64-Bit Software Firewall

I started a topic on this before but it got nowhere.
Does anyone know of any decent Windows XP x64 Compatible Firewalls,
akin to ZoneAlarm?

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On Oct 28, 12:42 pm, Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Grimscythe wrote:
> > I started a topic on this before but it got nowhere.Ask yourself why this is.
>
> > Does anyone know of any decent Windows XP x64 Compatible Firewalls,
> > akin to ZoneAlarm?Why are you still asking for firewalls if you actually want to implement a
> host-based packet filter?

Because a firewall, is still a firewall, even if it's a PERSONAL
Firewall.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

: But a "personal firewall" is no firewall, no matter how much you claim it.
: Get a grip on the concept of a firewall.

: Actually all "personal firewalls" are absolutely unsuitable to build any
: firewalls.

Are you indicating that personal firewalls has no place? No market? Does
nothing for the average home user? IMHO I believe that application aware
personal firewalls are there for a reason and does something good, even
if they're not traditional stateful firewalls/packet filters. The
internet is a jungle, and in the jungle there are many dangerous
animals. ;)

Lars

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
: > The internet is a jungle, and in the jungle there are many dangerous
: > animals.

: Oh, another misguided analog vs. digital world comparison?

That analogy might not be entirely correct, but it sounds to like you're
saying that the internet is not so dangerous. That the number of
attacks/traps are not so much. That the users are all fully educated on
security related topics, not running windows and not having problems in
any of these security related areas? That your aunt havent called you
because her computer has started acting weirdly after her 14 year old son has
been using it and filling it up with all kinds of unwanted stuff.

Lars
--
Hit any user to continue.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On 28 Oct 2006 09:38:25 -0700, "Grimscythe" wrote:

>I started a topic on this before but it got nowhere.
>Does anyone know of any decent Windows XP x64 Compatible Firewalls,
>akin to ZoneAlarm?

Try www.grisoft.com . Their AVG + firewall product has supported x64 since
v7.0.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On Oct 29, 5:37 am, Tom Joyce wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2006 09:38:25 -0700, "Grimscythe" wrote:
>
> >I started a topic on this before but it got nowhere.
> >Does anyone know of any decent Windows XP x64 Compatible Firewalls,
> >akin to ZoneAlarm?Trywww.grisoft.com. Their AVG + firewall product has supported x64 since
> v7.0.
That's what I'm using right now but it gives me an error message saying
that the firewall won't work properly since I have more than one
network adapter.
On another note: Sebastian, I didn't ask for a lesson on what a
firewall is, I simply asked for suggestions of a personal firewall
because I don't need a full Hardware Firewall like the Cisco Pix.
Programs like ZoneAlarm have served me very well on my old 32-bit PC
and I'd like to stick with them now.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On 29 Oct 2006 05:58:31 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:


> Programs like ZoneAlarm have served me very well on my old 32-bit PC
> and I'd like to stick with them now.

How have they served you any better than the one that already comes built
into the OS? You already have a firewall in your router so why do you feel
you need another one wasting resources and causing connectivity issues?

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On Oct 29, 5:10 pm, Crispy Critter wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2006 05:58:31 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:
>
> > Programs like ZoneAlarm have served me very well on my old 32-bit PC
> > and I'd like to stick with them now.How have they served you any better than the one that already comes built
> into the OS? You already have a firewall in your router so why do you feel
> you need another one wasting resources and causing connectivity issues?
Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On 29 Oct 2006 14:17:00 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:


> Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
> I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.

This article should enlighten you as to the value of 3rd party software
firewalls.

http://www.unixsecur.com/firewalls/personal-firewall.html

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Grimscythe wrote:
> Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
> I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.

It seems to be very difficult to achive, that also the last booby
realizes, that "controlling outbound" is not only a b0rken concept, but
also does not work at all.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Volker Birk skriver:
> Grimscythe wrote:
>> Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
>> I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.
>
> It seems to be very difficult to achive, that also the last booby
> realizes, that "controlling outbound" is not only a b0rken concept, but
> also does not work at all.

Is it, blocking on user works in some system and quite well. It's also
usefull. For exsampe on a border machine, put a rule like.

block out proto { tcp, udp } from any to 10/8
pass out proto { tcp, udp } from any to 10/8 \
user { < 1000, myuser } keep state

And you have blocked the 10 network from the "users". However the
"personal-firewall" stuff that mostly is added in windows is mostly
useless.

/ Balp
--
http://anders.arnholm.nu/ Keep on Balping

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Grimscythe wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 5:10 pm, Crispy Critter wrote:
> >> On 29 Oct 2006 05:58:31 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:
> >>
> >>> Programs like ZoneAlarm have served me very well on my old 32-bit PC
> >>> and I'd like to stick with them now.How have they served you any better than the one that already comes built
> >> into the OS? You already have a firewall in your router so why do you feel
> >> you need another one wasting resources and causing connectivity issues?
> > Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
> > I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.
>
> I does scan outbound connections.
>
> Anyway, ZoneAlarm never served you well. And you not noticing, not even
> trying to notice them by an audit, shows that you don't have the technical
> competence to make such judgements.

First of all, I did run several "audits" on my pc and all of them
claimed that my pc was secure. But anyway, if you believe that personal
firewalls are so horrid, why don't you give me a suggestion as to what
I should be using. I have a hardware firewall built into my router but
it's not very customizable as far as I can see.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Grimscythe wrote:
>
> >>> Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
> >>> I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.
> >>
> >> I does scan outbound connections.
> >>
> >> Anyway, ZoneAlarm never served you well. And you not noticing, not even
> >> trying to notice them by an audit, shows that you don't have the technical
> >> competence to make such judgements.
> >
> > First of all, I did run several "audits" on my pc and all of them
> > claimed that my pc was secure.
>
> What kind of audits?
>
> > But anyway, if you believe that personal
> > firewalls are so horrid, why don't you give me a suggestion as to what
> > I should be using.
>
> Eh.... nothing at all? I admit, most people have problems understanding
> that there's technically no need for any firewall for home users, and that
> they're fallen for marketing crap.
>
> > I have a hardware firewall built into my router
>
> Especially with such a misconception.
>
> > but it's not very customizable as far as I can see.
>
> It usually isn't, indeed.
Through the past years I have seen that when I didn't have a firewall I
had to reformat my pc every few months due to hacker attacks and the
like(spyware, etc.).
Keeping in mind that it's difficult to maintain to maintain a secure
system with an 8 yr old brother.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
: > firewalls are so horrid, why don't you give me a suggestion as to what
: > I should be using.

: Eh.... nothing at all? I admit, most people have problems understanding
: that there's technically no need for any firewall for home users, and that
: they're fallen for marketing crap.

Please, tell us about your world and what your users are doing. I'm very
interested in hearing how you solved this, because we've done some
investments for firewalling our travelling users.

Or are you living in a pre eternal-september era using an internet with
only academic users? ;)

Please educate us, I'm sure more people are interested in learning from
your experience. :)

Lars

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

On 31 Oct 2006 05:43:50 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:


> Through the past years I have seen that when I didn't have a firewall I
> had to reformat my pc every few months due to hacker attacks and the
> like(spyware, etc.).
> Keeping in mind that it's difficult to maintain to maintain a secure
> system with an 8 yr old brother.

Use the XP firewall in conjunction with the router. It's all you need. You
don't even really need the XP firewall but it wil help protect you if you
are on a LAN.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

larstr@no-spam.colargol.tihlde.org wrote:
> Please, tell us about your world and what your users are doing. I'm very
> interested in hearing how you solved this, because we've done some
> investments for firewalling our travelling users.

There are two possibilities:

http://ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

The Windows-Firewall.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Crispy Critter wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2006 05:43:50 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:
>
>
> > Through the past years I have seen that when I didn't have a firewall I
> > had to reformat my pc every few months due to hacker attacks and the
> > like(spyware, etc.).
> > Keeping in mind that it's difficult to maintain to maintain a secure
> > system with an 8 yr old brother.
>
> Use the XP firewall in conjunction with the router. It's all you need. You
> don't even really need the XP firewall but it wil help protect you if you
> are on a LAN.
The only qualm I have with my router is that I'm not quite sure about
how to customize it.
It has 3 settings(off, low, and high) but the only way I can think of
customizing those settings at all is through port forwarding and port
triggering.

Sebastian,
I really don't understand how you can say that a firewall is
unnecessary for the average home user. There are times when simply by
going on google and doing a simple search can lead to spyware appearing
on your computer. Nowadays, every single computer connected to the
internet is under a constant threat of spyware, trojans, viruses, etc.
If you can't see that then you must be very naive.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Grimscythe wrote:
>
> > Sebastian,
> > I really don't understand how you can say that a firewall is
> > unnecessary for the average home user.
>
> Actually there's a quite trivial argument: Average home users don't have
> any clue about TCP/IP and/or networking. And from a technical point of
> view, the need doesn't exist either.
>
> > There are times when simply by
> > going on google and doing a simple search can lead to spyware appearing
> > on your computer.
>
> Not just that this is utter bullshit, but totally unrelated. A firewall
> can't do anything against spyware.
>
> > Nowadays, every single computer connected to the
> > internet is under a constant threat of spyware, trojans, viruses, etc.
>
> Bullshit. Those are all tools for the user himself to threaten his
> computer.
>
> > If you can't see that then you must be very naive.
>
> Can just return that. You believe in a firewall being like magic.
First of all, explain to me exactly why you think that the need doesn't
exist.
Secondly, there are some firewalls that offer spyware prevention.
Thirdly, Spyware and Trojans are not "TOOLS" for the user to threaten
his own computer as you.
And no, I don't believe that firewalls are "magic" but there are many
people, including several in this Usenet Group I'm sure, who would
disagree with you.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Oh SHUTUP you arrogant snob.

For his needs Zone Alarm is fine. Take a break from the computer and
go look at yourself in the mirror because you sure as Hell are not
offering an valuable advice.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:03:23 +0100, Sebastian Gottschalk
wrote:

>Grimscythe wrote:
>
>> On Oct 29, 5:10 pm, Crispy Critter wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2006 05:58:31 -0800, Grimscythe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Programs like ZoneAlarm have served me very well on my old 32-bit PC
>>>> and I'd like to stick with them now.How have they served you any better than the one that already comes built
>>> into the OS? You already have a firewall in your router so why do you feel
>>> you need another one wasting resources and causing connectivity issues?
>> Simply because Windows Firewall is inadequate for my uses.
>> I need outbound connections being scanned as well as inbound.
>
>I does scan outbound connections.
>
>Anyway, ZoneAlarm never served you well. And you not noticing, not even
>trying to notice them by an audit, shows that you don't have the technical
>competence to make such judgements.

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

"Sebastian Gottschalk" schreef in bericht
news:4tdbhjF13avp0U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Harry Ipema wrote:
>
>> Oh SHUTUP you arrogant snob.
>>
>> For his needs Zone Alarm is fine.
>
> Zone Alarm isn't fine for anything, especially not his needs.
>
>> Take a break from the computer and
>> go look at yourself in the mirror because you sure as Hell are not
>> offering an valuable advice.
>
> I am. Just your problem is that you don't want to accept it.

Some people simply do´nt wanna know if they´re infected.

arja

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

> Some people simply do´nt wanna know if they´re infected.

What are you talking about?

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Mr. Arnold6 skriver:
>> Some people simply do´nt wanna know if they´re infected.
> What are you talking about?

Probaly that as personal software firewall can't do any good (in a
singel suer windows like enviroment anyhow) du many people will like
thet do do something good so they don't have to care any more. These
people seldom like to know when there protections fails as that means
that they have to work.

/ Balp
--
http://anders.arnholm.nu/ Keep on Balping

Re: 64-Bit Software Firewall

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)