T
Twayne
Guest
Re: Firewall question
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:OvtXbDHDJHA.4700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:g9g4r4$il$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> For some years I have had a LAN with four computers at home, based
>>>> on a DLink DSL504T modem/router also providing access to the
>>>> Internet. With the kids all grown up and gone now-a-days I decided
>>>> to simplify everything. My one remaining machine now connects to
>>>> the Internet via a SmartAX ADSL2+ MT882 modem using the ethernet
>>>> port. The old DLink had a hardware firewall built in, and I also
>>>> ran a
>>>> software firewall on each individual computer. My question is, now
>>>> with a firewall also in
>>>> the new modem, and no LAN any more, do I really need a software
>>>> firewall on
>>>> my single machine as well any more? I am running Windows XP SP3
>>>> with the Windows firewall enabled at present.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for any advice offered.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
>>>> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee
>>>> nutter, and compulsive computer fiddler.
>>>
>>> Your DLink 504T is an ADSL modem/router and has therefore an inbuilt
>>> firewall. It will protect you quite effectively against hackers. You
>>> would need a more sophisticated firewall only if you wanted to limit
>>> the access granted to applications that you run on your PC.
>>>
>>> IMHO, people who exercise discipline and restraint when visiting
>>> Internet sites do not need a firewall other than the one built into
>>> their router. However, if you only had a modem but no router then a
>>> firewall would be mandatory.
>>
>> That's nearly as ignorant as the poor souls who don't yet have the
>> savvy to even know what discipline and restreaint etc. are necessary
>> yet. If you didn't have such a huge ego you'd have room for your
>> software firewall and because you think you know, doesn't mean
>> anything about any other single person on this planet.
>>
>> NAT routers et al only give you a first level of protection. Because
>> YOU think you don't need one, and the size of you ego makes
>> me wonder, has absolutely no bearing on the rest of society. A
>> second, 2-way firewall such as ZoneAlarm etc., is indeed worth
>> having for most people. One of the thngs I detest most on the
>> internet is misinformation, which your bloated-ego response meets
>> perfectly.
>
> I suggest you change the balance of your reply: Ease off on attacking
> me (which does nothing whatsoever for the OP), put some real meat on
> the technical side of your reply (which would be of real value to the
> OP).
I will "attack" as you put it, misinformation wherever and whenever I
find it and wish to do so. You attempted to paint the universe with all
one color and that doesn't work. If you want someone to have more
accurate information, I would suggest you provide it.
I have nothing against you personally; only misinformation. If you
feel that's against you, then so be it; I can't help that. I seldom pay
attention to names unless I see grossly incorrect information so up to
this point i had no idea it was you who posted that; the author wasn't
important yet. The misinformation is/was.
I think I made myself clear enough. The OP can make his own decisions,
even do his own research. Were he to ask further questions I would
gladly provide any relevant information or experience that I may have.
I will admit one thing; I did have more for the OP In the way of
information, but I was interrupted and didn't get back to posting
directly until just now. So in some way I am remiss in providing
information. But from the look of the thread it's all become moot now.
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:OvtXbDHDJHA.4700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:g9g4r4$il$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> For some years I have had a LAN with four computers at home, based
>>>> on a DLink DSL504T modem/router also providing access to the
>>>> Internet. With the kids all grown up and gone now-a-days I decided
>>>> to simplify everything. My one remaining machine now connects to
>>>> the Internet via a SmartAX ADSL2+ MT882 modem using the ethernet
>>>> port. The old DLink had a hardware firewall built in, and I also
>>>> ran a
>>>> software firewall on each individual computer. My question is, now
>>>> with a firewall also in
>>>> the new modem, and no LAN any more, do I really need a software
>>>> firewall on
>>>> my single machine as well any more? I am running Windows XP SP3
>>>> with the Windows firewall enabled at present.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for any advice offered.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
>>>> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee
>>>> nutter, and compulsive computer fiddler.
>>>
>>> Your DLink 504T is an ADSL modem/router and has therefore an inbuilt
>>> firewall. It will protect you quite effectively against hackers. You
>>> would need a more sophisticated firewall only if you wanted to limit
>>> the access granted to applications that you run on your PC.
>>>
>>> IMHO, people who exercise discipline and restraint when visiting
>>> Internet sites do not need a firewall other than the one built into
>>> their router. However, if you only had a modem but no router then a
>>> firewall would be mandatory.
>>
>> That's nearly as ignorant as the poor souls who don't yet have the
>> savvy to even know what discipline and restreaint etc. are necessary
>> yet. If you didn't have such a huge ego you'd have room for your
>> software firewall and because you think you know, doesn't mean
>> anything about any other single person on this planet.
>>
>> NAT routers et al only give you a first level of protection. Because
>> YOU think you don't need one, and the size of you ego makes
>> me wonder, has absolutely no bearing on the rest of society. A
>> second, 2-way firewall such as ZoneAlarm etc., is indeed worth
>> having for most people. One of the thngs I detest most on the
>> internet is misinformation, which your bloated-ego response meets
>> perfectly.
>
> I suggest you change the balance of your reply: Ease off on attacking
> me (which does nothing whatsoever for the OP), put some real meat on
> the technical side of your reply (which would be of real value to the
> OP).
I will "attack" as you put it, misinformation wherever and whenever I
find it and wish to do so. You attempted to paint the universe with all
one color and that doesn't work. If you want someone to have more
accurate information, I would suggest you provide it.
I have nothing against you personally; only misinformation. If you
feel that's against you, then so be it; I can't help that. I seldom pay
attention to names unless I see grossly incorrect information so up to
this point i had no idea it was you who posted that; the author wasn't
important yet. The misinformation is/was.
I think I made myself clear enough. The OP can make his own decisions,
even do his own research. Were he to ask further questions I would
gladly provide any relevant information or experience that I may have.
I will admit one thing; I did have more for the OP In the way of
information, but I was interrupted and didn't get back to posting
directly until just now. So in some way I am remiss in providing
information. But from the look of the thread it's all become moot now.