|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
DriverHeaven Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 0 ![]() |
Windows Firewall vs. NPF
hello...
I used to run Norton Personal Firewall...& it had a function that would detect & disallow dangerous connections. for example, it used to pop up from time to time w/ an 'Internet Access Control' window...during web surfing...advising me to block a high risk remote system which was attempting to access my machine. They were various Inbound TCP, UDP, IMCP & NetBIOS Services...utilizing any number of different ports. So my question is...now that I'm running XP Pro...(& assuming my Windows Firewall is up & running)...does Windows Firewall have a function that accomplishes the same thing ??? thanks, mark4man |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Real capital of Canada: Toronto
Posts: 5,529
Rep Power: 94 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
To be honest, Windows Firewall is crap. Every machine I sell I disable it right away, and install Comodo Firewall (also known as Comodo Internet Security) in its place. It's consistently one of the best Firewalls on the market, and it's completely free. There are 3 different levels of Firewall protection you can choose to install, from basic Firewall, Firewall with some malware protection (port specific), and Maximum (which has too many options to list). With it you can do application, port, zone, and even connection specific protection, as well as define policies for certain types of applications, and how to handle responses by certain types of attacks. There's a bunch of other options too, such as the fact that you can run it in different "modes", from paranoid to training/disabled for the malware defense portion, and block all to training/disabled for the Firewall portion.
Comodo Firewall, along with a router/gateway that has a decent built in hardware firewall will pretty much button you up nice and secure. Last edited by Tipstaff; Sep 17, 2009 at 06:56 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
|
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
Sorry to slightly hijack the thread, but, Tipstaff, is Windows firewall in Vista also crap? I intended to install Comodo, but found out that Windows Firewall with Advanced Security applet (under Administrative Tools) gave me similar configuration options to what other firewalls offer and it seemed decent enough to me. Bad call?
__________________
Feed the porkers and don't touch the buttons! |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Now In Color :D
|
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
disable Windows firewall, as Tipstaff wrote, it's crap... just install some other firewall, for example, i use NetLimiter in combination with NOD32 AV Business Edition...
__________________
It's not schisophrenia... it's just a voice in my head... |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Real capital of Canada: Toronto
Posts: 5,529
Rep Power: 94 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
|
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
Thanks for the reply, I'll get Comodo ASAP.
![]() I thought that Windows Firewall wouldn't be so easy to disable because of the UAC, which I left on and hardly noticed. Also, the "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" seemed like it had all the right settings, but I bumped into certain problems trying to get it to work the way I wanted it. Blocking a single application was easy, but I, naturally, wanted to block all unauthorized outbound connections. Unfortunately, when I did that, I was unable to get Opera to load a single web page, even though I made it an outbound rule that allowed it to contact any host by any protocol and even adding an inbound rule didn't help. How it's supposed to work is a mystery that I apparently wont be solving.
__________________
Feed the porkers and don't touch the buttons! Last edited by IvanV; Sep 18, 2009 at 07:34 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Now In Color :D
|
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
Quote:
__________________
It's not schisophrenia... it's just a voice in my head... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
incognito
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BoTsWaNa
Posts: 1,477
Rep Power: 54 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
lol, i think so too, but i'll go for zone alarm if i got the cash!
__________________
Three quarks for Muster Mark! Sure he has not got much of a bark And sure any he has it's all beside the mark. —James Joyce, Finnegans Wake |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Now In Color :D
|
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
this is totally offtopic, but i read somewhere that to make the default sounds under Windows XP, a pirated version of Sound Forge was used, which wouldn't surprise me... hahahaha
![]() back on topic... i've been using NetLimiter for about a year now... it's ideal for my needs...
__________________
It's not schisophrenia... it's just a voice in my head... |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
I can fart in 7 languages
|
Re: Windows Firewall vs. NPF
Windows Firewall is great, if you want nothing to work properly.
We're running with all Windows Firewalls turned off at my workplace because when it's turned on with the default settings you can't ping the PC (or tracert it), see if the PC's actually there, monitor network & Internet activities and it prevents many applications - even at network level - from communicating properly. It sucks, even more than McAfee Antivirus (which is really saying something!), which we also - regrettably - use. For freeware, Zonealarm and Comodo I've found are fine - haven't had any problems with either of them. For paid, my preference is Bitdefender Internet Security.
__________________
![]() I don't get paid to know the answer, therefore I'm far more likely to give you a straight and honest answer. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|