Wndows Firewall or Norton Firewall

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by Remigijus, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. Remigijus

    Remigijus Guest

    I wonder which one is better?
    Remigijus, Dec 13, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Don't.
    Straight Talk, Dec 13, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Remigijus

    momo Guest

    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
    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.)

    momo, Dec 13, 2007
  4. Remigijus

    Kayman Guest

    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.

    Jesper's Blogs-
    At Least This Snake Oil Is Free.

    Windows Firewall: the best new security feature in Vista?

    Exploring The Windows Firewall.
    "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.
    Kayman, Dec 13, 2007
  5. 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.
    Straight Talk, Dec 13, 2007
  6. Remigijus

    Paul Smith Guest

    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.

    *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
    Paul Smith, Dec 13, 2007
  7. 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
    John Barnett MVP, Dec 13, 2007
  8. Remigijus

    Victek Guest

    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.
    Victek, Dec 13, 2007
  9. Remigijus

    Kayman Guest

    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

    Kayman, Dec 14, 2007
  10. Remigijus

    Victek Guest

    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.
    Victek, Dec 14, 2007
  11. 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 - Do you want
    to allow that?"
    Straight Talk, Dec 14, 2007
  12. Remigijus

    Ray Guest


    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.
    Ray, Dec 14, 2007
  13. Remigijus

    Victek Guest

    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
    Victek, Dec 15, 2007
  14. Remigijus

    perry Guest

    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.
    perry, Dec 15, 2007
  15. Remigijus

    Mark Guest


    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
    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.
    Mark, Dec 15, 2007
  16. Remigijus

    VicTek Guest

    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?
    VicTek, Dec 15, 2007
  17. Remigijus

    perry Guest

    A "True Image" copied to removable disk(s)?
    perry, Dec 16, 2007
  18. Remigijus

    Dave Harris Guest

    Save your money. Windows Vista firewall is better.
    Dave Harris, Dec 17, 2007
  19. both are good norton's file just has a few more bells and whisles and is
    eaier to use then the windows forewall!
    James Matthews, Dec 27, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.