R
Remigijus
I wonder which one is better?
S
Straight Talk
Don't.
M
momo
Norton firewall is bloated (as almost all norton security software
nowadays), I would not recommend it.
On the other hand, Windows firewall is not as bad as it is generally
depicted, but it lacks some possibilities (like an enhanced program activity
control, forwarding. etc...)
Try googling for firewalls and choose one that you'll find suitable for your
needs.
A few clues:
- Zonealarm (they have a nice free version),
- Outpost (it has a very friendly user interface and a huge users community
so you can get answers to your questions about it quickly),
- Comodo Firewall Pro (seems a little heavy to me, but definitely worth
trying. and it's free.)
nowadays), I would not recommend it.
On the other hand, Windows firewall is not as bad as it is generally
depicted, but it lacks some possibilities (like an enhanced program activity
control, forwarding. etc...)
Try googling for firewalls and choose one that you'll find suitable for your
needs.
A few clues:
- Zonealarm (they have a nice free version),
- Outpost (it has a very friendly user interface and a huge users community
so you can get answers to your questions about it quickly),
- Comodo Firewall Pro (seems a little heavy to me, but definitely worth
trying. and it's free.)
K
Kayman
You are not going to find anything better than the Vista FW and Vista in
itself due to the advanced features the FW and Vista are using.
"Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil.
http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html
Jesper's Blogs-
At Least This Snake Oil Is Free.
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/07/19/at-least-this-snake-oil-is-free.aspx
Windows Firewall: the best new security feature in Vista?
http://blogs.technet.com/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/05/01/426921.aspx
Exploring The Windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/VistaFirewall/default.aspx
"If you try to block outbound connections from a computer that’s already
compromised, how can you be sure that the computer is really doing what you
ask? The answer: you can’t. Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a
gimmick that only gives the impression of improving your security without
doing anything that actually does improve your security. This is why
outbound protection didn’t exist in the Windows XP firewall and why it
doesn’t exist in the Windows Vista™ firewall."
Vista Firewall Control.
Protects your applications from undesirable network incoming and outgoing
activity, controls applications internet access.
http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/
S
Straight Talk
So far we agree.
I wonder what needs could actually be fulfilled by installing a PFW.
which leaks like a sieve and makes your system more vulnerable.
Which among others has critical technical designs flaws that allow for
shatter attacks. Heck. How can anyone trust a piece of software from a
vendor who demonstrates poor knowledge about the security system on
the very OS it is running on?
Which is a promotion tool specifically targetting leak tests in order
to gain popularity among the clueless.
P
Paul Smith
Remigijus said:
The Windows Firewall is fine, it just quietly does its job and doesn't nag
you every 10 seconds about some imaginary threat like many other software
firewalls. I wouldn't install any Norton "security" software on my system.
--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
http://www.windowsresource.net/
*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
J
John Barnett MVP
I use the Windows firewall on both my XP machine and Vista Machine. The only
thing I would do with Norton's is throw it in the bin.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
thing I would do with Norton's is throw it in the bin.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
V
Victek
As you can see no one is going to say anything nice about the Norton
Firewall <g>. I don't think it's a bad product, but there are others if you
want a firewall that monitors outbound connections and is easier to interact
with then the firewall built into Vista. Consider ZoneAlarm and PC Tools
Firewall PLus which are both freeware.
K
Kayman
http://www.matousec.com/projects/wi...ysis/leak-tests-results.php#firewalls-ratings
Scroll down to: Vendors' responses; Sunbelt Software - the vendor of
Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall.
A realistic assessment with respect to 3rd party PFW from a respectable
software manufacturer 2007-08-07.
It's just a matter of time when others follow (but then again they may
stubbornly refuse giving up the mighty advertisement dollar).
Aside from Microsoft, Steve Gibson of Gibson Research Corporation, Sunbelt
makers of Kerio PFW and quazillions of IT experts the list is growing;
We're gonna have a "I-told-you-so 'cum' egg-on-the-face party' pretty soon
and ya'll invited to join BB and KM are paying
Sunbelt Software - the vendor of Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall
Excerpts:
V
Victek
PFW Criticism.
It's probably true that software firewalls provide a false sense of security
for many people, but that can also be said of antivirus and antispyware
software as well. Only the user can create a secure environment through
self-education and diligence. For the uneducated user security software has
limited value, but for the educated user it can be very useful. A software
firewall reveals a lot of useful information about how the system is working
in real-time. You can learn a lot from it without having unrealistic
expectations that it's going to save the system if it becomes compromised.
It's just a tool with uses and limitations.
It's probably true that software firewalls provide a false sense of security
for many people, but that can also be said of antivirus and antispyware
software as well. Only the user can create a secure environment through
self-education and diligence. For the uneducated user security software has
limited value, but for the educated user it can be very useful. A software
firewall reveals a lot of useful information about how the system is working
in real-time. You can learn a lot from it without having unrealistic
expectations that it's going to save the system if it becomes compromised.
It's just a tool with uses and limitations.
S
Straight Talk
True to some extent. The major difference being that anti virus
running resident may stop and PREVENT a malware from infecting your
system (if you're lucky), which makes perfect sense. Software
firewalls on the other hand try to control code that is already
allowed to run. That's a major design flaw if fighting malware is the
purpose. Leaving it to the user to make technical security decisions
is another major flaw.
The educated user don't need it.
There are better tools for that.
What exactly can you learn from nonsense messages like "Program X is
trying to contact the Internet on IP address 127.0.0.1 - Do you want
to allow that?"
R
Ray
[snip]Victek said:
I will: it doesn't take a ton of memory. On my system, Process
Explorer reports that all the Symantec processes together (firewall,
antivirus, and antispyware) are using 12 meg of "working set". This is
less than AVG antivirus (50 meg), or the Windows firewall (15 meg), or
ZoneAlarm (as I recall, that used more than 12 meg). I'm assuming that
Process Explorer correctly lists all the Norton processes under
Symantec. (This is Norton Security Online; I have no idea how it
compares to their other products.)
There are other things I dislike about Norton -- I wouldn't use it if I
had to pay for it -- but it's not a memory hog, which came as a
pleasant surprise.
V
Victek
As you can see no one is going to say anything nice about the
Glad it's working for you. I used Norton Online Security (provided for
free by SBC Yahoo DSL) for a few months and had no problems with it. I
still run it on my wife's computer since by default it doesn't ask any
questions. It's perfect for those who don't want to deal with
firewall/AV/AS pop-ups, but it can also be configured to be fully
interactive for the more knowledgeable user.. I fix computers for a living
and in the real world the computers that have current security suites
installed almost never have malware problems (and when they do the
infections are easy to cleanup). The people who have serious problems
either have no security software or they've allowed their subscriptions for
updates/signatures to expire. Many people don't even know that their ISP
offers security software for free (well, it's included in the cost of the
service).
Glad it's working for you. I used Norton Online Security (provided for
free by SBC Yahoo DSL) for a few months and had no problems with it. I
still run it on my wife's computer since by default it doesn't ask any
questions. It's perfect for those who don't want to deal with
firewall/AV/AS pop-ups, but it can also be configured to be fully
interactive for the more knowledgeable user.. I fix computers for a living
and in the real world the computers that have current security suites
installed almost never have malware problems (and when they do the
infections are easy to cleanup). The people who have serious problems
either have no security software or they've allowed their subscriptions for
updates/signatures to expire. Many people don't even know that their ISP
offers security software for free (well, it's included in the cost of the
service).
P
perry
Victek said:
Its too easy to bypass even the best security. Just allow someone to
insert a disc copied from some other source or to download a file
from another computer and run it.
M
Mark
Neither.
Like UAC, or any other security, it's up to the user to answer those nagging
prompts correctly.
If the message is cryptic, you will eventually get it wrong and then you're
infected with "something."
If you like being really interactive with you're operating system, or you're
protective services, spend the money (every year) and get something "fully
configurable."
Windows Firewall isn't the best, but you will typically never be notified
it's protecting you.
And, if you are prompted, make sure you understand the message BEFORE you
click, unblock.
Like UAC, or any other security, it's up to the user to answer those nagging
prompts correctly.
If the message is cryptic, you will eventually get it wrong and then you're
infected with "something."
If you like being really interactive with you're operating system, or you're
protective services, spend the money (every year) and get something "fully
configurable."
Windows Firewall isn't the best, but you will typically never be notified
it's protecting you.
And, if you are prompted, make sure you understand the message BEFORE you
click, unblock.
V
VicTek
Glad it's working for you. I used Norton Online Security (provided for
I agree that it's too easy to bypass security. What do you suggest?
I agree that it's too easy to bypass security. What do you suggest?
P
perry
A "True Image" copied to removable disk(s)?VicTek said:
D
Dave Harris
Save your money. Windows Vista firewall is better.
J
James Matthews
both are good norton's file just has a few more bells and whisles and is
eaier to use then the windows forewall!
eaier to use then the windows forewall!