XP Firewall - Any good?

Hello there,

I'm just wondering how good the Windows XP firewall (the integral Microsoft one) is. My dead server (i.e. the one with the hard disk that was wrecked by a virus) was running Win98SE, but I am considering using Windows XP (to keep up with the times).

Anyway, I was using Zone Alarm on the server and wondered whether it would be safe to use the XP firewall feature instead of Zone Alarm.

Any information and advice would be gratefully received.

Dodge

 

The XP firewall seems to do okay in blocking stuff coming in from the outside. It doesn't even attempt to block anything from going out, which I've found a handy feature to identify spyware infestations.

XP's firewall is also difficult to configure for a network. I assume it's not impossible but I wasn't willing to take the time to learn all the external and intermal port numbers for the things I wanted to open ports for...not when there are so many more easily configurable free firewalls available.

 

Thanks Miz,

I was only thinking casually about it, and am not surprised that it isn't completely brilliant.

I'll just keep on using Zone Alarm Pro.

Cheers

Dodge

 

XP's firewall is no substitute for reliable third party software. In addition to the description Miz gave, I'd like to point out that by default, it allows incoming from MS. Theoretically, anyone depending on the XP firewall alone is vulnerable to any malicious code that disguises itself as being from an MS source. Scary, huh?

Johanna

 

Well, I'm not at all surprised that it stands aside for Microsoft.

No, I'm decided now, thanks to you good people. It's going to be Zone Alarm.

By the way, what's Norton's system works like?

Thanks for all the good info again.

Dodge

 

See this thread for more info on System Works.

Johanna

 

Thanks again

Looks like opinion is divided on the subject of Norton/Symantec.

In any case, I'll probably just stick with what I'm used to for the time being.

Once again, thanks very much for helping me.

Dodge

 

Dodge - based on quite a few recent mentiones (here and elsewhere) of problems with ZA and especially on XP systems, you might do better with Kerio Personal Firewall. Not free at around $45 for a personal copy but seems to be effective and trouble free on the PC.

Sygate offers a free version that may be fine. Haven't heard much one way or another. Maybe a question posted to the security section would get some information for you.

 

There is still a free version available:-

Limited free edition does not provide the content filtering capabilities such as blocking pop-up windows, ads, VB scripts, cookies, etc. and other extra features. Please see the comparison table for more details.

 

I'm using eTrust EZ Armor and like it quite well.

 

That's great

I'll look into these alternative (unknown to me until now) firewalls; could be a solution here after all.

Have a nice day.

Dodge

 

Hi Dodge,

You didn't mention a network, and you didn't say whether you're using dial-up or have a broadband connection to the internet.

If you have broadband, I urge you to consider including a router in your system for a couple of reasons ... 1) there is no software substitute for the protection a hardware firewall provides, and 2) should you ever decide to set up a LAN with another computer, all you have to do is plug it in and adjust a few settings.

 

Hi JSS3rd,

Until my system was hit by the virus (and now it seems that the two hard disks which were used by two of my computers are now no use any more), I was running a network.

My network was one where my main PC was a server and was connected to broadband (512Kb/s) internet. The other computer was connected (via network card) by cable, but there was also a wireless access point for use by the laptops of the household. My wife and I both have laptops which are part of our equipment for our jobs, and these as well as the family laptop which our daughter uses as a MSN Messenger machine all use the wireless network.

I've just put together the new machine (P4-3000, etc) as the new server, and my daughter must have been popping downstairs every 5 minutes asking whether the internet was ready yet, even while I was putting drives into the case

Anyway, that machine is online, but our network is not yet.

I had considered the router method, but someone persuaded me that the server idea was a simpler or cheaper option. Anyway, that's where I am at the moment.

The firewall protects the server, and the other PCs only need antivirus protection, I am told. Is this true?

Dodge

 

HAHAHA !!!! Simpler I doubt. ( in fact I know better ) One setting on one machine can mess up the whole works.

Cheaper. Not really when you consider the added protection and not relying on just one machine.

The server Idea may only be simplier and cheaper until the server goes flukey.

I go along with JSS3rd and the Router suggestion.

I have three machines hooked ( hardwired ) to the Router and if one machine goes down it has NO EFFECT on the others.

Also for the Router being a very good HARDWARE first line of defense as far as Firewall goes ( incoming only of course )

BillyBob

 

Hi Dodge,

There are others on the forum better qualified than I to speak to the server aspects of your situation, but it doesn't seem like such a good idea to me, particularly for a home LAN.

My LAN connects two XP Pro computers (desktop and laptop) and a 98SE desktop through a D-Link DI-514 wired/wireless (100 Ethernet/802.11b) router connected to a Motorola SB4200 cable modem.

Most of the time the laptop is on a dock on the Ethernet side of the LAN but, when removed, connects via encrypted wireless.

My only real problem has been that every time the laptop switched from Ethernet to wireless, or vice versa, a new dynamic IP was assigned, and ZoneAlarm had to be reconfigured on the other two computers so the three could connect. I solved that by configuring each computer with a static IP, which remains constant. Maybe not the best solution, but it works, and I'm able to use a single IP for both Ethernet and wireless on the laptop.

 

I have to chime in and go along with JSS3rd and BillyBob here. Invest in a router! You can get a good 4 port wireless for under a $100 and as mentioned, you can't beat the incoming firewall. I'm using a NetgearMR814v2 wireless which will share an IP with up to 253 users. True SPI and NAT firewall, 40/64 or 128 bit encryption and advertised speed of 200Mbps. 3 year warranty. Easily setup and I've not had 1 problem with it.

 

Re sygate Fire Wall. I used to use Zone Alarm when it was Version 2 but going to version 3 caused too many problems on my m/cs so I switched to Sygate about 2 years ago and am very pleased with it, no problems with it on Win 98SE or on WinXP Home. I also use a D-Link DSL 504 router at the front end and - touch wood have had no troubles with worms or viruses.

 

Bob - welcome to the forum

Lots of folks have reported problems with the newer version of ZA and especially with it and XP. Sorry to see that since they had (had) such a good track record.

All - if you have a router with a good firewall, you do not need and won't want software firewalls on your PCs unless there is one you put in the DMZ for some reason. I'm in the process of replacing a perfectly functional Linksys 4 port wired router/switch with a newer one and mainly to get the hardware firewall - and the newer VPN pass-thru features.

 

I can only tell you to use it, if you have it, secure surfing requires it, i do know that if you a gateway (DSL), you should disable the XP firewall, as it can interfere with it, the upside is the Gateway has an onboard Firewall. The XP firewall seems not to interfere with either McAfee or ZoneAlarm firewalls, as Ive used both, with the XP one on. I need to clearify a point, only the XP firewall seems to mess with the DSL gateway, not the installable ones, but then again, i only have experiance with ZoneAlarm and McAfee.

If you are on Cable, use every one that it will allow, please for your own safety, plus never ever go on without Antivirus protction.
Have a good day.
Kyle G