I just recently upgraded to Windows 64-Bit and I'd like to know if
there are any good 64-bit firewalls out there.
I'm currently using AVG 7.0 but the problem is that since I have
several network adapters it says that the firewall is functioning
properly because of a problem with packet filtration on multiple
network adapters.
So, any suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Grimscythe wrote:
>
> > I just recently upgraded to Windows 64-Bit
>
> Windows NT 4.0 for DEC Alpha, Windows XP IA64, Windows XP x64, Windows
> Server 2003 IA64 or Windows Server 2003 x64?
>
> > and I'd like to know if there are any good 64-bit firewalls out there.
>
> Ehm... are there any?
>
> > I'm currently using AVG 7.0
>
> Eh... isn't that a virus scanner?
>
> > So, any suggestions?
>
> Linux? BSD? That's why I'd use for a firewall.
Windows XP x64.
AVG is a firewall and a virus scanner.
Not sure what you meant by "Linux? BSD? That's why I'd use for a
firewall."
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"Sebastian Gottschalk"
news:4q3vfeFlb8alU1@news.dfncis.de...
> Grimscythe wrote:
>
>> Windows XP x64.
>> AVG is a firewall and a virus scanner.
>
> AFAICS AVG only includes a known lousy host-based packet filter, but
> nothing suitable for any firewall.
AVG Anti-Virus plus Firewall
http://www1.grisoft.com/doc/products-avg-anti-virus-plus-fir ewall/lng/us/tpl/tpl01
something new everyday
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Grimscythe wrote:
>
> > Windows XP x64.
> > AVG is a firewall and a virus scanner.
>
> AFAICS AVG only includes a known lousy host-based packet filter, but
> nothing suitable for any firewall.
>
> > Not sure what you meant by "Linux? BSD? That's why I'd use for a
> > firewall."
>
> Well, exactly that. Is there any good reason why you have to run Windows XP
> for your firewall?
Well how do you mean?
I do need to run Windows XP as my OS if that's what you're asking.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On Oct 24, 10:05 am, Sebastian Gottschalk
> Grimscythe wrote:
> > Well how do you mean?
> > I do need to run Windows XP as my OS if that's what you're asking.Argh! So basically you wanted to run a packet filter on your workstation
> and call that construct a firewall?
I suppose you can put it that way...Windows Firewall isn't suitable
because it only scans inbound traffic.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On Oct 24, 8:40 pm, Sebastian Gottschalk
> Grimscythe wrote:
> >> and call that construct a firewall?
>
> > I suppose you can put it that way...Well, then you should think about your concept again.
>
> > Windows Firewall isn't suitable because it only scans inbound traffic.Windows Firewall is a host-based packet filter. As it does not know about
> the Nat states of Windows ICS, it obviously isn't suitable as a firewall.
>
> Anyway, it does scan outbound traffic. Of course, since it has to capture
> the relevant states to allow related inbound traffic. I guess you meant
> that one cannot disable and/or expand the internal ruleset that is applied,
> which is, well, merely interesting, as one would have to add such a rule
> anyway.
Well then what do you suggest I do?
I have a router that has a built in hardware firewall that I don't use,
should I be using that instead?
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On Oct 25, 9:26 am, Sebastian Gottschalk
> Grimscythe wrote:
> > Well then what do you suggest I do?At first, think wisely if you actually need any firewall. Most likely you
> don't. If you really do, then think about your requirements, policies and
> available resources. At least you should understand the difference between
> a firewall (which is a concept to separate network segments with different
> trust levels at a perimeter) and host-based packet filters (where there
> isn't anything to separate anymore).
>
> > I have a router that has a built in hardware firewall that I don't use,You router is a router. It might have a packet filter included, which is
> written in software. It's only hardware as far it's implemented on a
> dedicated hardware and might, most likely doesn't, include hardware
> acceleration for some operation.
>
> > should I be using that instead?In replacement for a real, serious firewall? Most likely not.
> Implementations on common consumer-class routers are usually so fucked
> up...
Well I most definitely need a firewall.
ZoneAlarm for example, doesn't work on Windows x64.
Anything similar to ZoneAlarm that works on x64 would be great.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Grimscythe
> I just recently upgraded to Windows 64-Bit and I'd like to know if
> there are any good 64-bit firewalls out there.
Maybe you should think about it, because Windows is very complex and
maybe not a very good choice for a platform of a firewall
implementation.
Yours,
VB.
--
"Ich lache nie."
Besim Karadeniz in d.c.s.m.
Grimscythe
> Well I most definitely need a firewall.
What do you want to achive?
> ZoneAlarm for example, doesn't work on Windows x64.
You're lucky.
> Anything similar to ZoneAlarm that works on x64 would be great.
I doubt that.
Yours,
VB.
--
"Ich lache nie."
Besim Karadeniz in d.c.s.m.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk
: Reading the rest of the thread, one may notice that he doesn't even notice
: the difference between a firewall and a host-based packet filter. The
: latter is what he actually wants to implement.
He states that he wants something similar to ZoneAlarm, an application
aware firewall. I guess Vista will have such an animal included when
it's released in a few weeks.
Lars
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:17:49 +0000 (UTC),
larstr@no-spam.colargol.tihlde.org wrote:
> He states that he wants something similar to ZoneAlarm, an application
> aware firewall. I guess Vista will have such an animal included when
> it's released in a few weeks.
Maybe, maybe not.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/27/vista_delayed/
Also depends if user is buying the Business or home user version.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk
: larstr@no-spam.colargol.tihlde.org wrote:
: > I guess Vista will have such an animal included when it's released in a
: > few weeks.
: Who cares? Vista is unusable in any reasonable understanding, because you
: always need to fear that the kernel-integrated DRM isn't used against you -
: and this is trivial, even for non-DRMed data.
Are you implying that no-one will care about Vista? That we don't have
to deal with it because the users won't use it? Please enlight me; which
OS will the users convert to. Users today seem not to care much about
such issues, and using passport, MSN, etc at large.. But I guess you
have the ultimate solution that will enlighten people and get them on a
better track? Sounds like a dream, but I'm not so sure that will be the
reality?
Lars
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk
: > Are you implying that no-one will care about Vista?
: No. Just that no-one who understands Vista would use is voluntarily.
Then I guess we will still have to deal with questions from these users.
And I guess we will still have to care about these users.
Are people using anything voluntarily as they buy computer systems
with a preinstalled OS? Any it might be that their business critical
application also exists only for the win32 platform.
I understand that this does not apply to you, but it does indeed apply
to a significant enough number of users that we can't ignore it.
Lars
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:16:12 +0200, Sebastian Gottschalk
wrote:
>larstr@no-spam.colargol.tihlde.org wrote:
>
>>> Who cares? Vista is unusable in any reasonable understanding, because you
>>> always need to fear that the kernel-integrated DRM isn't used against you -
>>> and this is trivial, even for non-DRMed data.
>>
>> Are you implying that no-one will care about Vista?
>
>No. Just that no-one who understands Vista would use is voluntarily.
>
Utter piffle.
--
"He's raising an unholy army of singing dinosaurs!"