Kapersky firewall or windows firewall?

Would it be better to use the firewall on Kapersky Internet Suite or the
Windows Vista Firewall?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:56:56 +0800, "Sharon T" <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>Would it be better to use the firewall on Kapersky Internet Suite or the
>Windows Vista Firewall?
>
Kaspersky, it is more responsive to change and a better product
overall.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:56:56 +0800, "Sharon T" <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>Would it be better to use the firewall on Kapersky Internet Suite or the
>Windows Vista Firewall?

The Vista one.

* It's already there and therefore doesn't introduce further
vulnerabilities and questionable features.

* Any security product containing the word "suite" should be looked at
with great scepticism.

* One must assume that MS knows about the environment it's supposed to
protect in greater detail than any third party.

What specific feature set are you looking for? Without a proper understanding
of the features you need and the risks you are trying to mitigate all you
will get is a popularity contest.
---
Your question may already be answered in Windows Vista Security:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047...otectyourwi-20

>> Would it be better to use the firewall on Kapersky Internet Suite or the
Windows Vista Firewall?

Sharon:

Or run both.

The Vista f/w is nicely integrated with its Private/Public Profiles and is
stateful.
I run the ZA beta with the Vista f/w to have convenient outbound control.
Works great

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23L17pXDqHHA.4396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Would it be better to use the firewall on Kapersky Internet Suite or the
> Windows Vista Firewall?
>
> Sharon:
>
> Or run both.
>
> The Vista f/w is nicely integrated with its Private/Public Profiles and is
> stateful.
> I run the ZA beta with the Vista f/w to have convenient outbound control.
> Works great

Most will tell you not to run two personal FW(s) because a doubled FW
situation can prevent inbound packets/traffic from reaching the machine.

>> Most will tell you not to run two personal FW(s) because a doubled FW
situation can prevent inbound packets/traffic from reaching the machine.

Mr. Arnold:

Technically, that should be a very rare experience for two simple packet
filtering f/ws if the rules are setup correctly.

I have run as many as three f/ws concurrently w/o problems (just to prove
the concept).

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:Oi3fMRMqHHA.716@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Most will tell you not to run two personal FW(s) because a doubled FW
> situation can prevent inbound packets/traffic from reaching the machine.
>
> Mr. Arnold:
>
> Technically, that should be a very rare experience for two simple packet
> filtering f/ws if the rules are setup correctly.
>
> I have run as many as three f/ws concurrently w/o problems (just to prove
> the concept).

May ask why the reasoning behind 3?

I run two packet filters myself Vista's FW and IPsec. But that's for a
dial-up connection for a laptop.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:25:43 -0700, "CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote:

>>> Most will tell you not to run two personal FW(s) because a doubled FW
>situation can prevent inbound packets/traffic from reaching the machine.
>
>Mr. Arnold:
>
>Technically, that should be a very rare experience for two simple packet
>filtering f/ws if the rules are setup correctly.
>
>I have run as many as three f/ws concurrently w/o problems (just to prove
>the concept).



Many people have run more than one firewall at once without a problem.
However the *risk* of a problem is always there, and that's why it
shouldn't be done.

Here's what Microsoft has to say about running two software firewalls
at once:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu.../firewall.mspx

"Q. Should I use both the built-in firewall and a software firewall
from a different company on my Windows XP computer?

"A. No. Running multiple software firewalls is unnecessary for typical
home computers, home networking, and small-business networking
scenarios. Using two firewalls on the same connection could cause
issues with connectivity to the Internet or other unexpected behavior.
One firewall, whether it is the Windows XP Internet Connection
Firewall or a different software firewall, can provide substantial
protection for your computer."

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>> Many people have run more than one firewall at once without a problem.
However the *risk* of a problem is always there, and that's why it
shouldn't be done.

Here's what Microsoft has to say about running two software firewalls
at once:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu.../firewall.mspx

"Q. Should I use both the built-in firewall and a software firewall
from a different company on my Windows XP computer?

"A. No. Running multiple software firewalls is unnecessary for typical
home computers, home networking, and small-business networking
scenarios. Using two firewalls on the same connection could cause
issues with connectivity to the Internet or other unexpected behavior.
One firewall, whether it is the Windows XP Internet Connection
Firewall or a different software firewall, can provide substantial
protection for your computer."


Ken:

Do you know of a technical reason for not running two simple packet
filtering f/ws concurrently?