Glaucus wrote:
Because he's right. Unless you buy the pro version, which is slightly better. But then again, software firewalls will always be inferior to hardware firewalls. If your only option is software, however, I suggest Tiny personal firewall.
No offense, but I was hoping for a more technical response then that.
And as for hardware/software firewalls, they're all the same really. I mean, my router has a "hardware" firewall, but really all it is is a tiny computer with firewall software on it's firmware. It's still software, it's just burned onto an EPROM. What's the diff?!? Now, unless you can point some technical flaws in ZA that could allow hackers in through some back door, then I don't see where you're comming from.
- Mike
no1 knows specific ones apart from people who've studied the code and hackers. although i made my own trojan just to test which is the best firewall, and in my study's...
/me hides and uses a remote microphone
...i found that windows xp built in firewall, and hardware firewalls turn out the best.
hardware firewalls are the same, however you have to pay "bare" amounts for them, therefore the software that is changed into hardware must be refined. it also allows greater control, irrelevant of OS, which means windows can't escape it :-)
GreggBz wrote:
Right, Right, IE is horrible compaired to netscape.
In defense of MS$ you know they get picked on a lot.
If the hackers poured an equal effort into destroying debian Linux you would have a "very un-secure" operating system in debian linux.
oh please. they NEED linux to hack in the first place!
everyone knows that ip changers, trojans, remote access, DoS attacks, etc only work properly in linux. and not feeble attempts made in *chuckle* visual basic :-)
