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
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 the list or privately).
I run Windows as a VMWar
13 matches
Mail list logo
