As for anti-spyware, that's run manually so if you want to try a few out go for it.

[Link]

PS - I don't want my firewall coming from anybody who isn't dedicated to security and, frankly, my assessment of Microsoft's security-consciousness is that it sucks.

[Link]

Edited by - budtugley on 3/3/2006 3:06:08 AM

[Link]

Firefox and Opera are better, and 1 simple reason is, they do not support ActiveX.
So if you find ActiveX extension for Firefox, do not install it, and also it's better to avoid those IE tab -extensions, like ietab.mozdev.org

If you go to Microsoft download page with Firefox and try to download Windows Defender Beta 2 (previously known as Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1), you need some Windows Genuine Advantage Firefox plug-in.
I think it's better to avoid that too and download that AntiSpyware program with IE.

Here are Secunia pages for Firefox and Opera:
Firefox 1.5, 2 holes open, Less critical.
Opera 8.x, 0.

I have been using Firefox 2 years and sometimes Opera.
and i can't find any spyware with Spybot - Search & Destroy, ewido anti-malware, Ad-Aware SE Personal, Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1.
Those programs really work*, but Firefox (and Opera) are just better and i don't get any spyware, except TrackingCookies, but those are not really spyware.

* my friend did use IE before and i did find something with those.

Mac & Linux users are even more safe, no Spyware and Viruses and if there is some, it's very rare.

Edited by - 1on1Fan on 3/3/2006 7:33:59 AM

[Link]

Your typical SOHO "router" has more functionality, since it's typically a switch, router and firewall all packed into one box but, as a firewall, I wouldn't say it works much better. As I've stated previously, all firewalls are software. It's just a question of where they are implemented and how effective they are at meeting your requirements.

[Link]

The biggest problem we have is employees who bring their laptops from home and infect the network that way.
We trying to decide if we're going to ban laptops since it's something we can't control. A couple of virus's got us that way.

The web is an ugly place. A very ugly place.

[Link]

The "X-router" looks in its routing table for the path to Y's IP network. Based on that lookup, it forwards the SYN packet to the appropriate neighboring router. This process is repeated between routers until the SYN packet reaches the one which is Y's gateway.

If, and this is the point, the port to which X's SYN packet is addressed is open then the software associated with that port will get the packet and, presumably, respond with an ACK. If that port is closed, whether because of the Y-router or because of Y's software firewall, then X won't get any response. Since it doesn't get any response, it "sees" neither the Y-router nor Y itself.

Bear in mind that we're discussing a firewall for AztecGold11, not a firewall for a business, with multiple computers sitting behind it. In this scenario, it really doesn't matter from a technical standpoint where the firewall sits. It may matter from a user standpoint, by which I mean that a computer-based firewall may be compromised by bad behavior on the user's part - downloading a trojan horse, for example. However, a good software firewall is going to catch a rouge program trying to get out and notify the user, which may be the first she knows that her computer's been infected.

[Link]