Windows XP built in Firewall, or Norton Personal FIrewall?

[PowerMacG5]

I plan on setting up a computer running XP Pro as a router, and have multiple computer connected to it through ehternet cards, or a switch. Which firewall would be more secure for protecting the routing computer from external threats, XP's built in firewall, or NPF?

 

[aircooled]

Disable XP's built in firewall and run any of the alternative. Norton Personal Firewall if you have it, but I recommend ZoneAlarm personally (just my opinion).

But regardless, use any respectable firewall rather than XP's.

 

[stingygrrl]

or kerio

 

[Tiger]

It's a humongous waste using a PC as a router. I'd spend $60 on a router which comes with NAT then run Zonealarm (free) on all the connected PC's.

 

[MGMorden]

Only bad thing about the free version of ZoneAlarm is that Internet Connection Sharing doesn't work w/ it (supposed to work in ZoneAlarm Pro though). You could get it for $50 or a standalone router for $60-70.

 

[Adrian Tung]

Originally posted by: MGMorden
Only bad thing about the free version of ZoneAlarm is that Internet Connection Sharing doesn't work w/ it (supposed to work in ZoneAlarm Pro though). You could get it for $50 or a standalone router for $60-70.

Are you sure about this? I've got the free version of ZA running and two other machines - one WinXP and one Linux - are browsing without problems through WinXP's ICS.


🙂atwl

 

[PowerMacG5]

Adrian, just out of curiosity, how are you forwarding the ports you need for multiplayer games when you use ICS?

 

[drag]

I think your best bet is dump XP's firewall -Microsoft has absolutly horrible track record with security. I wouldn't trust it to protect anything.

Go with a nice firewall like norton. Even better go with a seperate router/NAT firewall (about 70 bucks, I've installed netgear in my father's house). Or if you are got some government secrets to protect go with both...

I personally use a Linux-based router I built on a old pentium 200. In a little while I'll be changing over to a OpenBSD one. 🙂

 

[RedBeard0531]

actualy according to steve gibson (the guy how created sheilds up, and runs gibson research corp.) XP's firwall protects from external attacs. but, if you have a router, and your internal ips start with 10. or 192.168 it is an unnesesary precaution as it is imposable to access the other machens from the net. if you want to be super safe, and u r dedicating a machine to be a router, unbind client/server for microsoft networks from tcp/ip. this will prevent it from accessing shared drives on other comps. the advantage of zone alarm is that it prvents programs from "phoning home". this is not a true hack as you must d/l and run a program for it to do this. for the most part dealing with that is more of an anoyance unless you are realy anal about privacy. I no this is an unpopular opinion, but i dont care about tracking of where i go(unlees they moniter what i enter, which few do), as it does help free software to exist and acutaly can enhace browsing.if they see that i go to tech sites they get money for the info, and i get adds targeted twords me. I almost wished they did that with tv. the latest and greates nike shoe ad is wasting money on my tv.

my 2c (plz no flames😱)

 

[MGMorden]

Originally posted by: Adrian Tung

Originally posted by: MGMorden
Only bad thing about the free version of ZoneAlarm is that Internet Connection Sharing doesn't work w/ it (supposed to work in ZoneAlarm Pro though). You could get it for $50 or a standalone router for $60-70.

Are you sure about this? I've got the free version of ZA running and two other machines - one WinXP and one Linux - are browsing without problems through WinXP's ICS.


🙂atwl

It might work in the newest version. It has been a few months since I tried it personally.