Re: alternate to firewall?

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> What you need or don't need is relative to you. But if you were
> runnign servers and you don't want anybody to connect to them, then you
> would need a firewall.

BTW: that's not true. It's enough, if those servers are configured
not to accept connections apart from out of the LAN.

> Running an FTP or similar
> server is almost the only easy way to transfer files.

It's not only old-fashioned, it's also ugly and difficult to secure.
There is WebDAV, there is even CIFS. Also SFTP is very easy. So why
recommending FTP?

And if the server is only for LAN, then CIFS is a very good way to have
files.

> I just ask a few people, they usually rate Sygate very highly. I've
> heard Kerio rated highly. I prefer sygate, nice gui.

Sygate "Personal Firewall" installs SYSTEM-Services, which open windows.
This is a gross error, because this breaches security. Sygate show here,
that they never read Microsoft's design guidlines for system services:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dllproc/base/interactive_services.asp?frame=true#security_considerations_for_interactive_services

> sygate does has a nice port logger updated in real time. maybe some
> other PFWs don't have that. The windows firewall doesn't.

Yes. But this has nothing to do with securing your system.

Yours,
VB.

-- 
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
                                    Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"