Quote:
Originally posted by Slavakion
I know that there have been posts about this before, but the search turned up conflicting results. It seems that most people either recommended ZoneAlarm or Outpost. Some said that that the one that they didn't use caused funny problems. So... I'm wondering which one would actually be better. I'm looking for something that's easy to set new rules (preferably by a user firendly popup window a la McAfee). I'm running XP on an Athlon if that makes any difference.
By the way, do I need a firewall since I have a router? I think so, since <start bad metaphor> a router is like a stone wall around your computer with sections that can be either open or closed. The problem is that most routers don't guard those open sections. A firewall is like having security examining everything passing through. So with both, you block off most entries for hackers (router) and guard the open sections (firewall).
Well, now that I've rambled on and on, is my understanding of the topic correct? And which firewall is "better"?
Thanks
|
With a cable/DSL type router with NAT enabled you are handed a private IP that is translated out the the internet. This is good, as long as you don't have PAT enabled or have your machine sitting out on the DMZ. There is really no need for a firewall.
IF you want a good firewall, check out CheckPoint. One of the best!