John Doe wrote:
> From: mark
>
>> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>>
>>> Mhr wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:50:27 -0800:
>>>
>>>
would it be a bad idea (or a complete waste)
to use a firewall, like ZoneAlarm, on my Windows guest OS?
>>> Yes, using ZA is a bad idea. XP has
From: mark
> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> > Mhr wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:50:27 -0800:
> >
> >> would it be a bad idea (or a complete waste)
> >> to use a firewall, like ZoneAlarm, on my Windows guest OS?
> >
> > Yes, using ZA is a bad idea. XP has its own firewall which is enabled by
> > default i
>Huh? I've *NEVER* heard great things about WinDoze firewall...
That's only because the interface for it is far too complicated for most people
to comprehend. Netsh and/or the registry.
Simply because what the gui reveals is little of the feature scope, most think
it
doesn't do much. It's almost
mark wrote:
> Huh? I've *NEVER* heard great things about WinDoze firewall, and the std.
> from
> the fairly heavy duty folks I know who support WinDoze is that the std for
> non-commercial is ZoneAlarm.
>
I'm not sure what WinDoze is, sounds like a new sleeping aid.
Pretty much everyone I k
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Mhr wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:50:27 -0800:
>
>> would it be a bad idea (or a complete waste)
>> to use a firewall, like ZoneAlarm, on my Windows guest OS?
>
> Yes, using ZA is a bad idea. XP has its own firewall which is enabled by
> default if you are patched up-to-date
Mhr wrote on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:09:17 -0800:
> Now you've sparked my curiosity - how is the XP firewall any better than ZA?
ZA is not just a firewall. Googling will tell you about the problems with it.
>
> Also, in regard to other answers I've seen on the list, since I'm
> using NAT, isn't ano
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Mhr wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:50:27 -0800:
>
> Yes, using ZA is a bad idea. XP has its own firewall which is enabled by
> default if you are patched up-to-date. Keep that on.
>
Now you've sparked my curiosity - how is the XP firewall any b
Mhr wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:50:27 -0800:
> would it be a bad idea (or a complete waste)
> to use a firewall, like ZoneAlarm, on my Windows guest OS?
Yes, using ZA is a bad idea. XP has its own firewall which is enabled by
default if you are patched up-to-date. Keep that on.
Kai
--
Kai Sc
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:50 PM, MHR wrote:
> I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
> I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
> don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
> stupid (if they do, please tell me,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
>
>
> This depends on how you have the guest network setup. If it's in
> bridged mode, then the firewall on the host does nothing to protect
> the guest. If you're running NAT mode, then that's sort of like a
> (consumer) firewall already, so
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, MHR wrote:
> I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
> I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
> don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
> stupid (if they do, please tell me,
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 13:50 -0800, MHR wrote:
> I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
> I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
> don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
> stupid (if they do, please tell m
12 matches
Mail list logo
