Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by Dajan, Aug 24, 2008.

  1. Dajan

    Flight Guest

    Look at the test results from many antivirustesters. What's wrong with that?
    But do whatever you want, I stop with comments on this subject.
    Flight, Aug 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dajan

    The Bee Guest

    The Bee, Aug 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dajan

    The Bee Guest

    I am telling you now don't get the old man's nose open, because he is
    sick in the head, and he doesn't have anything going on in his,
    otherwise, old, lonely and loony tune life but Usenet. He is some kind
    of kin to Ringmaster Albright. He is just out here attacking people for
    no apparent reason, with a lot of lip dribble service. At least with
    Ringmaster, he has a mission statement of get Frank, get Microsoft and
    get anyone that talks pro on Microsoft, while old man Montgomery is just
    loosy as a goosy and out here.
    The Bee, Aug 25, 2008
  4. I am neither complaining nor requiring help. I migrated to free AV
    after having used paid-for products in the past. None of the ones
    I have used has ever caught malware except Norton 5.0 - which
    caught kakworm coming from a microsoft helpdesk after I had
    already applied the scriptlet typelib / eyedog patch.

    I don't think it is a bad thing to pay for software, and I believe the
    free ones are adequate for my low risk data. People with high
    value (and hence high risk) data should get payware and make use
    of the support it helps pay for.
    FromTheRafters, Aug 25, 2008
  5. Paul Montgomery, Aug 25, 2008
  6. Dajan

    DDW Guest

    When asked whose ass he pulled that one out of, he replied:
    Didn't cite any, because there aren't any that call Avast "not so

    DDW, Aug 25, 2008
  7. Dajan

    jhnlmn Guest

    I cannot figure out what that built-in Vista FW is good for.
    All incoming connections are blocked by the router anyway,
    and, I heard, that software FW are not as secure as hardware.
    But what I really need is control over outgoing connections.
    I hate when applications connect to the Web behind my back,
    gobble up my net bandwidth, report on my usage patterns,
    download and install upgrades without my approval, etc.
    So, I used ZoneAlarm for years, but, alas, it is not available
    on Vista 64. For now I switched to Comodo. It is much harder
    to configure, but appears to be more flexible.
    jhnlmn, Sep 20, 2008
  8. Makes sense for a laptop - where you might not
    always be behind *your* router - or I suppose
    a desktop setup when *your* router isn't *yours*
    anymore due to intrusion.
    More a want than a need. Outgoing connections come
    from software already executing on the machine you
    are "protecting" - this is not really a firewall's function.
    FromTheRafters, Sep 20, 2008
  9. Dajan

    jhnlmn Guest

    Well, if they managed to hijack your router, then all is los
    and software FW will not help either (neither built-in nor thir

    But, as I already said, my problem is not with viruse
    (the last time I had a real damage from a virus was back in 92)
    but with "legitimate" software, such as Acrobat reader
    Media player and many others, which connect to Interne
    behind my back without my permission and send who-knows-wha
    about me to their headquarters. For that reason I never run
    a PC without outgoing firewall, which significantly improve
    my network connection speed by blocking unwanted connections. It woul
    be nice if MS will build outgoing FW
    into the Windows and protect it from being disable
    the same way as MS protects Vista internal modules fro
    being overwritten. Until then I have to rely on third party solutions
    jhnlmn, Sep 20, 2008
  10. Why do you say that? Just because they have your
    router does not mean they have your computer too.
    That's a good part of what makes a router a firewall.
    Of course not, we were talking about the usefulness of
    Windows Firewall if a *real* firewall in the form of a
    router was also used. Viruses are not really a firewall
    issue - but a network worm may well be thwarted by
    the presence of the Windows Firewall in case you find
    yourself no longer shielded by the router or other true
    firewall appliance.
    Hmmm...okay... yeah, some people are real sensitive
    about that sort of thing.

    FromTheRafters, Sep 21, 2008
  11. Dajan

    jhnlmn Guest

    Well, I am not an expert. My thought was that in order t
    reconfigure my router someone should get access to th
    password, which is only possible by hijacking my P
    or getting a physical access to both. But if they hijacke
    my PC, then they also compromised my software firewal
    as well, which is much easier to do than to record a passwor
    for the router. Of course, I ignored the fact that a route
    may be buggy and intruder may take advantage of it
    But I didn't hear so far about intruders attacking hom
    routers, while there is endless stream of attacks on home PCs
    The original question was whether one still needs a third part
    firewall in Vista. So, I just tried to explain why I still need one
    I guess that most of the people simply not aware why thei
    PCs (and Web browsers) keep slowing down to a crawl
    I have dozens of programs installed and most of them are tryin
    to check for updates and download huge files behind my back
    install them and reboot my PC - all the time interfering wit
    my work. I just cannot use PC without an outgoing firewall anymore
    jhnlmn, Sep 21, 2008
  12. Generally, routers still have the default user and password.

    Mine was user and user.
    My neighbors was (okay..still is) user and admin.
    I was refering to your first contribution, not the original
    post for the thread,

    You said in part:

    "I cannot figure out what that built-in Vista FW is good for.
    All incoming connections are blocked by the router anyway,
    and, I heard, that software FW are not as secure as hardware."

    Which is correct.

    What the software firewall is good for is when you find
    yourself *not* behind a real firewall for whatever reasons.
    Outbound sniffing and filtering would be better applied in an
    environment that is not the same environment as that that is
    being "protected" by such filtering. It goes for inbound too.

    As you said - " FW are not as secure as hardware."

    Application control and internet access control are nice, but
    are not a good security move because malware will be written
    to tunnel within the programs that are allowed access. Your
    filter software won't alert to them and you will think it is not
    happening. So - you will end up in the same situation with the
    added overhead of the filtering software running and finding
    FromTheRafters, Sep 21, 2008
  13. Dajan

    jhnlmn Guest

    change the router password, then built-in Vista FW would give som
    I already wrote that my biggest problem is not with viruse
    but with "legitimate" apps, such as Acrobat, WMP, iTunes, etc
    which manage to slow down my PC and Web connection
    almost to a halt. Luckily, these apps are not so deviou
    and do not perform any tunneling
    but my feeling is that my PC is running faster with an outboun
    FW - at least CPU and network activity indicators do go dow
    each time I block a third party app from connecting
    jhnlmn, Sep 22, 2008
  14. My broadband cable provider's setup instructions make no
    mention of passwords or usernames. I believe that to be the
    normal situation. If so, there are many people out there that
    fit into your "so lazy" category. I suppose those laptop users
    that are too lazy to drag around their personal router/firewall
    could also benefit from what you call "built-in Vista FW"?
    Nobody, why do you ask? I will say that firewalls *are* for
    security and not just 'nice to have' functionality. The features
    that became associated with firewalls have become computer
    hosted applications that attempt to mimic true firewalls. The
    features are okay, but shouldn't be confused with what a real
    firewall is.
    Again, viruses are not addressed by firewalls. Lets not talk
    about viruses. I did mention malware though - I suppose that
    having unwanted actions by legitimate programs monitored is
    a good enough reason for such features as internet access
    control. You may not want consent.exe to access the internet
    just as you are typing your credentials into the box. But it is
    not a firewall thing. It's like saying one word processor is
    better than another because it plays music while you type.
    By all means use outbound filtering - especially when you feel
    such benefit from it. But it is a shame to have to trade the FW
    that came with Vista away just because of that feature. What
    Zonealarm should do is make an outbound filtering application
    that *isn't* glued to their firewall so that users can keep the
    Windows Firewall *and* have the features from Zonealarm
    if they value them.
    A feeling is good enough for me - benchmarking is overrated. :eek:)

    If you can set your router firewall up for logging, see how often
    Zonealarm phones home. Does it phone home more often than
    the major offender of your legitimate irritations? Block one -
    send two of its own?
    FromTheRafters, Sep 22, 2008
    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.