Hi, I have a dlink DSL 604+

I've been running Norton Firewall 2003 for sometime now but am I safe to say
that I can now remove the firewall software and let the router do the work?

Thanks

Pete

Mutley wrote:
I wouldn't advise it. The router will monitor and optionally block certain
incoming traffic, but it won't detect any attempts by software to connect
out and do things you might not want it to.

Some people will disagree, but personally I think better safe than
sorry..! Belt & braces and all that ;-)

Just out of interest, what put the thought in your mind..? Is there a
specific reason you would *not* want the firewall software on your PC..?
After all it's certainly not doing any harm there and unless you're really
strapped for disk space why remove anything..? If you are, then remove
something you haven't used for years, not something that could just prove
useul one day, even if you think it won't.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote in message
news:co5h5a$kod$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Tbh I'm sick of renewing it every year and I wanted something more lifetime
installed, I'm also after a Virus checker other than Norton as it eats up
too much CPU power.

Pete

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mutley <turismo(REMOVE)@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

Have you lot forgotten how to use Google?

This same question has been asked *endless* times in the NG during the past
few months alone. Google should be your first port of call!
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

"Tiscali Tim" <tele@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:30n02qF30einiU1@uni-berlin.de...
I've tried google thanks

That's why I'm asking on here

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:15:23 -0000, "Mutley"
<turismo(REMOVE)@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

He means Google Groups (which is a copy of usenet), and search this
group before asking a question, to see if the same question has been
answered recently.

It is a rare week when that question does not get asked (and answered)
in this group.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
God I want patience, and I WANT IT NOW!

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

I use Zonealarm (www.zonelabss.com) and AVG (www.grisoft.com), both free,
and a router with NAT and SPI

Peter.

"Mutley" <turismo(REMOVE)@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:30mvovF31nc6fU1@uni-berlin.de:

Because it is easier to help than whinge about repeat questions, if you
don't want the renewal stuff go find free alternatives. Sygate and Kerio
are popular firewalls, I prefer Kerio as Sygate defaults to allowing
applications to act as both server and client whereas Kerio makes the
destinction.
Antivirus wise I would highly recommend Avast! which is free for home use,
has caught far more nasties than any of the commercial stuff I've tried and
uses far less resources than anything like Norton.

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

"Peter Seddon" <peter.seddon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:30n1p9F33ko9aU1@uni-berlin.de:

I never got into Zonealarm, it just looked awful unless you paid for the
professional version. AVG in my experience does not cut it. Going to pick
up a machine on Monday that is caked in viruses AVG turned a blind eye to,
not too long since we had another similar machine in.

I have also noticed that AVG does not automatically update very well. It
schedules updates for a certain time of the day. If you aren't connected to
the net at that point then it won't update. Seen as the default time is
something stupidly early in the morning, it strikes me as a major design
flaw. You have to wait two weeks for an automatic update if you miss all
the scheduled ones.


--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

AVGs got every one that has been thrown at me, about 10 a day.

Peter

On 25 Nov 2004 21:46:52 GMT, cw <usenet@fidei.DEADco.uk> wrote:

<snip>

That is one of the main reasons I prefer Avast!.

It checks for updates automatically *every* time you connect, and then
several times a day after that if you stay connected.

Occasionally, it will go as long as 2-3 days between updating the
database, other times it will do 3-4 updates in a single day.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

cw wrote:
I used to use ZoneAlarm with W98 & when I 1st installed WXP. Had a few
issues with ZA causing instability, so I tried Kerio PFW about 2 yrs ago
which I've used since without problems. ZA is the most widely known s/w
firewall, the one that get recommended the most but I would still suggest
Kerio as a means of minimised the risk of killing outgoing threats, which
XP's native FW ain't too good at (but better than none at all).

A new motherboard entailed a clean install of WXP. I ditched Norton AV 2000
for AVG due to Norton apps being difficult to re-register & its dislike of
being reinstalled (had I needed to do so on a clean copy of XP). Only the
most recent version of NAV plays ball with XPSP2's Security Centre which was
a further incentive to change to AVG, which does.

AVG has just released a new free version & in the last 6 or so months has
got their act together regarding effectiveness, whereas previous versions
were criticised for allowing too many false positives & not providing
adequate protection. Personal recommendations of AV solutions should always
be taken with a sackful of salt anyway - best to browse sites such as:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ucts.xml?table
then again, too many reports of a particular AV app *failing*...

Regards

On 25 Nov 2004 21:46:52 GMT, cw <usenet@fidei.DEADco.uk> wrote:

By 'looked awful' do you actually mean that? (if so what on earth does
it matter what it looks like?)

AVG in my experience does not cut it.

I'd rather have that than Noton any day .. at leat AVG doesn't sulk
when it actually finds a virus and you don't need a Cray to keep yer
PC fast (unline Nortons)

Going to pick
I have seen that many times (especially with Nortons) .. if the users
download and install a Virus because then don't acrtually understand
the risks then some will get through. They *will* often get picked up
with a full scan but *they* don't do that <whingy voice on> "because
it takes too long .." <wvoff>
There were alternative settings you could use for the udate server
address that fixed any 'funny' ones.

It
Indeed.

Like quite a few others on this list (it seems <g>) I install ..

Avast!, ZoneAlarm, AdAware, Spybot S&D, Popupstopper and sometimes use
CWSShredder and Kazaabegone on top of that. Bart-PE first (if the box
won't boot) then update the above then run them in safe mode .. get's
most stuff .. and often allows you to recover user data before you zap
and re-install the OS.

The main apps (ZA, Avast, AdAware and SB S&D) are all 'different' in
their interface but fairly easy to get round once you have been shown.
I have found if it's too complicated they (the loosers .... sorry
users) simply turn it off or uninstall it?

All the best ..

T i m

In article <fhtdq0tbjtsqhbo009gitgqaen78afnksh@4ax.com>,
news@spaced.me.uk, a.k.a T i m says...

Norton is a resource hogger. NOD32 is a *far* superior product.

And at less than £30 per annum for a full licence including program
updates, is well worth it.

www.nod32.com

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:03:44 -0000, Tx2
<tx2newscollection@hotmail.com> wrote:

I feel it's hard enough getting folk to apply AV .. more difficult
still if they have to pay for it. I have seen so many licence expired
installs .. ;-(

My new laptop came with Nortons pre installed .. it was on there about
30 seconds ..!

A large amount of this is deciding what you want from yer system. If
you want to download films / music then you have to be ready for the
consequences. I went to help a family friend the other evening who was
having 'network problems'. I started on the network problems a couple
of hours after dealing all the spyware, trojans, viruses etc .. most
of which seem to have come via their 9 year old son.

Every time I found something (like the remains of Kazaa) he would say
'oh, yes, I downloaded that but the PC went funny after a while so I
removed it' ... <sigh>

All the best ..

T i m

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:27:17 +0000, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:

I should think "Googling" on 'best wireless router' would probably
generate few positive results!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
cw <usenet@fidei.DEADco.uk> wrote:

The free version is very easy to use, as long as you take the trouble to go
through the tutorial.


AVG in my experience does not cut it. Going
certainly captured quite a few.

It might have a *default* time - but you can easily change the update time
to a more suitable time. It must take all all of half a dozen mouse clicks!
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

In article <30ojjmF31v0ktU1@uni-berlin.de>, tele@privacy.net, a.k.a
Tiscali Tim says...


You'd expect to be aware of those viruses it missed would you?

;-)

But how many has it missed?

IME, even then AVG sometimes needs encouraging to update.

For the sake of circa 5p a week, why not get something that works
properly every time, all of the time?

www.nod32.com

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:50:19 -0000, "Tiscali Tim" <tele@privacy.net>
wrote:

Yes, but even if you change it to update every day at say 11pm, if
you're not logged on at that time, it doesn't update. I have had to
write some s/w to pull the updates from their website. Mind you, I had
to do the same with Mcafee when I used it, and with norton, so this is
not unusual.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

Well surely you can find a time of day when you *are* likely to be logged
on - especially with an "always on" broadband connection!

The updates are cumulative, anyway - so it doesn't matter if you miss
checking now and again.
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.