Do you still need a software firewall if you have a NAT router?

Hi, I plan to get a NAT/SPI router from buffalo tech. (WBR2-G54S -
http://www.buffalotech.co.uk/webcont...emID=wbr2-g54s)


I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software
firewall such as zone alarm? It would save me some resources and money
to ditch ZA. So you think that the Buffalo claim that their router has,
I quote "Dynamic Packet Filtering,
Intrusion Detector & SPI Firewall" can be trusted?

I'm running win xp sp2.

Best,

Steve.

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
>such as zone alarm?

It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of incoming
traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets infected,
or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP to
disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it. Peter.



--
Plus.Net <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4>
I recommend them and save some cash.

With a guarantee allowing new users to migrate if they're unhappy!

On 18 Apr 2005 16:12:06 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> if it then become unnecesary

the depends on your definition of unnecessary. I wouldn't (and don't)
bother, you can use the SP2 firewall if you like as its free. MS also
have an anti-spyware beta
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
that montors undesirable activity.

Personally I can't be doing with software firewalls asking me if I
want to allow the computer to do what I just instructed it to do :-)

Phil
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices :-)

--

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
>>such as zone alarm?
>
>It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of incoming
>traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets infected,
>or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP to
>disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
>is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
>a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it. Peter.

The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into preventing a PC from being
infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap outgoing data of a dubious kind.
Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and regular sweeping of the PC to
confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance on a software firewall
where the configuration could well give a false sense of security? Prevention rather than cure
seems to me to be more sensible.

David Bradley

"David Bradley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
> >On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> >>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
> >>such as zone alarm?
> >
> >It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of
incoming
> >traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets
infected,
> >or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP
to
> >disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
> >is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
> >a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it.
Peter.
>
> The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into
preventing a PC from being
> infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap
outgoing data of a dubious kind.
> Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and
regular sweeping of the PC to
> confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance
on a software firewall
> where the configuration could well give a false sense of security?
Prevention rather than cure
> seems to me to be more sensible.
>
> David Bradley

This response implies that it is wrong to have both

Peter
>
>

"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d42h4d$joc$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "David Bradley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> >
> > >On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > >
> > >>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software
firewall
> > >>such as zone alarm?
> > >
> > >It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of
> incoming
> > >traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets
> infected,
> > >or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP
> to
> > >disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your
firewall
> > >is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend
using
> > >a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it.
> Peter.
> >
> > The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into
> preventing a PC from being
> > infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap
> outgoing data of a dubious kind.
> > Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and
> regular sweeping of the PC to
> > confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the
reliance
> on a software firewall
> > where the configuration could well give a false sense of security?
> Prevention rather than cure
> > seems to me to be more sensible.
> >
> > David Bradley
>
> This response implies that it is wrong to have both
>

I use a software firewall and a NAT router mainly because I like to be able
to control which applications can and cannot access the internet. As an
example, a lot of applications phone home on startup and check for updates
which I don't want them to do as I like my privacy. No they arn't pikey
copies before anyone asks.

> Peter
> >
> >
>
>

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:56:45 +0000 (UTC), "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"David Bradley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>>
>> >On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
>> >>such as zone alarm?
>> >
>> >It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of
>incoming
>> >traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets
>infected,
>> >or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP
>to
>> >disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
>> >is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
>> >a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it.
>Peter.
>>
>> The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into
>preventing a PC from being
>> infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap
>outgoing data of a dubious kind.
>> Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and
>regular sweeping of the PC to
>> confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance
>on a software firewall
>> where the configuration could well give a false sense of security?
>Prevention rather than cure
>> seems to me to be more sensible.
>>
>> David Bradley
>
>This response implies that it is wrong to have both
>
>Peter
>>
>>
>

No it doesn't. It is just a case of what you believe in. My view is that a Firewall is something
you have on the perimeter of your local area network, not something you have on every machine.

Automatic updates is something that you can have manual control over. You either turn them off or
on; you don't need a firewall for the functionality.

David Bradley

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:41:12 +0100, David Bradley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:49:20 +0100, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Apr 2005 16:12 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
>>>such as zone alarm?
>>
>>It is widely accepted that while a router will block many sorts of incoming
>>traffic, it won't stop your machine 'calling home' if your PC gets infected,
>>or simply 'causing a nuisance' (which may be sufficient to get your ISP to
>>disconnect you)... The first warning you may have is that your firewall
>>is asking for permission to 'send' data... so I'd always recommend using
>>a software firewall, however much of an 'overhead' you consider it. Peter.
>
>The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into preventing a PC from being
>infected in the first place rather than having a mechanism to trap outgoing data of a dubious kind.

So you think the response is "implying" something that is near enough
the exact opposite of what it said.

Interesting idea.

>Is not timely patch management, latest AV signature files loaded and regular sweeping of the PC to
>confirm it is 'clean' a more responsible approach rather than the reliance on a software firewall
>where the configuration could well give a false sense of security? Prevention rather than cure
>seems to me to be more sensible.
>

The ONLY sensible option is to do BOTH.

No matter how good your prevention, there is going to be a possibility
of something beating it at some point.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hm..what's this red button fo:=/07<NO CARRIER

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:40:50 +0100, David Bradley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip>
>>
>>This response implies that it is wrong to have both
>>
>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>No it doesn't.

Only because it stated it pretty explicitly.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hm..what's this red button fo:=/07<NO CARRIER

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 19 Apr 2005 07:41, David Bradley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The response implies that it is better to place all your resources into
>preventing a PC from being infected in the first place rather than
>having a mechanism to trap outgoing data of a dubious kind.

You've completely misread my comment, if you really think what I wrote had
the meaning you've posted! Mine was solely a response to the question as
written, with no "implied"! The question, in case you've forgotten it:

>I'd like to know if it then become unnecesary to use a software firewall
>such as zone alarm?

There's no mention in what I wrote of any anti-virus tool being replaced
or that a firewall replaces it, merely that in my view, and one which is
not universally felt essential, a firewall could be useful and can alert
one to there being potentially unwanted traffic. As one example, making
sure that Real Player on my PC does not forever 'alert me' to updates or
new products/offers/rubbish which RealNetworks would otherwise want to
'tell me'. Not to do with a virus, is it, but still traffic I block!


--
Plus.Net <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4>
I recommend them and save some cash.

With a guarantee allowing new users to migrate if they're unhappy!