From: The Central Scrutinizer on
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hksk6c0l79(a)news3.newsguy.com...
> | If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is testing
> | your router rather than your Windows firewall.
>
>
> +1

So um... Does this mean the windows firewall is inadequete?

From: David H. Lipman on
From: "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com>

| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:hksk6c0l79(a)news3.newsguy.com...
>> | If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is testing
>> | your router rather than your Windows firewall.


>> +1

| So um... Does this mean the windows firewall is inadequete?


No this meaqns this is subject matter that you don't comprehend.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp


From: David H. Lipman on
From: "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com>

| "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in message
| news:g4a3n5hs9bek7qjm7k33f8bl0badpmg77s(a)4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:36:44 -0600, Bill <wsblevins(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I'll chime in here. I took a brief look at some independent comparative
>>>tests, which would conclude that MS Security Essentials Anti-Virus would
>>>be adequate for most people's needs. No AV product is completely
>>>effective without some common sense being used. Personally, I choose to
>>>use NOD32 because I have used it for years and don't mind paying for it.
>>>As for a firewall, the one included with Windows 7 does just fine
>>>according to tests performed at Shields Up on the grc.com website. It's
>>>fully stealth, and that's good enough for me.

>> If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is testing
>> your router rather than your Windows firewall.

| And that matters how? Or are you just pointing out a detail or nit because
| he
| referenced the windows firewall when the action may well be going through
| the router? Please point out one example where the windows firewall being
| enabled was a problem in that it allowed inappropriate access.


Right -- zooms right over your head.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp


From: Char Jackson on
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:54:37 -0600, "The Central Scrutinizer"
<gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:g4a3n5hs9bek7qjm7k33f8bl0badpmg77s(a)4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:36:44 -0600, Bill <wsblevins(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As for a firewall, the one included with Windows 7 does just fine
>>>according to tests performed at Shields Up on the grc.com website. It's
>>>fully stealth, and that's good enough for me.
>>
>> If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is testing
>> your router rather than your Windows firewall.
>
>And that matters how?

With a NAT router in place, the connection attempts from grc.com will
hit (and be stopped by) the router. They won't get as far as the
firewall, so the firewall becomes irrelevant in that case.

From: Char Jackson on
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:12:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com>
>
>| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>| news:hksk6c0l79(a)news3.newsguy.com...
>>> | If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is testing
>>> | your router rather than your Windows firewall.
>
>
>>> +1
>
>| So um... Does this mean the windows firewall is inadequete?
>
>
>No this meaqns this is subject matter that you don't comprehend.

:-)