said by goodchefro :

So if it is blocking incoming (that's exactly its purpose), how would the purported "Bill" be able to get inside your "house" and "phone home"?

said by appleAday :

Isn't there a problem or some flaw that makes it unsafe running the Xp firewall for dialup users?

said by goodchefro :

What paying broadband has anything to do with the "next to useless" firewall? Probably is an East Coast thing...

said by Mele20 :

Well, I would never use just the XP firewall (except in situations as I explained in my earlier post) as it IS an insufficient firewall.

---

I am not sure if anyone argued YET pro using JUST the XP firewall. Twisting words to undermine someone's opinion is a pretty easy endeavor...

said by Mele20 :

---

I use my router to keep stuff from getting in.

---

Remember that you personally brought about the dial-up firewalled connection.
I am using a router as well, with my dsl, but that's beside the point.

said by mele2- :

---

To keep stuff from getting out when I don't want it to, I use ProcessGuard.

---

Well, reverting back to firewalled dial-up connection? A mélange in a discussion is very unproductive.

said by Mele20 :

---

Most folks will use a software firewall for the same purpose but they can't use the XP firewall because it lacks this important functionality so it is insufficent unless you combine it with something like ProcessGuard to control what gets out.

---

So, I guess you're still talking about dial-up connection.
Well, while on firewalled dial-up I never had programs running "on their own" without my permission, as u argued about some WUpdate or IE, so I am not sure where from you get the "insufficiency" factor. Administration Tools are designed exactly to control what services/programs/activeX controls are running.

Maybe that "insufficiency" factor of XP FW comes probably from:

said by Mele20 :

---

]I think some posters here are just mouthing off to mouth off

---

I agree with you.

said by Mele20 :

---

...because I find it very difficult to believe that any person serious about computer security doesn't care what gets out and when.

---

A serious person about her/his computer security can suffice with less than you might think, as gesc put it simply...you gotta know what you're doing.
I still don't perceive the "insufficency" or "next to useless" argument as a standing one. Maybe just as ... own opinion bravado.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17946134 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:42:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945514 Mele20 : Well, I would never use just the XP firewall (except in situations as I explained in my earlier post) as it IS an insufficient firewall. I use my router to keep stuff from getting in. To keep stuff from getting out when I don't want it to, I use ProcessGuard. Most folks will use a software firewall for the same purpose but they can't use the XP firewall because it lacks this important functionality so it is insufficent unless you combine it with something like ProcessGuard to control what gets out.

I think some posters here are just mouthing off to mouth off because I find it very difficult to believe that any person serious about computer security doesn't care what gets out and when.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"

»www.msfirefox.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945514 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:37:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945419 Psicop : Well, guys chill out. One thing is being security conscious and smart about how things work in this business. And other thing is being a paranoid.

I repeat again, Windows XP firewall together with a router is more than enough. And even a serious router is more than enough as well, but hey! a dumbo even with a $10,000 Cisco router will allow T0rn rootkit to flush a computer running EnGarde Secure Linux. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945419 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:37:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945417 goodchefro : What paying broadband has anything to do with the "next to useless" firewall? Probably is an East Coast thing...

I'm glad that at least one of us is indeed offended by a contrary opinion, so the "anonym" poster can rest assured that his "observation" at least hit a target...no matter that it wasn't the intended one.
If you have a checking account you don't question the bank teller why s/he has access to your account...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945417 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:36:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945067 batterup :

said by goodchefro :

If Bill wants to "phone home" a picture of me reading the news on the potty, so be it.

Really? That is odd, you are one in a million. Does Bill pay for your broadband? He doesn't pay for mine.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17945067 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:40:02 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944588 goodchefro :

said by Mele20 :

I have to come out from behind the router for a short while, or on my backup dialup account, the XP firewall is sufficient because I also have ProcessGuard to control my applications.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't offended and I don't have a problem with how people decorate their homes, for example having a piano on the ceiling...
If the "anonym" person wants to read again, he might see that I was arguing, as a matter of fact, the sufficiency of the very highlighted item, unlike the other poster who considers that the item's "value" is..."next to useless".

Since when commenting an opinion (not a person) is interpreted as "being offended"? :D
One should get offended when someone talks about their big nose, or about their chafed face let's say, but not when a point of view (either flawed or not) is discussed. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944588 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:57:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944256 jsimmons3 :

In the links posted by CalamityJane, Linklogger says the problems with the XP firewall for dial up users was fixed with an update from MS. So I'm assuming you shouldn't use the XP firewall to protect yourself after you first install Windows XP (e.g. after a reformat) because you won't have the fix till you get the updates and you can't get the updates till you've got the fix, kind of a catch 22. So before you reformat or reinstall Windows I would download another firewall and save it to a cd, thumbdrive, or whatever that you can install and use while you get your Windows updates. After your done you can uninstall that firewall and use the XP firewall again and you should be ok then.

Well, most normal people who are that well-informed about the XP firewall would simply unplug the network cable from their machine before re-installing XP and setting up other (better) firewall software. Of course, if you have a decent hardware firewall, there's no problem now, is there?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944256 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:54:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944219 Mele20 : I agree. I don't even let IE start without my express permission. It started up one time, all on its own, and took itself over to Windows Update site (which I don't use as I get each patch individually from MS Download site) and was trying to download WGA when I finally stopped it. I didn't stop it at first partly because my mouth was hanging open in amazement that Microsoft would program IE like that and secondly because I wanted to see exactly what it was up to before I stopped it. I immediately tied it down on a short leash using Process Guard because I don't ordinarily use a software firewall. I only use one if I have to come out from behind the router for a short while, or on my backup dialup account, and the XP firewall is sufficient because I also have ProcessGuard to control my applications.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"

»www.msfirefox.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944219 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:48:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944149 anon : @ goodchefro

Not that I'm trying to argue with you, but some people do give a rats behind what programs try to access the net, and while you don't seem to, some people value their privacy and don't want ANYTHING accessing the net behind their back.

I for one don't want any programs accessing the net without my full permission and this should be everyone's right to decide. I'm glad I can block "so called" legitimate programs from phoning home, and if that offends some people, too bad, that's their problem. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17944149 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:35:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17942212 goodchefro :

said by batterup :

There is allot of software that one installs that does things one might not want it to do. Windows for one.

I'm still not sure why u think the Windows FW is "next to useless".
Like gesc said, if one is that dumb to click on anything and everything to download, then probably the firwall is indeed worthless.
On the other hand, what's wrong with GWA or any other LEGITIMATE Msoft software "phoning home"? If you don't have anything to hide and your version is legitimate, then what's the problem?
I like legit things and if the "phoning home" helps keeping that Microsoft "safe" environment, I don't give a rat's behind what LEGIT program phones home.
I never got a virus or an infection by using the dial-up firewalled connection. If Bill wants to "phone home" a picture of me reading the news on the potty, so be it.
As long as the W firewall does its job to keep mischievous stuff outside the door, it is useful.
But that's just my opinion. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17942212 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:14:02 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17942103 batterup :

said by Psicop :

The reason why everyone bashed XP's firewall is simply due to the lack of outbound protection, but if you know what you're doing then this FW is enough.

You would be surprised at the number of times Windows phones home. If it were not for outbound protection one would never know the number of times WGA phones home. One would not know that WMP11 wants to connect to Akiemia when nothing was requested from them. One would be surprised at the number of times legitimate programs want to phone home.

I may know what I am doing but what harm does outbound protection do? Doesn't Vista have outbound protection? Network engineers know what they are doing yet they have $5,000.00 hardware/software firewalls.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17942103 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:54:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940603 anon : In the links posted by CalamityJane, Linklogger says the problems with the XP firewall for dial up users was fixed with an update from MS. So I'm assuming you shouldn't use the XP firewall to protect yourself after you first install Windows XP (e.g. after a reformat) because you won't have the fix till you get the updates and you can't get the updates till you've got the fix, kind of a catch 22. So before you reformat or reinstall Windows I would download another firewall and save it to a cd, thumbdrive, or whatever that you can install and use while you get your Windows updates. After your done you can uninstall that firewall and use the XP firewall again and you should be ok then. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940603 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:40:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940409 markopoleo : Hardware router/switch only I recommend. The next piece of security is the hardest to get, reason and common sense when using the internet. That fails lots of people for some reason.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940409 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:41:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940058 jsimmons3 : You can block outbound traffic(by default, all outbound traffic is allowed), so if you know the port numbers, the answer is yes.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940058 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:47:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940041 daveinpoway : Are you saying that the Zwall 2+ can be configured so as to block certain programs on your PC from talking to the "mother ship"? Blocking such communications is a strong reason for having a software firewall on your PC. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940041 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:27:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940040 Psicop : The reason why everyone bashed XP's firewall is simply due to the lack of outbound protection, but if you know what you're doing then this FW is enough. Clicking on everything and downloading anything is a good way to allow a trojan call home and start downloading malware. Hence outbound protection would be required.

In other words, a good router with FW and Windows XP FW is more than enough for the average user.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17940040 Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:26:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17939059 DaMan666 : ZA pro, with a linksys router works for me. Can't afford a sisco router, but this works for me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17939059 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:53:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938698 Mele20 :

said by appleAday :

Isn't there a problem or some flaw that makes it unsafe running the Xp firewall for dialup users?

I hope not as that is what I use when I have to go on dialup because Road Runner is down.

Most of the time I just use a router and ProcessGuard to stop stuff starting up without my permission like IE used to do sometimes until I tied it down. At the moment, I have had to bypass the router for about a week now due to connection problems and needing to rule out the router as the culprit. I use XP firewall when I have to do this.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"

»www.msfirefox.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938698 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:37:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938665 gugarci : I use ZA Pro but I've been thinking of switching to Comodo when my subscription expires. I've had no problems with ZA Pro. But Comodo is supposed to be just as good and it's free.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938665 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:28:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938192 batterup :

said by goodchefro :

So if it is blocking incoming (that's exactly its purpose), how would the purported "Bill" be able to get inside your "house" and "phone home"?

There is allot of software that one installs that does things one might not want it to do. Windows for one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938192 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:52:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938096 digdugphil :

said by goodchefro :

So if it is blocking incoming (that's exactly its purpose), how would the purported "Bill" be able to get inside your "house" and "phone home"?

I am guessing "Bill" wrote the OS and "phones home" anytime it is necessary.
I use ZA and keep AV software up to date. Seems to work fine. No problems yet...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17938096 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:29:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937730 tmaertin : another vote for comodo here - i switched and could not be happier.

use it behind a netgear router]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937730 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:21:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937639 goodchefro : So if it is blocking incoming (that's exactly its purpose), how would the purported "Bill" be able to get inside your "house" and "phone home"?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937639 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:05:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937494 batterup :

said by goodchefro :

said by batterup :

said by appleAday :

Isn't there a problem or some flaw that makes it unsafe running the Xp firewall for dialup users?

The built in XP firewall is next to useless; it will let Bill phone home.

So that suppose to mean...what (in terms of a decent answer)?
Care to explain why the firewall is "next" to useless?
tks.

It is a one way firewall, it can block incoming but not outgoing. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937494 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:34:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937358 goodchefro :

said by batterup :

said by appleAday :

Isn't there a problem or some flaw that makes it unsafe running the Xp firewall for dialup users?

The built in XP firewall is next to useless; it will let Bill phone home.

So that suppose to mean...what (in terms of a decent answer)?
Care to explain why the firewall is "next" to useless?
tks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937358 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:02:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937246 batterup :

said by appleAday :

Isn't there a problem or some flaw that makes it unsafe running the Xp firewall for dialup users?

The built in XP firewall is next to useless; it will let Bill phone home.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937246 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:38:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937193 batterup : ZoneAlarm security suit, I even pay money for it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937193 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:27:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937067 anon : Isn't there a problem or some flaw that makes it unsafe running the Xp firewall for dialup users? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17937067 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:04:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17936938 wguimb : Running Vista Ultimate retail and using the built-in firewall. All inbound and outbound traffic is blocked by default. I have specific rules defined to allow which programs, services or port/protocols can get through. Easy to configure once you become familiar with it. I see no indication of a CPU/RAM performance hit and no additional network traffic.

Yet, I can't wait to try out the new Zonealarm firewall for Vista once it comes out.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17936938 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:39:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17936673 bellgamin : I am behind a router plus I run SystemSafetyMonitor with Network Rules active. Therefore, I don't need any software firewall. However, I still run Kerio 2.1.5 because it is lighter than a flea's fart & -- just in case, wot?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17936673 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:49:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17936449 ixNay : Running Comodo here too, behind Linksys Router.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17936449 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:00:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935911 sandman7777 : Router and ZA Pro 7.0 on XP system and Router and Vista advanced firewall on the Vista system. Will put ZA Pro on the Vista Business system as soon as they have a version that is compatible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935911 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:20:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935518 geeknik : I use a hardware firewall and nothing else. I do run AVG Anti-Malware(+Anti-Virus) on all of the machines behind the hardware firewall though. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935518 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:50:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935394 Mercurybird : If you have some extra hardware laying around collecting dust, build yourself a hardware firewall. Look into Smoothwall. It's free.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935394 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:23:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935348 cork1958 : I recommend Comodo too. Don't use it myself, although I have, but that's just me. Router and XP's firewall is good enough for me.
--
Yep, we're back to Windows and Opera!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935348 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:12:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935336 jsimmons3 : Typo: "NT" = "NAT"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935336 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:10:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935333 jsimmons3 : It *is* a bi-directional firewall. You can setup NT rules for WAN-toLAN, LAN-to_WAN, and LAN-to_LAN.

What I was saying was that the X2/2+ is (IMHO) a better choice for a firewall because a) you don't need to install any software on your machine, b) it's locked down by default, and c) it costs less to run 24/7 than a full-blown PC running [insert your favorite os/software firewall here].

I think everyone connected to the internet should buy a decent hardware router.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935333 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:09:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935232 JAXx : Jsimmons3 are you saying the Zywall 2+ replaces a bi-directional firewall?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935232 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:42:51 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935164 CalamityJane : The latest Firewall Poll, linked above by mers2 pretty much answers the question of what the members in this forum use.

I'm in the XP firewall group :) I used ZA for years but this thread »El Cheapo Router Challenge
(a lengthy but eyeopening topic) led me to drop the software firewalls and I've been happy just using the XP firewall since. But then, I also maintain a vigilence of all good security practices including an up-to-date AV program and all Windows Security Updates, in addition to good common sense and safe surfing habits.

The XP firewall was tested by Linklogger towards the end of that long topic here:
»El Cheapo Router Challenge

Especially this summation post by LinkLogger:
»Re: El Cheapo Router Challenge

It's worth a read ;)

--
It takes a disaster to make a woman out of a female
Microsoft MVP/Windows Security 2003-2007
Proud Member of ASAP (Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935164 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:25:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935018 stonecolddsl : While the Zywall 2+ is a great product, if you have a old computer sitting in the closet that has at least 64 megs of ram. I would like to suggest pfsense.com

Amazing firewall with all the bell and whistles of higher end cisco firewalls and routers. Great user support in the form of there forums and there irc chat channel #pfsense at irc.freenode.net

Forget a software firewall and use pfsense box. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17935018 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:36:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934986 fuziwuzi : Add me to the satisfied Comodo Firewall camp, too. I tried ZA and Sunbelt Kerio, but they just weren't as polished as the new Comodo Firewall, which is free, and has great forums for support. I've had questions there answered either by other users or the people from Comodo within a few minutes of my asking. That's better than most "paid for" support I've received from other software developers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934986 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:23:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934868 Chris 313 :

said by poppster :

Comodo Pro 2.4 here. No slowdown at all. Try it, you'll like it for sure.

Same here. I switched from Outpost to this and have no complaints]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934868 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:24:17 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934866 Derspankster : Running Linux behind a Linksys router.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934866 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:22:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934809 DaHen : Running Comodo behind a Linksys router here.

:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934809 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 06:42:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934788 jsimmons3 : Get a Zywall 2+, and abandon software firewalls forever.

It's the best firewall for the money, and you don't have to worry about clogging up your system(s) with software firewalls. It supports SUA for single ISP-assigned IP's (most people) Multi-NAT for those of us with a block of static IPs. The 2+ allows for (I think) five VPN tunnels, if you need that kind of thing.

If you want to save some money, you can find a used Zywall 2 for as little as $40 (the Zywall 2+ is the updated model, but the Z2 is still a decent solution for those on a more strict budget - I got one on eBay for $60).

Mine has been running for a week with five machines behind it, including a web/email/ftp server, a game server, and three workstations and *nothing* has gotten through. For most home users, it's default firewall settings lock your network down so the only thing you have to configure is your connection to the internet and whether or not you want it to be a DHCP server (and your router's password, of course).

I simply cannot recommend a Zywall product highly enough. It's a better choice than the Linksys/Netgear/D-Link consumer-grade products, and the 2+ is reasonably inexepensive (as low as $150).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934788 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 06:30:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934536 siliconman01 : And a good hardware firewall/NAT router works wonders as a first line defense...in conjunction with your software firewall. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934536 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:46:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934047 jadinolf :

said by poppster :

Comodo Pro 2.4 here. No slowdown at all. Try it, you'll like it for sure.

I use it and am very happy with it.
--
This post printed on 100% recycled bytes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934047 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:08:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934021 poppster : Comodo Pro 2.4 here. No slowdown at all. Try it, you'll like it for sure.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934021 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:01:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934020 mers2 : »[Poll] What Firewall Do You Use? '07]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934020 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:01:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934002 wiener_bur : I tried all the popular ones which are ZA Free, Sygate Free, Armor2net and BlackIce. I like ZA and Sygate, Armor2net was alright too although slowed me down a little but BlackIce sucked, the engine was always stopped?

Which one do you guys use? And is your firewall user-friendly, doesn't slow down your pc and connection, popular etc. spit it out :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17934002 Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:58:13 EDT