question
in [Windows Viruses]
|
From: T.H on 12 Apr 2010 04:33 On 4/11/2010 8:14 PM, Leythos wrote: > In article<#xLkwAd2KHA.4332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, NoMail(a)NoSpam > says... >> >>> I'm not one for a FireWall application but a NAT Router or FireWall Appliance >>> combined with the native FireWall of XP, Vista or Win7. >> >> 2 questions, >> 1. I have a NAT router but I don't think it has any hardware firewall >> on it, do I need one that does ? (I do have the netbios ports blocked on the Wan port) > > A basic NAT router is often called a firewall by sales people and > marketing types. The "NAT ROUTER" works to 'protect' your network by > only allowing inbound connections that have been requested by something > INSIDE your network. > > Some NAT routers have "firewall like" features, allowing you to block > inbound or outbound ports, but, don't confuse them with firewalls. > > As an example, if I choose to specify an HTTP rule, the firewall can > inspect the traffic to ensure that it's actually HTTP traffic and not > FTP or SMTP traffic, but the NAT router only passes the PORT traffic > without actually knowing what it's passing. > > If you secure your operating system properly and don't run as a local > Admin, a simple NAT router is likely to protect you from most attacks. > At the same time, a poorly configured firewall is likely to not provide > as much protection as a NAT router. > > With that said, most of the quality firewall can inspect traffic and > remove detectable malware from web-browsing, email, ftp, etc... > Would you list some firewalls you like? Less expensive is good. :-)) Thanks. T.H
From: RJK on 12 Apr 2010 06:26 "RB" <NoMail(a)NoSpam> wrote in message news:%23gR3ekd2KHA.1016(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Thanks for the info, it was explained well. I have read that by using > a bonafide firewall router in conjunction with a software firewall > that one would get better performance. I have no idea how this > would occur since the text did not elaborate, but I surmised > something to do with possibly less restrictive settings for software > (depending more on the router firewall ) and thereby leaving > the software to concentrate on malware issues. Is this a bunch > of web blab or is there any reality to it ? > "Performance" is an ambiguous term :-) The main benefit, IMO, from using a good 3rd party firewall is that, (whilst training it up at least), it alerts you, somewhat, to unauthorised outbound connection attempts, (Windows firewall only monitors for unauthorised inbound connection attempts). With so much "web enabled" software contained in a typical PC with XP platform, (not to mention that XP was designed to "serve" - and they've been plugging the holes ever since), I like, (in addition to manually monitoring an enormous heap of web enabled software, which can be really time consuming), to know what's in there trying to get out ! I've always liked AVG internet security suite, and recently have been using PrevX, with its' "cloud" technology, and I particularly like how it monitors for PBP (Pretty Bad Proxys'), during https / secure sockets layer connections :-) ....and it's British :-) ...and is written in assembler so is VERY fast. ...F-secure rootkit scanner "Blacklight" also appears to be wriiten in assembler - must take a look into that ...mumble ....mumble. regards, Richard
From: David H. Lipman on 12 Apr 2010 06:43 From: "RJK" <nosuch(a)hotmail.com> | "RB" <NoMail(a)NoSpam> wrote in message | news:%23gR3ekd2KHA.1016(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Thanks for the info, it was explained well. I have read that by using >> a bonafide firewall router in conjunction with a software firewall >> that one would get better performance. I have no idea how this >> would occur since the text did not elaborate, but I surmised >> something to do with possibly less restrictive settings for software >> (depending more on the router firewall ) and thereby leaving >> the software to concentrate on malware issues. Is this a bunch >> of web blab or is there any reality to it ? | "Performance" is an ambiguous term :-) The main benefit, IMO, from using a | good 3rd party firewall is that, (whilst training it up at least), it alerts | you, somewhat, to unauthorised outbound connection attempts, (Windows | firewall only monitors for unauthorised inbound connection attempts). With | so much "web enabled" software contained in a typical PC with XP platform, | (not to mention that XP was designed to "serve" - and they've been plugging | the holes ever since), I like, (in addition to manually monitoring an | enormous heap of web enabled software, which can be really time consuming), | to know what's in there trying to get out ! | I've always liked AVG internet security suite, and recently have been using | PrevX, with its' "cloud" technology, and I particularly like how it monitors | for PBP (Pretty Bad Proxys'), during https / secure sockets layer | connections :-) ....and it's British :-) ...and is written in assembler | so is VERY fast. ...F-secure rootkit scanner "Blacklight" also appears to | be wriiten in assembler - must take a look into that ...mumble ....mumble. | regards, Richard Well you can say that by NOT using a 3rd party FireWall application you would have better performance due to the lack of overhead and processing caused by the 3rd party FireWall application. Thus not a performance hit. However you will have a latency introduced with a FireWall Appliance. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: RJK on 12 Apr 2010 07:07 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:e0B%23tzi2KHA.3844(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > From: "RJK" <nosuch(a)hotmail.com> > > > | "RB" <NoMail(a)NoSpam> wrote in message > | news:%23gR3ekd2KHA.1016(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Thanks for the info, it was explained well. I have read that by using >>> a bonafide firewall router in conjunction with a software firewall >>> that one would get better performance. I have no idea how this >>> would occur since the text did not elaborate, but I surmised >>> something to do with possibly less restrictive settings for software >>> (depending more on the router firewall ) and thereby leaving >>> the software to concentrate on malware issues. Is this a bunch >>> of web blab or is there any reality to it ? > > > | "Performance" is an ambiguous term :-) The main benefit, IMO, from > using a > | good 3rd party firewall is that, (whilst training it up at least), it > alerts > | you, somewhat, to unauthorised outbound connection attempts, (Windows > | firewall only monitors for unauthorised inbound connection attempts). > With > | so much "web enabled" software contained in a typical PC with XP > platform, > | (not to mention that XP was designed to "serve" - and they've been > plugging > | the holes ever since), I like, (in addition to manually monitoring an > | enormous heap of web enabled software, which can be really time > consuming), > | to know what's in there trying to get out ! > > | I've always liked AVG internet security suite, and recently have been > using > | PrevX, with its' "cloud" technology, and I particularly like how it > monitors > | for PBP (Pretty Bad Proxys'), during https / secure sockets layer > | connections :-) ....and it's British :-) ...and is written in > assembler > | so is VERY fast. ...F-secure rootkit scanner "Blacklight" also appears > to > | be wriiten in assembler - must take a look into that ...mumble > ....mumble. > > | regards, Richard > > > Well you can say that by NOT using a 3rd party FireWall application you > would have better > performance due to the lack of overhead and processing caused by the 3rd > party FireWall > application. Thus not a performance hit. > > However you will have a latency introduced with a FireWall Appliance. > > -- > Dave > http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html > Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp > I do agree, ...you're quite right of course, ...though unless "todays" PC/OS/gui environment is so stuffed with bloatware / items loaded at startup etc. (...I'll never forget that flatbed scanner lid detector, that sat polled several times a second, in case the user wanted to do a scan ! ...who writes rubbish like that?) ...performance shouldn't really be an issue ? e.g. ...Socket 7 350mhz cpu based machine vs. my "old" x2 3ghz dual core cpu etc. ,<grin> regards, Richard
From: Leythos on 12 Apr 2010 09:11 In article <pradnby959lJR1_WnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d(a)insightbb.com>, tinfolihat(a)nospamplease.com says... > > On 4/11/2010 8:14 PM, Leythos wrote: > > In article<#xLkwAd2KHA.4332(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, NoMail(a)NoSpam > > says... > >> > >>> I'm not one for a FireWall application but a NAT Router or FireWall Appliance > >>> combined with the native FireWall of XP, Vista or Win7. > >> > >> 2 questions, > >> 1. I have a NAT router but I don't think it has any hardware firewall > >> on it, do I need one that does ? (I do have the netbios ports blocked on the Wan port) > > > > A basic NAT router is often called a firewall by sales people and > > marketing types. The "NAT ROUTER" works to 'protect' your network by > > only allowing inbound connections that have been requested by something > > INSIDE your network. > > > > Some NAT routers have "firewall like" features, allowing you to block > > inbound or outbound ports, but, don't confuse them with firewalls. > > > > As an example, if I choose to specify an HTTP rule, the firewall can > > inspect the traffic to ensure that it's actually HTTP traffic and not > > FTP or SMTP traffic, but the NAT router only passes the PORT traffic > > without actually knowing what it's passing. > > > > If you secure your operating system properly and don't run as a local > > Admin, a simple NAT router is likely to protect you from most attacks. > > At the same time, a poorly configured firewall is likely to not provide > > as much protection as a NAT router. > > > > With that said, most of the quality firewall can inspect traffic and > > remove detectable malware from web-browsing, email, ftp, etc... > > > Would you list some firewalls you like? Less expensive is good. :-)) www.watchguard.com is my first and primary choice. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Worries About Stealing, etc - PCBUTTS Exposed, again Next: https / "Man In The Middle" Q. |