It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?

X wrote:
> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?

Just disable the Windows firewall before installing Comodo. XP's
security center will recognize Comodo and accept it.

Alias

Windows Firewall is not a "third party" firewall as it is created by
Microsoft. Third party software are software that are not created by
microsoft.

"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message news:fi84h3$pfp$1@aioe.org...
> X wrote:
>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
>
> Just disable the Windows firewall before installing Comodo. XP's security
> center will recognize Comodo and accept it.
>
> Alias

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:48:21 -0600, X wrote:

> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?

I hope you're not going to regret installing "Phoney Baloney ware" to your
precious operating system :)
--
Security is a process not a product.
(Bruce Schneier)

X wrote:
> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?

Be careful installing Commodo Pro, as a low spec PC will run slower with
it installed.

John.

xxx_ wrote:
> Windows Firewall is not a "third party" firewall as it is created by
> Microsoft. Third party software are software that are not created by
> microsoft.
>
> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fi84h3$pfp$1@aioe.org...
>> X wrote:
>>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
>>
>> Just disable the Windows firewall before installing Comodo. XP's
>> security center will recognize Comodo and accept it.
>>
>> Alias
>

One should disable it nonetheless before installing Comodo. Having two
software firewalls running will not work.

Alias

John wrote:
> X wrote:
>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
>
> Be careful installing Commodo Pro, as a low spec PC will run slower with
> it installed.
>
> John.

And "low spec" is? I have it running on an Athlon XP 2200 with one gig
of RAM and I am experiencing no performance problems at all.

Alias

X wrote:
> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.

windmap wrote:
> X wrote:
>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
> Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
> attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.

Windows firewall only protects from traffic coming in and does nothing
to flag traffic going out. So, yes, one needs a proper firewall, not the
Windows crap.

Alias

windmap wrote:
> X wrote:
>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
> Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
> attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.

That's absolute rubbish.

John.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:49:52 +0100, Alias wrote:

> windmap wrote:
>> X wrote:
>>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
>> Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
>> attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.
>
> Windows firewall only protects from traffic coming in and does nothing
> to flag traffic going out.

1. Do not work as administrator, use limtited user account (LUA) for
day-to-day work.
2. Keep your system (and all software on it) patched.
3. Review use of IE and OE.
4. Don't expose services to public networks.

In conjunction with WinXP SP2 Firewall use:
Seconfig XP 1.0
http://seconfig.sytes.net/
(http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-39707.html)
Seconfig XP is able configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport
protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135, 137-139
and 445 (the most exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.)
OR
Configuring NT-services much more secure.
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html

> So, yes, one needs a proper firewall, not the Windows crap.

Care to elaborate?

The proper firewall *is* crap! It's Phoney Baloney ware aka Illusion ware!

Sunbelt Software - the vendor of Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall
Excerpts:

[quote]
....we have some reservations about personal firewall "leak testing" in
general. While we appreciate and support the unique value of independent
security testing, we are admittedly skeptical as to just how meaningful
these leak tests really are, especially as they reflect real-world
environments.

The key assumption of "leak testing" -- namely, that it is somehow useful
to measure the outbound protection provided by personal firewalls in cases
where malware has already executed on the test box -- strikes us as a
questionable basis on which to build a security assessment. Today's malware
is so malicious and cleverly designed that it is often safest to regard PCs
as so thoroughly compromised that nothing on the box can be trusted once
the malware executes. In short, "leak testing" starts after the game is
already lost, as the malware has already gotten past the inbound firewall
protection.

Moreover, "leak testing" is predicated on the further assumption that
personal firewalls should warn users about outbound connections even when
the involved code components are not demonstrably malicious or suspicious
(as is the case with the simulator programs used for "leak testing"). In
fact, this kind of program design risks pop-up fatigue in users,
effectively lowering the overall security of the system -- the reason
developers are increasingly shunning this design for security applications.
[unquote]

Firewall LeakTesting.
http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-105.htm
Excerpts:
Leo Laporte: "So the leaktest is kind of pointless."
Steve Gibson: "Well,yes,...
Leo: "So are you saying that there's no point in doing a leaktest anymore?"
Steve: "Well, it's why I have not taken the trouble to update mine, because
you..."
Leo: "You can't test enough".
Steve: "Well, yeah.
Leo: "Right. Very interesting stuff. I guess that - my sense is, if you
can't test for leaks, a software-based firewall is kind of essentially
worthless."

PFW Criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona...all#Criticisms

"Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil.
http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html

Why your firewall sucks.
http://tooleaky.zensoft.com/
"But I quickly realized the truth: The added protection provided by
outbound filtering is entirely illusory."

At Least This Snake Oil Is Free.
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesp...l-is-free.aspx

Deconstructing Common Security Myths.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...s/default.aspx
Scroll down to:
"Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe."

Exploring the windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...l/default.aspx
"Outbound protection is security theater¡Xit¡¦s a gimmick that only gives the
impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually
does improve your security."

'nuff said :)
--
Security is a process not a product.
(Bruce Schneier)

Kayman wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:49:52 +0100, Alias wrote:
>
>> windmap wrote:
>>> X wrote:
>>>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>>>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
>>> Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
>>> attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.
>> Windows firewall only protects from traffic coming in and does nothing
>> to flag traffic going out.
>
> 1. Do not work as administrator, use limtited user account (LUA) for
> day-to-day work.
> 2. Keep your system (and all software on it) patched.
> 3. Review use of IE and OE.
> 4. Don't expose services to public networks.
>
> In conjunction with WinXP SP2 Firewall use:
> Seconfig XP 1.0
> http://seconfig.sytes.net/
> (http://www.softpedia.com/progDownloa...oad-39707.html)
> Seconfig XP is able configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport
> protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135, 137-139
> and 445 (the most exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.)
> OR
> Configuring NT-services much more secure.
> http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html
>
>> So, yes, one needs a proper firewall, not the Windows crap.
>
> Care to elaborate?
>
> The proper firewall *is* crap! It's Phoney Baloney ware aka Illusion ware!
>
> Sunbelt Software - the vendor of Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall
> Excerpts:
>
> [quote]
> ...we have some reservations about personal firewall "leak testing" in
> general. While we appreciate and support the unique value of independent
> security testing, we are admittedly skeptical as to just how meaningful
> these leak tests really are, especially as they reflect real-world
> environments.
>
> The key assumption of "leak testing" -- namely, that it is somehow useful
> to measure the outbound protection provided by personal firewalls in cases
> where malware has already executed on the test box -- strikes us as a
> questionable basis on which to build a security assessment. Today's malware
> is so malicious and cleverly designed that it is often safest to regard PCs
> as so thoroughly compromised that nothing on the box can be trusted once
> the malware executes. In short, "leak testing" starts after the game is
> already lost, as the malware has already gotten past the inbound firewall
> protection.
>
> Moreover, "leak testing" is predicated on the further assumption that
> personal firewalls should warn users about outbound connections even when
> the involved code components are not demonstrably malicious or suspicious
> (as is the case with the simulator programs used for "leak testing"). In
> fact, this kind of program design risks pop-up fatigue in users,
> effectively lowering the overall security of the system -- the reason
> developers are increasingly shunning this design for security applications.
> [unquote]
>
> Firewall LeakTesting.
> http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-105.htm
> Excerpts:
> Leo Laporte: "So the leaktest is kind of pointless."
> Steve Gibson: "Well,yes,...
> Leo: "So are you saying that there's no point in doing a leaktest anymore?"
> Steve: "Well, it's why I have not taken the trouble to update mine, because
> you..."
> Leo: "You can't test enough".
> Steve: "Well, yeah.
> Leo: "Right. Very interesting stuff. I guess that - my sense is, if you
> can't test for leaks, a software-based firewall is kind of essentially
> worthless."
>
> PFW Criticism.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona...all#Criticisms
>
> "Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil.
> http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html
>
> Why your firewall sucks.
> http://tooleaky.zensoft.com/
> "But I quickly realized the truth: The added protection provided by
> outbound filtering is entirely illusory."
>
> At Least This Snake Oil Is Free.
> http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesp...l-is-free.aspx
>
> Deconstructing Common Security Myths.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...s/default.aspx
> Scroll down to:
> "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound Traffic to be Safe."
>
> Exploring the windows Firewall.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tec...l/default.aspx
> "Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a gimmick that only gives the
> impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually
> does improve your security."

LOL! MS says their firewall is sufficient and you believe them. Vista's
firewall offers both inbound and outbound protection. Oops.

>
> 'nuff said :)

Um, I recommend Comodo, not Kerio. I also recommend a hard firewall that
comes with a decent router.

Just curious, why are you using Chinese encoding?

Alias

windmap wrote:
> X wrote:
>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
> Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
> attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.


That's utter nonsense.

WinXP's built-in firewall is barely adequate at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall
does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or
someone else using your computer) might download and install
inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than
to check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the
bad or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any
application you have on your hard drive is there because you want it
there, and therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet.
Further, because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will
also assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Comodo are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Comodo.

Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always
be running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should
not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself.
Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn
how to secure his/her own computer.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

And everyone that you name cause all kinds of problems except windows
firewall. Why is that?.
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%23$$jFzrLIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> windmap wrote:
>> X wrote:
>>> It says to uninstall any third party firewalls before installation so
>>> does that mean that I leave windows firewall installed?
>> Windows firewall has all the features to protect ur computers from
>> attacks.I dont think you need comodo firewall.
>
>
> That's utter nonsense.
>
> WinXP's built-in firewall is barely adequate at stopping incoming
> attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall
> does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or
> someone else using your computer) might download and install
> inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to
> check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad
> or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application
> you have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
> therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further, because
> the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also assume that
> any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a Trojan's or spyware's
> out-going signal is also authorized.
>
> ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Comodo are all much better than WinXP's built-in
> firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are free versions
> of each readily available. Even the commercially available Symantec's
> Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far, although it does take a
> heavier toll of system performance then do ZoneAlarm or Comodo.
>
> Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
> anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be
> running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should not
> be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately, it
> is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to secure
> his/her own computer.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot

Unknown wrote:
> And everyone that you name cause all kinds of problems except windows
> firewall. Why is that?.


Wouldn't know. I've experienced absolutely no problems with any of
them, nor do I know anyone who has. What specific problem has each
caused you? What did the manufacturer of each offer as solution when
contacted by you?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot