A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 19th 05, 12:12 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

Hi, I plan to get a NAT/SPI router from buffalo tech. (WBR2-G54S -
http://www.buffalotech.co.uk/webcont...emID=wbr2-g54s)


I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software
firewall such as zone alarm? It would save me some resources and money
to ditch ZA. So you think that the Buffalo claim that their router has,
I quote "Dynamic Packet Filtering,
Intrusion Detector & SPI Firewall" can be trusted?

I'm running win xp sp2.

Best,

Steve.

  #3  
Old April 19th 05, 06:54 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Phil Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,720
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12:06 -0700, wrote:

if it then become unnecesary


the depends on your definition of unnecessary. I wouldn't (and don't)
bother, you can use the SP2 firewall if you like as its free. MS also
have an anti-spyware beta
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
that montors undesirable activity.

Personally I can't be doing with software firewalls asking me if I
want to allow the computer to do what I just instructed it to do :-)

Phil
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices :-)

--
  #4  
Old April 19th 05, 07:41 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
David Bradley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M wrote:

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, wrote:

I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
such as zone alarm?


It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of incoming
traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets infected,
or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP to
disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it. Peter.


The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into preventing a PC from being
infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap outgoing data of a dubious kind.
Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and regular sweeping of the PC to
confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance on a software firewall
where the configuration could well give a false sense of security? Prevention rather than cure
seems to me to be more sensible.

David Bradley


  #5  
Old April 19th 05, 09:56 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?


"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M

wrote:

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, wrote:

I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
such as zone alarm?


It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of

incoming
traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets

infected,
or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP

to
disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it.

Peter.

The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into

preventing a PC from being
infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap

outgoing data of a dubious kind.
Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and

regular sweeping of the PC to
confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance

on a software firewall
where the configuration could well give a false sense of security?

Prevention rather than cure
seems to me to be more sensible.

David Bradley


This response implies that it is wrong to have both

Peter




  #6  
Old April 19th 05, 11:15 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?


"Peter" wrote in message
...

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M

wrote:

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, wrote:

I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software

firewall
such as zone alarm?

It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of

incoming
traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets

infected,
or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP

to
disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your

firewall
is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend

using
a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it.

Peter.

The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into

preventing a PC from being
infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap

outgoing data of a dubious kind.
Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and

regular sweeping of the PC to
confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the

reliance
on a software firewall
where the configuration could well give a false sense of security?

Prevention rather than cure
seems to me to be more sensible.

David Bradley


This response implies that it is wrong to have both


I use a software firewall and a NAT router mainly because I like to be able
to control which applications can and cannot access the internet. As an
example, a lot of applications phone home on startup and check for updates
which I don't want them to do as I like my privacy. No they arn't pikey
copies before anyone asks.

Peter






  #7  
Old April 19th 05, 12:40 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
David Bradley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:56:45 +0000 (UTC), "Peter" wrote:


"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M

wrote:

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, wrote:

I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
such as zone alarm?

It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of

incoming
traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets

infected,
or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP

to
disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it.

Peter.

The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into

preventing a PC from being
infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap

outgoing data of a dubious kind.
Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and

regular sweeping of the PC to
confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance

on a software firewall
where the configuration could well give a false sense of security?

Prevention rather than cure
seems to me to be more sensible.

David Bradley


This response implies that it is wrong to have both

Peter




No it doesn't. It is just a case of what you believe in. My view is that a Firewall is something
you have on the perimeter of your local area network, not something you have on every machine.

Automatic updates is something that you can have manual control over. You either turn them off or
on; you don't need a firewall for the functionality.

David Bradley

  #8  
Old April 19th 05, 02:56 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,607
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:41:12 +0100, David Bradley
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M wrote:

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, wrote:

I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
such as zone alarm?


It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of incoming
traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets infected,
or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP to
disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it. Peter.


The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into preventing a PC from being
infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap outgoing data of a dubious kind.


So you think the response is "implying" something that is near enough
the exact opposite of what it said.

Interesting idea.

Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and regular sweeping of the PC to
confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance on a software firewall
where the configuration could well give a false sense of security? Prevention rather than cure
seems to me to be more sensible.


The ONLY sensible option is to do BOTH.

No matter how good your prevention, there is going to be a possibility
of something beating it at some point.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hm..what's this red button fo:=/07NO CARRIER

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
  #9  
Old April 19th 05, 02:57 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Alex Heney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,607
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:40:50 +0100, David Bradley
wrote:

snip

This response implies that it is wrong to have both

Peter




No it doesn't.


Only because it stated it pretty explicitly.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hm..what's this red button fo:=/07NO CARRIER

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
  #10  
Old April 19th 05, 03:24 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Peter M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,496
Default Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

On 19 Apr 2005 07:41, David Bradley wrote:

The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into
preventing a PC from being infected in the first place rather than
having a mechanism to trap outgoing data of a dubious kind.


You've completely misread my comment, if you really think what I wrote had
the meaning you've posted! Mine was solely a response to the question as
written, with no "implied"! The question, in case you've forgotten it:

I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
such as zone alarm?


There's no mention in what I wrote of any anti-virus tool being replaced
or that a firewall replaces it, merely that in my view, and one which is
not universally felt essential, a firewall could be useful and can alert
one to there being potentially unwanted traffic. As one example, making
sure that Real Player on my PC does not forever 'alert me' to updates or
new products/offers/rubbish which RealNetworks would otherwise want to
'tell me'. Not to do with a virus, is it, but still traffic I block!


--
Plus.Net http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4
I recommend them and save some cash.

With a guarantee allowing new users to migrate if they're unhappy!
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Completely replace software firewall with hardware firewall? Sheila aka Pippie uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 April 4th 05 02:52 PM
Completely replace software firewall with hardware firewall? donnie uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 March 23rd 05 01:09 PM
Completely replace software firewall with hardware firewall? Chet uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 11 March 23rd 05 02:01 AM
Completely replace software firewall with hardware firewall? Nick H uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 March 22nd 05 06:02 PM
Completely replace software firewall with hardware firewall? Duane Arnold uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 March 21st 05 11:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.