patorean

Here it is....I currently have XP home and am having some difficultly hosting games..IE Battlefield and JO. I am pretty sure it has something to do with the built in firewall that came with XP.
Is it better to disable the firewall all together or select certain items within the network connection?

This is what I see for options...

Under LAN properties, I can disable the firewall by checking a box....

or, go into advance settings and select the following:

-FTP server
-internet mail access protocol version3(IMAP3 )
-internet mail access protocol version4(IMAP4 )
-internet mail server (SMTP)
-post office protocol version3(POP3)
-remote desktop
-secure web server(HTTPS)
-telnet server
-web server(HTTP)

Whatcha think?

=Sarc=

Disable it. It won't provide much protection and you'll probably never configure it for what you want. A third-party firewall like Sygate, Norton, etc. will work much better. SP 2 for XP should be out soon that features a better firewall. I've heard that it's much more configurable so you can wait to try that out. It might be riddled with security holes though since it's the first real attempt at a firewall.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

patorean

Thanks Tim.. I'll disable it.

CingularDuality

Yeah, I'd disable it and install a real software firewall. ZoneAlarm works great for me.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFeniX

Running without a firewall when you have access to a public IP is a bad idea. XP's firewall will offer support for advanced port forwarding/allow with Service Pack 2. Basically you'd just forward/allow the needed ports (J-O uses a few ports around the 28000 range).

I assume you're using the PC itself to get your public IP address and are not using a linksys/d-link router? In the case, you either need to wait for SP2 or download another firewall program.

Not true. XP's firewall basically says:
I don't let anything that the PC did not expressly request through my WAN port (the Internet) and I allow everything to go outward. This is all a firewall needs to do it's job.

XP's firewall just isn't configurable and no matter what some "loloooll M$ suxors" junky tells you that's not an inherent flaw. XP's firewall is in fact secure. The issue is these other programs are not just firewalls. Take this example.

Two identical PCs: one uses XP's firewall. One uses say Zonealarm. All with default settings.

1. Some script kiddy tries to hammer his way into your PC with some exploit. Both computers look at their access list and decide to not let the info in because it violates the "nothing in" rule. Both PCs are unharmed.

2. You goto gethacked.com and download trojan.exe. Both PC's become infected because you initiated the connection and requested the data be sent to you. Now the trojan decided to "dial home." The XP firewall fails to stop it because it's not designed to. Zonealarm detects that by no user intervention, a program is trying to access the Internet. It blocks it and asks you what to do.

In that instance Zonealarm is better than XP's firewall, but not because it's a better firewall, but because it's a firewall AND IDS (Intrusion Detection System). It's a program that does more. Saying Zonealarm is a better firewall than XP's because it has features not relating to a firewall makes no sense.

Then again, in my opinion: software firewalls suck anyways. Go buy yourself a hardware one and quit letting some crappy software eat up precious resources that could be used to garner more FPS. Mwhaha!

EDIT: I should clarfiy something. The PC/networking world is full of people who use hold-overs from things they know when talking about newer technology. Take DSL Modems for example. They don't exist. There is no Modulation/demodulation. Modems take an Digital signal, convert in to analog, then do the opposite on the other end: hence the name.

It should be called a DSL Bridge. Bridges can connect disimilar networks and change protocols (PPPoE to Ethernet). But if you call the phone company and ask them for a DSL Bridge, they don't know what you're talking about. In further conclusion: Firewall != Firewall + IDS. Know the technology.

__________________

CingularDuality

Umm, a modem isn't always digital to analog or vice versa. There are many ways to modulate signals, both analog and digital, and anytime you want to switch the type of modulation, you're going to need a modem.

You very clearly explained why ZoneAlarm is superior to WinXP's firewall, but the rest of your little rant was a bit misguided. There's nothing that says that a firewall (by definition) can only block incoming traffic. ZA controls incoming and outgoing in the exact same manner: you give permission on an application by application basis. You can give permission each time the application needs information to pass through the firewall, or you can let it have access whenever it needs it. There are other firewalls that are controlled by ports. Once you close a port, it blocks incoming and outgoing traffic. This is not "intrusion detection". This is what a firewall is supposed to do: block traffic.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFeniX

But in this instance, you aren't even playing with the analog at all. You're just converting PPPoE transport protocol into Ethernet protocol. That's what a bridge does: merges dissimilar networks.

And I never made that statement. My arguement was that there is nothing wrong with the XP firewall unless you want to host services (which it will do once SP2 comes out).

A firewall blocks traffic based off user defined settings. Every firewall I've seen runs the basic: all out/nothing in. And this works fine until you are trying to host services.

Firewalls don't function on that high a level of the OSI. They don't care about applications, they care only about IPs and port #s. Zonealarm gives you access to block both ports and applications. This pulls it out of the realm of a standard firewall.

My arguement is not that Zonealarm isn't better than a standard firewall. It's built in security measures and easy to use (but highly annoying) settings make it a robust application. But for your standard user who runs anti-virus: a default XP firewall with no open ports would protect them just fine.

The only reason you would want to allow applications to access the Internet one by one would be so you could examine each application and it's location. Although, you are correct in the assumption that it's not "true" IDS. An IDS is more geared toward someone coming in rather than you getting trojaned and it trying to get out. But something like "Do you want to give 'yougotserved.exe' to access the Internet?" would be more along the lines of a program designed to detect an intrusion rather than being just a "dumb" firewall.

Zonealarm is just too smart to be considered a firewall and it's not fair to compare them.

__________________

=DdogG=

fenix is correct in not comparing za to the xp firewall. a firewall never cares about what app is trying to get access.... it says "what port are you trying to use?" a firewall is there only for one reason... plug the 65,534? (i think thats right) holes that allow someone in or data back out. no more no less.

that is the definition of a firewall. getting into stateful packet inspection and pinholing configuration (if traffic out on port x then listen on port x -or- y-z) etc are the only real options that could be put into a firewall to increase security.

spi is the technology whereby a firewall actually reads the tcp header and verifies the data contained in the packet is valid (very crude explaination, but you get the picture I hope)

__________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. -Harlan Ellison

If all else fails: "rm -rf /"

patorean

I've downloaded Zonealarm. Should I disable XP firewall before installing Zonealarm?

Mudshark

Leave it up untill you get ZA installed, then disable it.

patorean

I just finished putting together this machine. Its new from the power supply up.

=DdogG=

uh oh.... patorean got a new gaming machine.........................

__________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. -Harlan Ellison

If all else fails: "rm -rf /"

CingularDuality

So, you have an old machine laying around, now, right? Can't beat a hardware firewall for free...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

patorean

I had 3 old junkers kicking around the basement. I took all the viable parts from all three and put a computer together for "The Boy". Now he can play games on his own machine and I don't have to worry about my setting getting scewed up.

patorean

Yep those days are gone....I have currently:
80 gig HD
MSI K7N2 Delta MoBo 400FSB
512 DDR Ram
Geforce 5200fx 128MB card
Big kick ass case with some cool blue lights (3 fans)
Yamaha sound card
350w power supply
Motorola surfboard modem (fast).

I made for the Boy:
Some kind of k7 pro Mobo
868 MB sdram
geforce3 64MB card
15 Gig HD
Etc etc.....
He can play GR, Red Alert2, Age of empires and games like that.