Dlink dsl 604 wireless

I was under the impression that this router was equipped with a full
firewall, but it seems to be only an incoming firewall like the windows xp
firewall. Is this correct?
Unlike software firewalls I get no warning that a program attempts to
connect to the net.

--
Beck
My new Blog... very unfinished and barely started.
http://latenightbreakfast.blogspot.com

"Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I was under the impression that this router was equipped with a full
> firewall, but it seems to be only an incoming firewall like the windows
> xp firewall. Is this correct?

I don't know.

> Unlike software firewalls I get no warning that a program attempts to
> connect to the net.

Even if the router has a "full firewall" you will never get any warning -
the router can't tell what software generated any packets it receives. Only
something running on the same machine as the software can know that.

In other words, for outbound packets, there is no substitute for a software
firewall. And if you have a software firewall, the ability to filter
outbound packets on the router is typically not a huge bonus.

Alex

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Beck says...
> I was under the impression that this router was equipped with a full
> firewall, but it seems to be only an incoming firewall like the windows xp
> firewall. Is this correct?

Yes. You can block off traffic in both directions on specific ports.

> Unlike software firewalls I get no warning that a program attempts to
> connect to the net.
>
No shit Einstein. What the hell did you expect? Just how did you expect
it to manage that?


--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

"Conor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Beck says...
>> I was under the impression that this router was equipped with a full
>> firewall, but it seems to be only an incoming firewall like the windows
>> xp
>> firewall. Is this correct?
>
> Yes. You can block off traffic in both directions on specific ports.
>
>> Unlike software firewalls I get no warning that a program attempts to
>> connect to the net.
>>
> No shit Einstein. What the hell did you expect? Just how did you expect
> it to manage that?

Why the brash reply? I do not understand what routers are capable of which
is why I was asking. If you cannot be bothered to give a constructive reply
then why bother?

"Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I was under the impression that this router was equipped with a full
>> firewall, but it seems to be only an incoming firewall like the windows
>> xp firewall. Is this correct?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> Unlike software firewalls I get no warning that a program attempts to
>> connect to the net.
>
> Even if the router has a "full firewall" you will never get any warning -
> the router can't tell what software generated any packets it receives.
> Only
> something running on the same machine as the software can know that.
>
> In other words, for outbound packets, there is no substitute for a
> software
> firewall. And if you have a software firewall, the ability to filter
> outbound packets on the router is typically not a huge bonus.

Thanks for your help Alex. So do I really need a software firewall?

On 30 Apr 2005 17:31, "Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Conor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> Beck says...
>>> I was under the impression that this router was equipped with a full
>>> firewall, but it seems to be only an incoming firewall like the windows
>>> xp firewall. Is this correct?

>> Yes. You can block off traffic in both directions on specific ports.

Seems it can do more than just block incoming traffic if Conor is right.

Since you mentioned both 'full firewall' and 'more limited Win XP approach'
the response to "Is this correct ?" isn't either "yes" or "no" :-)

>>> Unlike software firewalls I get no warning that a program attempts to
>>> connect to the net.

>> No shit Einstein. What the hell did you expect? Just how did you expect
>> it to manage that?

He has a point, it cannot identify *which* application caused the traffic, of
course... hence comment, but it may be 'blocked' and can appear in a log file

>Why the brash reply? I do not understand what routers are capable of which
>is why I was asking. If you cannot be bothered to give a constructive reply
>then why bother?

You don't need to read too much into it. Conor *always* seems to be in a bad
mood, or has some 'smug git' comment. I don't remember (m)any from him where
he has learned something from someone else and acknowledges that (but I don't
look out for Conor's posts, normally hit the 'next' key :-) Peter M.

On 30 Apr 2005 17:32, "Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> So do I really need a software firewall?

It can certainly do you no harm - it will identify attempts to get out (so
long as a nasty doesn't disable it)... so I'd suggest you keep s/w firewalls
on every system... I've also found it handy to block apps which 'call home'
to get news of updates or simply silly adverts (eg Real Player).

"poster" <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) s.net...
> On 30 Apr 2005 17:32, "Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> So do I really need a software firewall?
>
> It can certainly do you no harm - it will identify attempts to get out (so
> long as a nasty doesn't disable it)... so I'd suggest you keep s/w
> firewalls
> on every system... I've also found it handy to block apps which 'call
> home'
> to get news of updates or simply silly adverts (eg Real Player).

Thanks. I was hoping to ditch them as I want less programs clogging up the
background. I shall install Sygate firewall again.