For the most part, I don't engage in habits that are "risky"--such as opening up random attachments or emails, going to odd websites, etc. I have an AV program just in case of course, but what about firewalls?
Are software firewalls worth the cost and trouble? How necessary is it to have one "just in case"?
-
well xp and vista have one, spyware, viruses and other stuff can get on your computer by mearly being on line, not necesarly using the interned (you are connected but not using) there are some ok free ones, but i think you'll be fine w/ the windows one
-
Well if you don't have a hardware firewall, you really should have a software firewall; though the built-in windows xp or vista firewall is sufficient IMO.
-
When at home, I am behind my WRT54G so I don't use a software firewall. When I'm on the road, I use Zone Alarm.
-
I live only with Windows Firewall on a cable connection, with no antivirus and used to have no firewall, but it doesn't take too many resources so I still use it (have used the NAT in RRAS in Windows Server 2003). Take it from me: a software firewall is mostly for having another door open for someone having a key to open it. Stick to Windows Firewall. Windows Firewall is basically a software NAT.
-
AKAJohnDoe Mime with Tourette's
I have hardware NAT (DSL MODEM + Wireless B\G running WPA+PSK) and ZoneAlarm Security Suite. The ZA is useful for limiting what functionality is opened or restricted. For example, I do not allow JavaScript unless a specific website absolutely requires it.
-
I always use a software firewall. The whole point of software firewall is outbound traffic control, i.e. which applications can access the internet while others can not. The Windows firewall works, but it either has no outbound control (XP) or is not really good at outbound control (Vista). I normally do not trust the applications on my computer by default. I do not want applications sending out information without my permission. So I use a software firewall. It all depends on how paranoid you are.
-
AKAJohnDoe Mime with Tourette's
Good point! That is another major function of ZA in my usage; to restrict what access programs have.
-
-
Hmmm.... I've tested quite a few products and I think Sygate (although scrapped by Symantec) is still one of the best software firewalls. It allows total inbound/outbound control. Nice features include tracking if an executable has changed since the last time, and blocking specific IP addresses or MAC addresses.
[I've also read that the Vista firewall allows all inbound traffic and then you have to restrict it manually...] -
-
On that note.. has anyone tried this vista firewall controller? It integrates with the Vista Firewall.
http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/index.html
I'm going to try out the free version today or tomorrow.
I find ZA to be more of a headache than it's worth.. I used to use the Pro version in XP for years. Until I just uninstalled it, stuck with Windows SP2 firewall and hardware firewall. Have a good A/V program, and run anti-spyware every week or so. -
In my opinion, software firewall is very useful in controlling the outbound firewall, as stated earlier. As far as I know, only ZA Pro and Comodo firewall have this feature. I don't know about Vista builtin firewall though.
I recommend you install a software firewall, Comodo seems to get a high grade from reviewers. I have only Comodo running without AV/Spyware on this machine. So far so good. -
The point about a good firewall is that it is *not* "just another door open for anyone who has the key".
A firewall blocks incoming traffic, and if incoming traffic is blocked, it's quite hard to fiddle with the firewall from outside because to do so, you have to send... incoming traffic. Sure, it can always be deactivated by software already on the computer, but Windows firewall is no different there.
Software Firewall - useful?
Discussion in 'Windows OS and Software' started by taelrak, May 20, 2007.