffic is very informative.
>
> > It does help to understand what the significance of ports is.
>
> > J- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> After reading an informative essay by a security expert* on why
> Windows firewall DOES work, I'm now recommending to only use it. Why?
> because the others have more overhead, cause constant confusion about
> what to accept, because Windows FW is already there and works with
> most everything.
>
> Most any software you install will consider that Windows firewall is
> present. Zone Alarm, Kerio whatever is an additional issue that may
> have to be dealt with.
>
> I have not had any trouble setting up ports, exceptions etc in
> Windows. Most programs do it automatically.
>
> *In sum, the "expert" comments the Windows Firewall is mostly derided
> for being one-way.
> In fact keeping intruders out is what we NEED and keeping intruders IN
> is a stop-gap at best. At that point, you are already in trouble.
> Closing the barn-door and all that.
>
> I do use Win-Patrol as a general system watchdog as well. Keeps you
> informed on things that are trying to change your system. I find it
> easier for novices to manage than the firewalls.
>
> Have about a dozen pcs on Window firewall and no problems for years.
>
> Steve
Called "blind luck"? Which I can't rely on for the 9-5 stuff. I've
often seen
compelling reasons for 2-way firewalls at work, both on individual
machines,
and (no-brainer here) on gateway router. New attacks take place
constantly.
"seaweedsteve" <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179762996.578107.122910@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> On May 20, 9:40 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
>> On May 20, 8:33 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Pen <pen34usnos...@hotmailnospam.com> hath wroth:
>>
>> > >Rick.Pearl wrote:
>> > >> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
>> > >> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>>
>> > >> Thank you.
>>
>> > >start\settings\control panel\security center\
>>
>> > Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Windoze Firewall
>> > Check the box "Enable firewall".
>>
>> > Then go to the Exceptions tab and make sure that Windoze File and
>> > Print Sharing are NOT checked as an exception. There may be some
>> > other services of dubious value that don't need to be accepting
>> > incoming connections. If you're not sure, check the box "Don't allow
>> > exceptions" on the first page where you enabled the firewall.
>>
>> > --
>> > Jeff Liebermann j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
>> > 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> > Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
>> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>>
>> Or, mo-betta IMHO, go tohttp://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/,
>> download and install. Comodo firewall is 2-way (incoming/outgoing),
>> and can be readily instructed on the fly as to what to block/pass.
>>
>> Of course, if using Comodo's, disable Windows firewall. And be
>> fussy as to what to allow. Sometimes, just getting notice of what
>> process is trying to send outgoing traffic is very informative.
>>
>> It does help to understand what the significance of ports is.
>>
>> J- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> After reading an informative essay by a security expert* on why
> Windows firewall DOES work, I'm now recommending to only use it. Why?
> because the others have more overhead, cause constant confusion about
> what to accept, because Windows FW is already there and works with
> most everything.
>
> Most any software you install will consider that Windows firewall is
> present. Zone Alarm, Kerio whatever is an additional issue that may
> have to be dealt with.
>
> I have not had any trouble setting up ports, exceptions etc in
> Windows. Most programs do it automatically.
>
> *In sum, the "expert" comments the Windows Firewall is mostly derided
> for being one-way.
> In fact keeping intruders out is what we NEED and keeping intruders IN
> is a stop-gap at best. At that point, you are already in trouble.
> Closing the barn-door and all that.
>
> I do use Win-Patrol as a general system watchdog as well. Keeps you
> informed on things that are trying to change your system. I find it
> easier for novices to manage than the firewalls.
>
> Have about a dozen pcs on Window firewall and no problems for years.
>
> Steve
>
>
With all due respect.
Wow, that's a first. Are you Bill Gates? Whenever, anyone calls me and
says "my network won't communicate" the first answer is "turn off Windows
Firewall". When they call and say my messenger service won't work, I say
"turn off ......" Need I go on with the list of port dependent services
that the firewall blocks. This would be okay if the firewall asked you if
this traffic should be allowed, as does Kerio, Zonealarm.....
Norton/McAfee are hogs. I would rather have a virus.
With regards to Winpatrol. You are confusing an outgoing firewall with a
program that will monitor modifications to startup directories, registry,
changes in services, and a host of other changes of the system. It does not
offer any outgoing port protection. Maybe I'm mistaken but after using
Winpatrol for the last couple of years, I have yet to have a warning about
outgoing packets.
One last point. The "expert" would not like Windows Vista. It has a
firewall that monitors both incoming and outgoing. Why would MS change when
they already had a system that believed "keeping intruders out is what we
NEED". I think that you need to find a new "expert".
> One last point. The "expert" would not like Windows Vista. It has a
> firewall that monitors both incoming and outgoing. Why would MS change
> when they already had a system that believed "keeping intruders out is
> what we NEED". I think that you need to find a new "expert".
I use Vista's FW and I don't have a problem in using it. It does what it's
suppose to do, which stop unsolicited inbound traffic.
Even XP's FW is not as intrusive with a bunch of snake-oil junk in them
trying to protect one from them self. All one has to do with some of the
other PFW(s) is mis-configure that snake-oil in them and watch things not
work anymore that use to work.
I like to supplement the Vista FW with IPsec that runs in conjunction with
the Vista FW. I use IPsec to block outbound traffic if I need to stop
outbound traffic to a remote IP, which IPsec can stop inbound or outbound
traffic by port, protocol, IP and subnet.
This is for a laptop that has a direct connection to the modem and therefore
a direct connection to the Internet, nothing such as a router or FW
appliance between the modem and the computer, which is running things like
IIS and SQL Server, etc, etc, while working programming contracts on the
road.
I also use CurrPort to see for myself what's making inbound and outbound
connections.
I also use other tools to go look for myself instead of depending upon that
snake-oil solutions in 3rd party PFW(s) to tell me what is happening on my
machine.
On May 21, 6:09�pm, "DH" <xxxdav...@swbell.net(axe the x's)> wrote:
> "seaweedsteve" <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179762996.578107.122910@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 9:40 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
> >> On May 20, 8:33 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Pen <pen34usnos...@hotmailnospam.com> hath wroth:
>
> >> > >Rick.Pearl wrote:
> >> > >> How do I enable the built in XP Firewall while surfing wirelessly? I
> >> > >> have SP 2 installed. I am a mac user so I am not clear on this.
>
> >> > >> Thank you.
>
> >> > >start\settings\control panel\security center\
>
> >> > Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Windoze Firewall
> >> > Check the box "Enable firewall".
>
> >> > Then go to the Exceptions tab and make sure that Windoze File and
> >> > Print Sharing are NOT checked as an exception. *There may be some
> >> > other services of dubious value that don't need to be accepting
> >> > incoming connections. *If you're not sure, check the box "Don't allow
> >> > exceptions" on the first page where you enabled the firewall.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Jeff Liebermann * * j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> >> > 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> >> > Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> >> > Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558
>
> >> Or, mo-betta IMHO, go tohttp://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/,
> >> download and install. Comodo firewall is 2-way (incoming/outgoing),
> >> and can be readily instructed on the fly as to what to block/pass.
>
> >> Of course, if using Comodo's, disable Windows firewall. And be
> >> fussy as to what to allow. Sometimes, just getting notice of what
> >> process is trying to send outgoing traffic is very informative.
>
> >> It does help to understand what the significance of ports is.
>
> >> J- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > After reading an informative essay by a security expert* on why
> > Windows firewall DOES work, I'm now recommending to only use it. *Why?
> > because the others have more overhead, cause constant confusion about
> > what to accept, because Windows FW is already there and works with
> > most everything.
>
> > Most any software you install will consider that Windows firewall is
> > present. *Zone Alarm, Kerio whatever is an additional issue that may
> > have to be dealt with.
>
> > I have not had any trouble setting up ports, exceptions etc in
> > Windows. Most programs do it automatically.
>
> > *In sum, the "expert" comments the Windows Firewall is mostly derided
> > for being one-way.
> > In fact keeping intruders out is what we NEED and keeping intruders IN
> > is a stop-gap at best. *At that point, you are already in trouble.
> > Closing the barn-door and all that.
>
> > I do use Win-Patrol as a general system watchdog as well. Keeps you
> > informed on things that are trying to change your system. *I find it
> > easier for novices to manage than the firewalls.
>
> > Have about a dozen pcs on Window firewall and no problems for years.
>
> > Steve
>
> With all due respect.
> Wow, that's a first. *Are you Bill Gates? *Whenever, anyone calls me and
> says "my network won't communicate" the first answer is "turn off Windows
> Firewall". *When they call and say my messenger service won't work, I say
> "turn off ......" *Need I go on with the list of port dependent services
> that the firewall blocks. *This would be okay if the firewall asked youif
> this traffic should be allowed, as does Kerio, Zonealarm.....
>
> Norton/McAfee are hogs. *I would rather have a virus.
>
> With regards toWinpatrol. *You are confusing an outgoing firewall with a
> program that will monitor modifications to startup directories, registry,
> changes in services, and a host of other changes of the system. *It does not
> offer any outgoing port protection. *Maybe I'm mistaken but after usingWinpatrolfor the last couple of years, I have yet to have a warning about
> outgoing packets.
>
> One last point. *The "expert" would not like Windows Vista. *It has a
> firewall that monitors both incoming and outgoing. *Why would MS changewhen
> they already had a system that believed "keeping intruders out is what we
> NEED". *I think that you need to find a new "expert".
>
> Dave H.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yup, WinPatrol doesn't act as a firewall to monitor network packets.
It's also why WinPatrol is compatible with all versions of Windows
and shouldn't slow you down.
I would recommend using a firewall of some kind too
On May 21, 3:21 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
>I've
> often seen
> compelling reasons for 2-way firewalls at work,
Not to be argumentive, but for learning's sake, could you give some
examples of when your system is healthy and needs outgoing?
I should have added that in all cases we are behind a SPI firewall as
well. One-way, I believe.
New attacks take place
> constantly.
>From inside?
>
> I like to assess my own needs, thanks.
Take it easy there. Of course you are. I dont' think that by giving
an opinion, anyone is suggesting that you are compelled to live by
it.
I simply have seen too much knee-jerk "you must use Norton and Zone-
alarm or you are in danger" Not my experience. I believe I am
allowed to share that?
On May 21, 5:09 pm, "DH" <xxxdav...@swbell.net(axe the x's)> wrote:
> With all due respect.
> Wow, that's a first. Are you Bill Gates?
No. I have no particular allegence. I used to be a Mac user - ran
out of money, though.
>Whenever, anyone calls me and
> says "my network won't communicate" the first answer is "turn off Windows
> Firewall". When they call and say my messenger service won't work, I say
> "turn off ......" Need I go on with the list of port dependent services
> that the firewall blocks. This would be okay if the firewall asked you if
> this traffic should be allowed, as does Kerio, Zonealarm.....
I guess I haven't seen this, but then if it's a possible problem,
since XP firewall is common, then usually the software's "read-me" or
"installation" tells me specifically to add an exception in windows
firewall "like this...".
So perhaps I've always avoided it at the install level without ever
noticing. Intead of turning it off, I/they just enter the exception.
Windows Firewall> Exceptions> Add
>
> Norton/McAfee are hogs. I would rather have a virus.
My words exactly. I explain it's like hiring thugs to protect you.
It's almost the same thing.
>
> With regards to Winpatrol. You are confusing an outgoing firewall with a
> program that will monitor modifications to startup directories, registry,
> changes in services, and a host of other changes of the system. It does not
> offer any outgoing port protection. Maybe I'm mistaken but after using
> Winpatrol for the last couple of years, I have yet to have a warning about
> outgoing packets.
No, I was starting to go off on what I consider an austere security
approach and then cut it short before going on to include AVG, Spyware
Blaster, etc with occasional multiple anti-spyware scans.
Point being, keeping one's system clean and in one's control seems
more critical than locking intruders in. WinPatrol helps you keep an
eye on who's inside trying to effect system changes. Many security
suites do the same.
>
> One last point. The "expert" would not like Windows Vista. It has a
> firewall that monitors both incoming and outgoing. Why would MS change when
> they already had a system that believed "keeping intruders out is what we
> NEED". I think that you need to find a new "expert".
>
New features MAY be proof of their previous necessity or simply more
may be better, especially if it's integrated and easy to use. Vista is
a different OS as well, see the link at the end of this post.
One of my guiding questions is not "what is absolutely safe?" or
"what's the most I can do?", but "how much is a reasonable trade-off
of security and usability?" Each person must decide this for
themselves in every aspect of life.
So far, my dozen "client's" pcs are doing fine with XP's firewall.
I'll change my tune when I see a problem.
Here's one of my references so you can shoot it down directly:
Quick quote:
"Putting protective measures on a compromised asset and asking it not
to compromise any other assets simply does not work. Protection
belongs on the asset you are trying to protect, not the one you are
trying to protect against!
Now I know that for many people things are black and white and MS is
all bad or wrong and um, the "underdog" or "new guy" is all right or
good, so some folks should just ignore any info from the "wrong"
messengers and you won't have any cognitive dissonance issues !
Personally, I always consider the messenger's motives but do listen.
seaweedsteve wrote:
> On May 21, 3:21 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
>> I've
>> often seen
>> compelling reasons for 2-way firewalls at work,
>
> Not to be argumentive, but for learning's sake, could you give some
> examples of when your system is healthy and needs outgoing?
>
>
> I should have added that in all cases we are behind a SPI firewall as
> well. One-way, I believe.
>
>
> New attacks take place
>> constantly.
>
>>From inside?
>
>> I like to assess my own needs, thanks.
>
>
> Take it easy there. Of course you are. I dont' think that by giving
> an opinion, anyone is suggesting that you are compelled to live by
> it.
> I simply have seen too much knee-jerk "you must use Norton and Zone-
> alarm or you are in danger" Not my experience. I believe I am
> allowed to share that?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
>
In many ways it comes down to who is using the machines and their
awareness of problems that can occur. I go along with the "Layered
Defence" league.
Over the years we have had problems with family clicking on "pop-ups"
on sites they should not have been on,one IM trojan (the AV didn't
autoscan IM's). The AV on some of our machines doesn't auto scan USB
flash drives or DVD drives so the family keep getting reminded to scan
before using.
Most of the family couldn't care about security and just want to do
their own thing with the computers and if it goes wrong then it's
someone elses problem. For what some of them use computers for I have
converted them to a Linux box hard wired to a router and have had no
problems for the last few months.
On Mon, 21 May 2007 22:09:14 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , "DH"
<xxxdaveoh@swbell.net(axe the x's)> wrote:
>Whenever, anyone calls me and
>says "my network won't communicate" the first answer is "turn off Windows
>Firewall". When they call and say my messenger service won't work, I say
>"turn off ......" Need I go on with the list of port dependent services
>that the firewall blocks. This would be okay if the firewall asked you if
>this traffic should be allowed,
Windows firewall /does/ ask you - but only when you;re logged in as an
Admin.
This is as it should be - average users should NOT be able to bypass
the firewall. For once, MS got it right and did not give non-admin
accounts complete free rein.
>as does Kerio, Zonealarm.....
Technically this is a weakness since most people just mindlessly click
"ok" and let the traffic through, for fear of blocking something
important. If I had a quid for every time my mother in law has phoned
to ask what rundll.exe whatever is asking for permission to access the
internet means. I'd be able to buy the wife an anniversary present.
:-)
On 22 May 2007 07:48:39 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , seaweedsteve
<seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 3:21 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
>>I've
>> often seen
>> compelling reasons for 2-way firewalls at work,
>
>Not to be argumentive, but for learning's sake, could you give some
>examples of when your system is healthy and needs outgoing?
Setting aside the small fact that to connect to a website you need
outgoing on port 80...
On May 22, 11:24 am, kev <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> In many ways it comes down to who is using the machines and their
> awareness of problems that can occur. I go along with the "Layered
> Defence" league.
> Over the years we have had problems with family clicking on "pop-ups"
> on sites they should not have been on,one IM trojan (the AV didn't
> autoscan IM's). The AV on some of our machines doesn't auto scan USB
> flash drives or DVD drives so the family keep getting reminded to scan
> before using.
Popups seem to be controlled now..
The IM thing is tough for the firewall to catch, I imagine. It's
already allowing those ports, right?
You were lucky if you didn't get hit a few years back when spywhere
just became nasty. No coolwebsearch variants?
> Most of the family couldn't care about security and just want to do
> their own thing with the computers and if it goes wrong then it's
> someone elses problem. For what some of them use computers for I have
> converted them to a Linux box hard wired to a router and have had no
> problems for the last few months.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like the backup "security" approach that some internet shops use:
Once the OS, driver and software set is dialed in, I clone the system
drive for that PC. I leave it inside the case, but unhooked if it's a
desktop. Easy bail-out to any serious or elusive system issues,
infections, failed HD.
Old 6,8,10+ gig drives do the job.
Data protection is another issue, not hard but depends on the user
more. Some don't have much. Some are hopeless.
>The IM thing is tough for the firewall to catch, I imagine. It's
>already allowing those ports, right?
There are numerous products that catch IM and P2P sharing in various
ways. For example:
<http://www.cyberguard.com/products/webwasher/webwasher_products/instant_message_filter/index.html>
<http://www.surfcontrol.com/instant_message_filter.aspx>
<http://www.stbernard.com/products/liveprism/im_filter.asp>
<http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0ED13372-F3D2-40F0-BA5D-C880359A40F5&displaylang=en>
Some work with the firewall, some install on the clients, some install
on the server, some impliment a filter on a bastion host, and some
just sniff the traffic looking for violations. Your over-choice.
On May 22, 11:24 am, kev <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> In many ways it comes down to who is using the machines and their
> awareness of problems that can occur. I go along with the "Layered
> Defence" league.
> Over the years we have had problems with family clicking on "pop-ups"
> on sites they should not have been on,one IM trojan (the AV didn't
> autoscan IM's). The AV on some of our machines doesn't auto scan USB
> flash drives or DVD drives so the family keep getting reminded to scan
> before using.
Popups seem to be controlled now..
The IM thing is tough for the firewall to catch, I imagine. It's
already allowing those ports, right?
You were lucky if you didn't get hit a few years back when spywhere
just became nasty. No coolwebsearch variants?
> Most of the family couldn't care about security and just want to do
> their own thing with the computers and if it goes wrong then it's
> someone elses problem. For what some of them use computers for I have
> converted them to a Linux box hard wired to a router and have had no
> problems for the last few months.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like the backup "security" approach that some internet shops use:
Once the OS, driver and software set is dialed in, I clone the system
drive for that PC. I leave it inside the case, but unhooked if it's a
desktop. Easy bail-out to any serious or elusive system issues,
infections, failed HD.
Old 6,8,10+ gig drives do the job.
Data protection is another issue, not hard but depends on the user
more. Some don't have much. Some are hopeless.
On May 22, 4:45 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 22 May 2007 07:48:39 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , seaweedsteve
>
> <seaweedst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 3:21 pm, b...@sme-online.com wrote:
> >>I've
> >> often seen
> >> compelling reasons for 2-way firewalls at work,
>
> >Not to be argumentive, but for learning's sake, could you give some
> >examples of when your system is healthy and needs outgoing?
>
> Setting aside the small fact that to connect to a website you need
> outgoing on port 80...
>
> --
> Mark McIntyre
Mark, I don't get it. Maybe the question is not clear:
>>could you give some examples of when your system is healthy and needs outgoing (should add)...inspection by a 2-way software firewall in order to protect the pc?
So, I'm asking for "compelling reasons for 2-way firewalls" in order
to protect the computer they are on. Again, I believe there are
reasonable examples, but I don't see that "port 80" is a "reason"
Obviously there is outgoing traffic.
Still fairly dependant on the user, most of the family machines are not
under my control, and there are a couple of the family who are always
curious as to what pop-up is being blocked.
>
> The IM thing is tough for the firewall to catch, I imagine. It's
> already allowing those ports, right?
Yes, the ports were allowed and the problem was resolved by changing the
AV for one that autoscanned IM's.
>
> You were lucky if you didn't get hit a few years back when spywhere
> just became nasty. No coolwebsearch variants?
The family mainly got adware and a small amount of spyware which were
easy to identify and clean up.
Perhaps I should have added somewhere that one of the many things
that annoys the family is the amount of time that is "spent" by their
computers in carrying security updates for all their "normal" programs
and then updates for their "security" programs followed by having scans
done and this really leads to disinterest as they are not getting to do
what they want.
> I like the backup "security" approach that some internet shops use:
> Once the OS, driver and software set is dialed in, I clone the system
> drive for that PC. I leave it inside the case, but unhooked if it's a
> desktop. Easy bail-out to any serious or elusive system issues,
> infections, failed HD.
>
Firewall protection with XP 
Linear Mode
