Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] XP FIREWALL

Expand Messages
  • sisterscape
    I immediately disabled the Windows firewall and installed ZoneAlarm. I don t think you can run another firewall with the one in Windows. ...
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I immediately disabled the Windows firewall and installed ZoneAlarm. I
      don't think you can run another firewall with the one in Windows.


      --- "M.M." <m.mordechai@...> wrote:

      > Hello,
      > Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1),
      > noticed
      > it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a
      > separate
      > firewall installed.
      > I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should
      > I
      > install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
      > Will appreciate your opinions.
      > Many Thanks
      > Mordechai
      > m.mordechai@...
      >



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • Brian Binder
      It s fine for in-bound security, but does little to nothing for things like worms or compromised programs that contact the Internet from your machine. So if
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        It's fine for in-bound security, but does little to nothing for things
        like worms or compromised programs that contact the Internet from your
        machine. So if that's important to you, you can add something else like
        Comodo, as an example.

        M.M. wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hello,
        > Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1), noticed
        > it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a separate
        > firewall installed.
        > I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should I
        > install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
        > Will appreciate your opinions.
        > Many Thanks
        > Mordechai
        > m.mordechai@... <mailto:m.mordechai%40gmail.com>
      • David Smart
        One of my customers was using Zone Alarm, and it was a pain in the proverbial. He is happy with XP Home Windows FireWall on his laptop. I run Windows FireWall
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          One of my customers was using Zone Alarm, and it was a pain in the
          proverbial.

          He is happy with XP Home Windows FireWall on his laptop.

          I run Windows FireWall on my 2003 server for my cable connection, and XP Pro
          FireWall on the laptop I connect my cellular Internet modem to. I've never
          had problems with them.

          Regards, Dave S

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "sisterscape" <sisterscape@...>
          To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:54 AM
          Subject: Re: [NTO] XP FIREWALL


          >I immediately disabled the Windows firewall and installed ZoneAlarm. I
          > don't think you can run another firewall with the one in Windows.
          >
          >
          > --- "M.M." <m.mordechai@...> wrote:
          >
          >> Hello,
          >> Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1),
          >> noticed
          >> it has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a
          >> separate
          >> firewall installed.
          >> I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should
          >> I
          >> install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
          >> Will appreciate your opinions.
          >> Many Thanks
          >> Mordechai
          >> m.mordechai@...
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ____________________________________________________________________________________
          > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Greg Chapman
          Hi Mordechai, ... It s fine for in-bound security, but does little to nothing for things like worms or compromised programs that contact the Internet from your
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Mordechai,

            Brian is right when he says:
            ---------------
            It's fine for in-bound security, but does little to nothing for things
            like worms or compromised programs that contact the Internet from your
            machine.
            ---------------

            so when...

            On 10 Jan 08 08:04 "David Smart" <smartware.consulting@...>
            said:
            > One of my customers was using Zone Alarm, and it was a pain in the
            > proverbial.

            You have to ask a bit more.

            Windows Firewall is utterly painless. It just sits there doing what it
            was designed to do and requires no training by the user.

            ZoneAlarm, or any full firewall that handles both inbound and outbound
            traffic, will, initially, appear to be a pain. Dialogue boxes will
            appear constantly warning you of activity and asking you for a
            decision about how to handle this type of traffic in the future.
            Perhaps that was the pain for David's client?

            Even after initial installation it will recognise every software patch
            and program update, and assume that it is an infected program and
            require confirmation that you are aware of the change. If you're
            computer/network naive then it can present you with questions that are
            meaningless gobbley gook, and you'll stab at them wildly never knowing
            whether you "played safe" or have done something "dangerous".

            > He is happy with XP Home Windows FireWall on his laptop.

            Whether David's client is better protected by a badly set up ZoneAlarm
            or by the "incomplete" Windows Firewall will depend entirely on the
            nature of the traffic passing between the Computer and the rest of the
            internet.

            > I run Windows FireWall on my 2003 server for my cable connection,
            > and XP Pro FireWall on the laptop I connect my cellular Internet
            > modem to. I've never had problems with them.

            Never having "problems" is pretty meaningless. It will depend
            entirely whether you would recognise a problem if you saw one.

            For example. the kind of software that "invades" a computer and then
            acts as someone else's proxy, so it's your machine that's doing the
            dirty to everyone else on the internet is, by its nature, designed to
            remain invisible, and cause "no problems" on the host computer. That
            doesn't mean there's not a problem for the rest of the world. This
            kind of program can come in attached to an e-mail and appear to a
            firewall (Windows or any other firewall) as legitimate traffic.
            (That's why you need effective anti-virus software running to stop
            this kind of thing.) Once in, Windows Firewall will not detect its
            precence, but it will sit there doing its worst.

            In the days of dialup connections the activity that these programs
            generated was obvious to the user. There'd be, for example, constant
            requests to connect to the internet, or on-line activity would appear
            to run very slowly. However, in the days of high-speed always-on
            broadband connections, such activity will be indetectable by the
            average user.

            So it all depends on what you, or others, do on your computer as to
            whether Windows Firewall is sufficient for your needs. Unfortunately,
            it's one of those Catch 22 questions, because, unless you understand
            the issues you can't setup a full firewall properly and if it's not
            set up right then it's not doing the job it was intended to do. If
            that's the case, you might just as well stick with Windows Firewall.

            Greg
          • hsavage
            ... Mordechai, Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the EXPERTS that test software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be united
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              At , you wrote:
              > Hello,
              > Recently installed Windows xp pro + sp2 (previously I had with sp1),
              > noticedit has that security center and a firewall. Previously I had a
              > separate firewall installed.
              >
              > I would like to ask if the Windows firewall is good enough or should I
              > install again some other firewall program - and disable the original?
              >
              > Will appreciate your opinions.
              > Many Thanks
              > Mordechai
              > m.mordechai@...

              Mordechai,

              Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the "EXPERTS" that test
              software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be
              united against the use of "Windows Firewall".

              From the never-ending number of reports of security holes in the
              Windows OS I tend to believe the "EXPERTS".

              ·············································
              ºvº SL-01-73 -created- 2008.01.10 - 00.30.12

              Measure of SUCCESS:
              At age 50 is.....
              "Having money."
              ¤ ø ¤ hrs ø hsavage@...
            • Brian Binder
              I will comment on this particular comment, just for the benefit of the group. Keep in mind, that most firewall programs have vulnerabilities, whether they are
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I will comment on this particular comment, just for the benefit of the
                group.

                Keep in mind, that most firewall programs have vulnerabilities, whether
                they are based on the security of the OS or a problem with their code in
                specific. Even Zone Alarm falls prey to both, so if you aren't in a
                habit of keeping Windows XP up to date on patches, your firewall will
                fall prey to attacks from OS vulnerabilities over and over anyway...so
                by using another firewall you aren't ensuring better protection if you
                happen to be lax with updates - and I've seen that plenty.

                What most experts agree on is that they wish Windows XP's firewall took
                care of outbound connections, and it really doesn't. It attempts to
                prevent you against being attacked by other machines on the Internet or
                network, etc.

                There is something that is also very important to mention when it comes
                to every single firewall out there: "most people mis-use them", and
                that's me, quoting myself.

                I've gone to countless service calls, businesses, end users, etc. where
                people have their machines so botched up because of things that they
                have denied through their firewall. Rules for stopping parts of the
                TCP/IP stack, rundll32.exe when it needs legitimate access, print
                spoolers for network printer access, etc.

                They deny so much "stuff" (because its use is unknown to them) that they
                end up crippling the performance and functionality of their PC's.
                Therein lies the reason (in many people's opinions, including my own)
                that Microsoft continues to deny making a firewall that analyzes
                outbound traffic. If you are unsure of the connection, most people
                "play it safe" and block it.

                Take this for what it's worth, but it's worth keeping in mind when
                making a decision on what to do for your firewall situation.

                hsavage wrote:

                > Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the "EXPERTS" that test
                > software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be
                > united against the use of "Windows Firewall".
                >
                > >From the never-ending number of reports of security holes in the
                > Windows OS I tend to believe the "EXPERTS".
              • Scott Fordin
                FWIW, I ve had good luck with both Panda Internet Security 2008 and Norton Internet Security 2008. Installing either of them will automatically give you the
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  FWIW, I've had good luck with both Panda Internet Security 2008
                  and Norton Internet Security 2008. Installing either of them will
                  automatically give you the option to disable the Windows XP
                  firewall (do it) so there aren't two potentially conflicting
                  firewalls at work. I used to use ZoneAlarm, but became less than
                  thrilled with later versions, starting about two years ago.

                  Scott

                  Brian Binder wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > I will comment on this particular comment, just for the benefit of the
                  > group.
                  >
                  > Keep in mind, that most firewall programs have vulnerabilities, whether
                  > they are based on the security of the OS or a problem with their code in
                  > specific. Even Zone Alarm falls prey to both, so if you aren't in a
                  > habit of keeping Windows XP up to date on patches, your firewall will
                  > fall prey to attacks from OS vulnerabilities over and over anyway...so
                  > by using another firewall you aren't ensuring better protection if you
                  > happen to be lax with updates - and I've seen that plenty.
                  >
                  > What most experts agree on is that they wish Windows XP's firewall took
                  > care of outbound connections, and it really doesn't. It attempts to
                  > prevent you against being attacked by other machines on the Internet or
                  > network, etc.
                  >
                  > There is something that is also very important to mention when it comes
                  > to every single firewall out there: "most people mis-use them", and
                  > that's me, quoting myself.
                  >
                  > I've gone to countless service calls, businesses, end users, etc. where
                  > people have their machines so botched up because of things that they
                  > have denied through their firewall. Rules for stopping parts of the
                  > TCP/IP stack, rundll32.exe when it needs legitimate access, print
                  > spoolers for network printer access, etc.
                  >
                  > They deny so much "stuff" (because its use is unknown to them) that they
                  > end up crippling the performance and functionality of their PC's.
                  > Therein lies the reason (in many people's opinions, including my own)
                  > that Microsoft continues to deny making a firewall that analyzes
                  > outbound traffic. If you are unsure of the connection, most people
                  > "play it safe" and block it.
                  >
                  > Take this for what it's worth, but it's worth keeping in mind when
                  > making a decision on what to do for your firewall situation.
                  >
                  > hsavage wrote:
                  >
                  >> Almost any of the reviews and/or opinions of the "EXPERTS" that test
                  >> software and write the articles about firewall programs seem to be
                  >> united against the use of "Windows Firewall".
                  >>
                  >> >From the never-ending number of reports of security holes in the
                  >> Windows OS I tend to believe the "EXPERTS".
                  >
                  >
                • Alan C
                  I use Linux with its own open source iptables firewall on the internet. I don t use my Win beyond my LAN. (that s, for 4 to 5 years now or longer, my
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I use Linux with its own open source iptables firewall on the internet. I
                    don't use my Win beyond my LAN. (that's, for 4 to 5 years now or longer, my
                    personal solution to the Win internet security issue).

                    For emailing and web browsing my friends use the Linux of their dual boot
                    machine -- and its other OS is Win XP for use but except for rarely if ever
                    on the internet.

                    For their Win XP laptops and the one mentioned XP desktop, my friends just
                    some weeks ago installed Norton 2008 internet security suite and have had no
                    problem with it whatsoever.

                    For several or more years now, my friends have been using Norton -- in 2007
                    the Norton they purchased came with virus protection and its own personal
                    firewall which we used (turned off the XP built in firewall)

                    In 2006 the Norton they purchased was for virus protection only though it
                    also monitored and notified if and which firewall is on or off. I set up
                    this Norton on his XP laptop and I installed Zone Alarm and turned off the
                    builtin XP firewall. This setup lasted them without incident through 2006
                    up to the begin of 2007.

                    What originally prompted my friends to increase their security is his Win XP
                    laptop got (very -- as in totally, no longer useable anymore) severely
                    compromised when using just the builtin Win XP firewall. That was 2005 or
                    2006 when they first then subsequently bought the Norton.

                    Same laptop got very severely (wasted, again) compromised in 2007 (yes it
                    had the mentioned Norton on it then). Though they wouldn't admit to it --
                    they have a teenage son. I think the son and his teenage friends were
                    turned loose on this laptop on the internet -- without any adult
                    overseeing. I fixed it, saved their data, restored from a previous disk
                    image file, copied back their data, updated the Norton.

                    The only difference after that is "users of the laptop *must* get involved
                    here" (I let 'em have it, bang). They were more cautious/careful -- got
                    them through the remainder of 2007 without another incident. (just because
                    it has Norton on it is not a panacea).

                    Given if the users are educated enough and cautious enough, it is probable
                    that the builtin XP firewall would or could suffice. But I think this a
                    tall order due the huge amount and the height of sophistication of phishing
                    and social engineering taking place all of the time these days. All it
                    takes is one little slip up by the user -- which could get something
                    illegitimate installed that would then begin making outbound requests from
                    within -- the builtin XP firewall is now useless, totally worthless, at this
                    point.

                    Another point to mention is running with user versus administrator
                    privileges.

                    My friends are not at all much computer literate. I set up a user and asked
                    them to try it to see if it would do everything they need. They (very busy
                    people) just take the easiest path -- faster and easier to use the default
                    administrator account rather than try something new.

                    Due that lack of cooperation on their part and my time constraints, they
                    still run all their XP machines with admin privileges. (I'm certain that
                    this admin privilege contributed to their mentioned 2007 contamination).

                    --
                    Alan.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Alan C
                    On Jan 10, 2008 11:15 AM, Alan C wrote: Another point to mention is running with user versus administrator ... Theoretically, if a user
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 10, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Jan 10, 2008 11:15 AM, Alan C <acummingsus@...> wrote:

                      Another point to mention is running with user versus administrator
                      > privileges.


                      Theoretically, if a user is not allowed to install software (not even to a
                      user area of the disk) *and* if the user is not whatsoever allowed to change
                      any web browser security related settings.

                      Then, if the administrator (with a very secure admin password) had
                      adequately and sufficiently and securely enough "set up the machine for this
                      user" then the built in XP firewall should suffice alright (for this user)
                      given this case scenario. *And* that the administrator rarely, if ever,
                      logs on (does so only when needed for sys maintenance).

                      Linux is natively already oriented towards just such a case scenario as what
                      I just mentioned. Windows, on the other hand, for ages, ran contrary to my
                      mentioned case scenario.

                      Bill Gates for the longest time said "people want usability over security".

                      Thus the (Win) default account being the administrator privileged account.

                      AFAIK the native Linux firewall does just what (the same as) the built in
                      Win XP firewall does.

                      I think a person would need to purchase commercial software for their Linux
                      so as to get the type of checking that (for instance) Zone Alarm does
                      (monitoring of applications that might seek to do outbound request).

                      Linux is natively locked down like my mentioned case scenario whereby
                      "nothing illegitimate can get installed" and therefore there will be no
                      illegitimate outbound requests which makes it so that there is no need to
                      monitor apps that potentially can do outbound requests.

                      Perhaps I've been partially in the wrong by not (not enough anyways)
                      attempting to admin my friend's Win XP so as to make their Win comply with
                      my mentioned case scenario or what I've termed as the "Linux is natively
                      locked down." (takes too much time [need to learn etc.] is the excuse so
                      far for not making their Win to be like my mentioned case scenario or Like
                      Linux with respect to the security model).

                      --
                      Alan.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Gerard Huijing
                      ... This remark re WinXP native firewall and Linux firewalls may be a bit confusing, but maybe you mean something quite different than what the message appears
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 13, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Alan C wrote:
                        >
                        > AFAIK the native Linux firewall does just what (the same as) the built in
                        > Win XP firewall does.
                        >


                        This remark re WinXP native firewall and Linux firewalls may be a bit
                        confusing, but maybe you mean something quite different than what the
                        message appears to say.

                        The firewalls in the Linux distributions I know of come with a set of
                        preconfigured rules that regulate both incoming and outgoing traffic. In
                        other words, they are two-way firewalls and Windows' own firewall, in XP
                        at least, is not. This the reason why I have immediately switched it off
                        and use a proper (software) firewall instead, in my case Agnitum Outpost.

                        Cheers,
                        Gerard
                        --
                        Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                        2312 ZD Leiden
                        Netherlands
                        inboxgen@...
                      • Alan C
                        ... ? ... What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall). I use
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 13, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Jan 13, 2008 6:52 AM, Gerard Huijing <inboxgen@...> wrote:

                          > Alan C wrote:
                          > >
                          > > AFAIK the native Linux firewall does just what (the same as) the built
                          > in
                          > > Win XP firewall does.
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > This remark re WinXP native firewall and Linux firewalls may be a bit
                          > confusing, but maybe you mean something quite different than what the
                          > message appears to say.
                          >
                          > The firewalls in the Linux distributions I know of come with a set of
                          > preconfigured rules that regulate both incoming and outgoing traffic. In
                          > other words, they are two-way firewalls and Windows' own firewall, in XP
                          > at least, is not. This the reason why I have immediately switched it off
                          > and use a proper


                          ?


                          > (software) firewall instead, in my case Agnitum Outpost.


                          What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not
                          even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall).

                          I use Slackware and Debian. And I maintain a CentOS 4.6 box for my friends.

                          Ok, I should have limited my comment in my former post, more specifically to
                          "Linux distros that I myself use" because what I said now absolutely
                          applies.

                          proper? I definitely agree with you on that one for Win XP but not for the
                          Linux distros that I use.

                          What's "proper" is what's needed according to the overall or bigger picture
                          context.

                          Perhaps you missed my point?

                          My point was: if it's not even possible for something illegitimate to get
                          installed -- then -- there will never ever be any illegitimate outbound
                          requests therefore a "proper" firewall in this case is one with
                          characteristics just like the native Win XP firewall since in this (Linux or
                          *maybe* a tightened Windows system) case there is no need, not ever, to
                          monitor for potential illegitimate as to the or any outbound requesting sort
                          of apps

                          IOW (due the overall or bigger picture construct, I used the Linux (*distros
                          that I use*) security model as an example) if there can't be, not even the
                          possibility of illegitimate outbound then there's no need to monitor (using
                          firewall) for something that cannot happen.

                          Greater separation of user versus root or administrator. Run all the time
                          as a "user".

                          User is not privileged enough to install software nor alter any www related
                          security things.

                          User can't do anything but use. For anything else, root or administrator
                          must be logged onto. (as in separate accounts to log onto, each of the
                          mentioned separate account with drastically different in the way of
                          privileges or the amount of power of what is allowed to do).

                          So, once again, what sort of firewall is needed is dependent upon how tight
                          or how loose you are, security wise, in the mentioned overall or bigger
                          picture. That was the point that I was attempting to make.

                          But my intention here is not to advocate that "thus and such requires the
                          use of (whatever)"

                          But, to me, (mainly, anyways, the intention or point that I attempt here to
                          get across) that the concept of computer security that there are many many
                          components or ingredients that can make for and which can also make for the
                          lack of computer security. (a software) Firewall is *only one* of such
                          components or ingredients.

                          Even the built in Win XP firewall "monitors" outbound -- it does so for the
                          purpose to only allow back in what had been initially requested from within
                          -- oh, well, too bad if it was an "illegitimate outbound request that was
                          initiated from within (no protection)"

                          So, such built in XP firewall monitors outbound and inbound.

                          So does your mentioned Agnitum.

                          The difference is that the Agnitum also monitors for the potential of
                          "illegitimate requests that are outbound requests that are initiated from
                          within".

                          --
                          Alan.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Gerard Huijing
                          ... Fedora, and openSUSE. I have used several other distributions in the past (ZenWalk, Vector among others) I will stick to the first two: they have a
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 13, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Alan C wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not
                            > even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall).
                            >
                            > I use Slackware and Debian. And I maintain a CentOS 4.6 box for my friends.

                            Fedora, and openSUSE. I have used several other distributions in the
                            past (ZenWalk, Vector among others)
                            I will stick to the first two: they have a configuration file that
                            regulates inbound and outbound traffic. It is configured on the basis
                            of choices offered by the install program. ("Do you want this machine to
                            provide ftp services?" etc.).

                            If I tested my service ports after I had installed (which I alway did),
                            e.g. with Gibson Shields Up, the report would be with SUSE: all ports
                            stealthed (DROP) except 113 (IDENT) which was closed (REJECT). ICMP echo
                            requests from outside to the firewall were rejected. I could choose to
                            stealth 113, and change the other rule: DROP the pings). I always did
                            that too. Mine is a stand alone PC and I had no problems (although the
                            documentation says that changing these settings can have adverse effects).

                            When you install SUSE or Fedora that configuration file (essentially a
                            script for iptables) is also generated. On those grounds I would say
                            that a firewall is in place to start off with.

                            > proper? I definitely agree with you on that one for Win XP but not for the
                            > Linux distros that I use.

                            I used "proper" because I have read so many criticisms of the XP
                            firewall saying exactly that: "Yes, indeed XP has its own firewall but
                            it's not a *proper* one: it only monitors inbound".

                            >
                            > What's "proper" is what's needed according to the overall or bigger picture
                            > context.

                            I quite agree.

                            > Even the built in Win XP firewall "monitors" outbound -- it does so for the
                            > purpose to only allow back in what had been initially requested from within
                            > -- oh, well, too bad if it was an "illegitimate outbound request that was
                            > initiated from within (no protection)"

                            Precisely! It's the unnoticed illegitimate ones I am worried about.
                            Thank you for the more precise description of what is going on in XP
                            firewall BTW.

                            Your point was, very much in a nutshell: the situation WinXP plus native
                            FW is comparable to Linux 'sec' with some essential qualifications
                            regarding the whole implementation of the OS, which make Linux so much
                            safer to start with.

                            I quite agree, again. I know that the situation in ArchLinux or FreeBSD
                            is like the one you have in mind. You have to install and configure your
                            firewall yourself, from scratch.

                            I quite enjoy trying to figure out iptables rules myself (after all I
                            can only screw up my own PC), but I am also very happy that openSUSE and
                            Fedora give me some safe settings to start off with.


                            Cheers,
                            Gerard





                            --
                            Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                            2312 ZD Leiden
                            Netherlands
                            inboxgen@...
                          • Alan C
                            ... Red Hat 8.0 was my first Linux. Then Red Hat 9.0. Then Fedora Core 1 and 2. Then I tried Slackware 9.0 or 10.0. I liked it. But then I hated it. But
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 13, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Jan 13, 2008 2:29 PM, Gerard Huijing <inboxgen@...> wrote:

                              > Alan C wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > What Linux distros are you refer to since I know some distro that do not
                              > > even ship with a firewall (one must provide their own firewall).
                              > >
                              > > I use Slackware and Debian. And I maintain a CentOS 4.6 box for my
                              > friends.
                              >
                              > Fedora, and openSUSE. I have used several other distributions in the
                              > past (ZenWalk, Vector among others)
                              > I will stick to the first two: they have a configuration file that
                              > regulates inbound and outbound traffic. It is configured on the basis
                              > of choices offered by the install program. ("Do you want this machine to
                              > provide ftp services?" etc.).


                              Red Hat 8.0 was my first Linux. Then Red Hat 9.0. Then Fedora Core 1 and
                              2.

                              Then I tried Slackware 9.0 or 10.0. I liked it. But then I hated it. But
                              then I liked it.

                              It was all about how much Unix/Linux acclimated I was back then.

                              Near 2001 'till now be near 7 years since I first began my Linux foray.

                              Since Slackware 10.2, Slackware has been my first go to distro (it's
                              Slackware 12.0 now) (I no longer have the hate periods -- it's now all "I
                              like it").

                              It a very fun distro to customize to your own personal liking. (lots of
                              community support for this distro). Once got (grasp) Slackware, am now
                              acclimated to the Unix/Linux way.

                              Slackware ships without a firewall. I use:

                              http://www.slackware.com/~alien/efg/

                              (rather powerful, loads many security related kernel modules).

                              I also use:

                              http://firehol.sourceforge.net/

                              I once used a Debian package of that one on Debian.

                              Debian is just for practice -- to keep me on my toes. I boot it only about
                              20% of the time. Slack gets the other 80%.

                              My friend's CentOS gives me some akin the direction of Fedora/Red Hat.
                              After a while (no rush) I may put Debian or Slackware on my friend's box (so
                              I don't have to scratch my head about CentOS things when I work on it).

                              <snipped>

                              I quite enjoy trying to figure out iptables rules myself (after all I
                              > can only screw up my own PC), but I am also very happy that openSUSE and
                              > Fedora give me some safe settings to start off with.


                              I stay away from iptables rules (never end up with enough time to dedicate
                              to it so as to learn it). I'm thankful that many various configurator tools
                              for the task exist.

                              --
                              Alan.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.