Does anyone have any thoughts on whether windows 7 firewall is enough without a third party firewall? I believe in windows xp the firewall only protected one way and a third party firewall was recommended.
I have online armor at the moment and it throws up a warning for the smallest things. Seems I spend more time allowing everything although I have security set for what is allowed & trusted and what is not. From installing a programme to starting a programme. Sometimes I get asked about eight times or more to allow or block this or that, all for the one application.
Thanks for reading and in advance for any help offered.
hedley
There was nothing wrong with XP's firewall. It was mostly Microsoft and Bill Gates bashers (fueled by ZoneAlarm marketing weenies) who FALSELY claimed that XP's one way firewall was insufficient. It must be emphasized that in order for malicious code to make an unauthorized "outgoing" access attempt (the so called threat one-way firewalls lacked protection for), the malicious code would have had to make it past the ALL the security defenses on the way "in" to the computer first. Then the malicious code would have to become active, then get past the anti-malware solution going out, all without being detected. How likely this that? It is not - not unless the weakest link, ALWAYS the user, allowed the bad code in in the first place.
Nevertheless, the Windows 7 firewall is much improved and I've been using it, plus Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) ever since I migrated to Windows 7 in Oct, 2009, with NO regrets. I highly recommend both. Of course, that still requires the weakest link, the user, to keep Windows and all the security programs fully updated and patched. And regardless the firewall used, or the number of computers, I always recommend the use of a simple router with NAT.
Thanks for the reply, Digerati. Your replies are always a great help.
I'm already using MSE, so will see how it goes with the firewall.
Thanks again for the help. Much appreciated, as always.
hedley
hedley