Re: Re: [OT] ZoneAlarm alternatives ??

[Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it's perfectly good advice - for a user who knows what they're
doing.

From your point of view working for a broadband provider, you'll
naturally be faced with a bunch of noobs and I can see that a belt and
braces approach saves a lot of headaches.  For the more technically
minded, though, it's overkill.

Mal


domdevitto wrote:
>
> This is, simply, such bad advice.
>
> Dom
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx <mailto:ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Ian
> Lowe" <ianlowe@...> wrote:
> >
> > My suggestion is to basically not bother.
> >
> > If you really must have a personal firewall installed (and I
don't
> > think you do need to) then use the windows firewall.
> >
> > Ultimately, these things hig resources, get in the way and offer
a
> > miniscule amount of protection.
> >
> > if you have a firewall at the edge of your network, or a router
which
> > performs NAT from a trusted 192.168.x.y or 10.x.y.z network out
onto
> > the Internet, you simply do not need a personal firewall product.
> >
> > If you have a larger network (ie, more than 25 machines) then
there
> > is something to be said for internal firewalls to stop things
> > spreading, but for a typical home network? screw it.
> >
> > I have disabled the firewalls on our internal PCs for the last
couple
> > of years. It's faster, easier to share resources and in that
entire
> > time we have not seen a single problem.
> >
> > Personal Firewall products are a complete waste of time - a
cheap-as-
> > chips NAT based router is more secure and protects the whole
network
> > without hitting everyone's performance.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
>
>