"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:eI$yREUZIHA.984@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > You should never have two firewalls running at the same time.[/color]
>>
>> Why? Have you had problems doing it?[/color]
>
> Three reasons:
> 1. You achieve no extra protection,
> 2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,
> 3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
> between them.
> See [url]http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx[/url]
>
>
>
> Ken:
>
> You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).
>
>[color=green]
>> 1. You achieve no extra protection,[/color]
>
> Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a
> benefit.
> I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free
> for application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as
> they work at different OSI levels.
>[color=green]
>> 2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,[/color]
>
> That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
> f/w in XP and then in Vista.
>[color=green]
>> 3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
>> between them.[/color]
>
> True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.
>[color=green]
>> See [url]http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx[/url][/color]
>
> MS attitude is self-serving.[/color]


Perhaps running two firewalls has worked for *you*, (there are usually
exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
is the answer. It IS redundant!

> Perhaps running two firewalls has worked for *you*, (there are usually
exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
is the answer. It IS redundant!

JS:

You are not understanding how f/ws work.
It is not redundant as ZA free and Vista f/ws work on different entities as
my previous post stated.
Do you understand the OSI reference model for networking?
Can you provide a technical reason why they would not work?

The popular belief is that you should not run two f/ws together. IMO, this
belief is not based on knowledge or experience.

In the XP NG thread that my previous post mentioned, there were a number of
posts that claimed their experience was the same as mine.



My previous post:
Ken:

You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).

[color=blue]
> 1. You achieve no extra protection,[/color]

Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a benefit.
I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free for
application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as they
work at different OSI levels.
[color=blue]
> 2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,[/color]

That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
f/w in XP and then in Vista.
[color=blue]
> 3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
> between them.[/color]

True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.
[color=blue]
> See [url]http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx[/url][/color]

MS attitude is self-serving.

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:eNDepiaZIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Perhaps running two firewalls has worked for *you*, (there are usually[/color]
> exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
> NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
> poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
> is the answer. It IS redundant!
>
> JS:
>
> You are not understanding how f/ws work.
> It is not redundant as ZA free and Vista f/ws work on different entities
> as my previous post stated.
> Do you understand the OSI reference model for networking?
> Can you provide a technical reason why they would not work?
>
> The popular belief is that you should not run two f/ws together. IMO, this
> belief is not based on knowledge or experience.
>
> In the XP NG thread that my previous post mentioned, there were a number
> of posts that claimed their experience was the same as mine.[/color]

Ok...you win:-)

[color=blue]
>
>
>
> My previous post:
> Ken:
>
> You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).
>
>[color=green]
>> 1. You achieve no extra protection,[/color]
>
> Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a
> benefit.
> I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free
> for
> application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as they
> work at different OSI levels.
>[color=green]
>> 2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,[/color]
>
> That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
> f/w in XP and then in Vista.
>[color=green]
>> 3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
>> between them.[/color]
>
> True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.
>[color=green]
>> See [url]http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx[/url][/color]
>
> MS attitude is self-serving.
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

Do you wear a belt and suspenders at the same time?
Yes it will make sure your pants don't fall off very often, but you won't
have many women trying to get them down either. LOL

Unless you're visiting some really bad sites, two firewalls is way over the
top.
If you put 3 deadbolts and a steel front door on your house, it doesn't make
up for the sliding glass door with a thumblatch in the back.
--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!
[email]CarGodZeroOne********.com[/email]
Change Alpha to Numeric to reply
"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:eNDepiaZIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Perhaps running two firewalls has worked for *you*, (there are usually[/color]
> exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
> NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
> poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
> is the answer. It IS redundant!
>
> JS:
>
> You are not understanding how f/ws work.
> It is not redundant as ZA free and Vista f/ws work on different entities
> as my previous post stated.
> Do you understand the OSI reference model for networking?
> Can you provide a technical reason why they would not work?
>
> The popular belief is that you should not run two f/ws together. IMO, this
> belief is not based on knowledge or experience.
>
> In the XP NG thread that my previous post mentioned, there were a number
> of posts that claimed their experience was the same as mine.
>
>
>
> My previous post:
> Ken:
>
> You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).
>
>[color=green]
>> 1. You achieve no extra protection,[/color]
>
> Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a
> benefit.
> I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free
> for
> application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as they
> work at different OSI levels.
>[color=green]
>> 2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,[/color]
>
> That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
> f/w in XP and then in Vista.
>[color=green]
>> 3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
>> between them.[/color]
>
> True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.
>[color=green]
>> See [url]http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx[/url][/color]
>
> MS attitude is self-serving.[/color]

Re: using two firewalls:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Do you wear a belt and suspenders at the same time?[/color][/color]

You are not understanding that f/ws can function differently to achieve
different objectives.
You think all f/ws do the same thing; they do not!

Think of the concept of firewalls as you would clothing:
Clothing can include a belt (or suspenders), pants, shoes, etc.

Firewalls (in a broad sense) can include packet filters, application gates,
NAT-routers, proxy servers, IDSs, etc.

The individual items are complementary, not duplicitous.