|reply to idbit |
Re: [Equipment] Router - Use old Belkin or Yealink's built-in ro
How do the Yealink and Belkin compare in terms of NAT firewall and any other firewall function?
Presumably you have a software firewall also on your computer. Many people find these ratings useful though there is a bit of a political controversy floating around about them:
You might want to use this port test in addition to the ShieldsUp page. I just use the personal/home office test:
My initial feeling would be to use the Yealink router if you wish, see how your security is, see how your internet functionality is....
Thanks PX. That one is a little different. I like their explanations of each port.
Yeah I remember that test - the Matousec test page. You're right, there is/was controversy surrounding it. A few years ago I came across that when I had caught a virus and decided to buckle down on security. At the time, the issue people had is that the tests covered HIPS functions - in addition to firewall functions. So the all-in-one firewalls that came with HIPS function, like Comodo and Outpost, always won the tests. Some people thought that was a good thing and some people thought it was deceptive.
I had (and still do have) an old Windows XP system. I had trialed Outpost and it was too much for my system to handle. So I removed it. At the time, for an old system, it was recommended to use a low resource firewall that only does firewall. Look 'n' Stop was recommended because it's very configurable, while being low resource. So that's what I went with. I've been really happy with it. I never realize it's there until I install something and that something tries to dial out for the first time. I probably should add a low resource HIPS program so I'm covered for the rest of the stuff they test for on the Matousec tests. I do everything else you can though for an XP machine - like a Local Security Policy - allowing exe's to run only from the Programs folder, the NoScript plugin for Firefox.
said by idbit:The free version (or paid version, nice to support the guy) of WinPatrol. Not full HIPS but there is scant left in the stand-alone HIPS market. Still very useful.
I probably should add a low resource HIPS program so I'm covered for the rest of the stuff they test for on the Matousec tests.
Totally passive, the free version of SpywareBlaster.
And HostsMan for passive protection for your Hosts file.
said by PX Eliezer7:Yeah that looks pretty straightforward. They still support XP.
The free version (or paid version, nice to support the guy) of WinPatrol. Not full HIPS but there is scant left in the stand-alone HIPS market. Still very useful.
I used to use SpywareBlaster years ago and got away from it for some reason. I forgot why. Now I juse Hostman to do the same thing as far as blocking sites. It can be annoying at times when it blocks a domain that some software you're using needs access to and you can't figure out why it's not working. Now I know, whenever something doesn't work for no logical reason, disable Hostman to see if that was the problem.