f0dder - No, the very first link states that it is a Microsoft program.

Jim

  Saw that.  Actually it's an MSDN site, and some of those folks obviously have a sense of humor!

They charge you for it??!?

another thought (insert collective groan here...)

what about proxies (ie Proxomitrom, proximodo, privoxy, etc)??

I haven't seen any reference to them anywhere here so far.  Are they a useful security app, or just a handy filtering tool??

Target

For half a year my XP has now been without any firewall at all. And no router (whatever such a thing may be!?). Only NOD32, and now also ThreatFire. Whenever I test a firewall I seem to end up thinking it is not worth the hazzle. But of course, today I don't download from dubious places like I used to... back then I really needed all the security I could get! So maybe the security problem is more about being cautious about where to go and what to download?

[This Just In...] The Storm Worm, latest of the great (overly hyped) interweb deamons...has a few interesting requirements to infect ones machine:
A. Somebody Must open & run (with scissors...) the Attachment!
B. That someone Must also be running with administrative credentials, so ... the bugg will have PeRmiSsiOn ... to install itself as a Windows System Service. (Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! ...Hello!!!)
C. Be running a web server that is behind on security updates so it can inject itself  into a new distro point.

Q. Which security products would have protected the user from (themselves...) and prevented this little pandemic?
A. None of them.

While I agree in general that most infections are self-inflicted and/or totally avoidable, I disagree with your answer. If you are talking typical AV/AS product then yes. But if you are using more "advanced" security software like sandboxes, HIPS, "behaviorial anti-malware" etc, you have a far better chance of avoiding this.

The primary objective is to avoid getting infected in the first place. The outbound firewall game is a nothing more than a plan B attempt to save face after Plan A failed.
Common sense and a condom beats the hell out of a lengthy discussion about if we should keep "it".

Agreed. The problem here I think is people don't understand in general how they get infected.

I wrote this little piece a while back that might be helpful

However another way of seeing things might be to realize that in essence you get infected because either I) You chose to run the infected content (infecting yourself) , II) you mis-configured software settings so that they automatically run infected content without your consent or III) The infected content ran because of a security exploit in a program you were using.

It goes on in length to address each of the 3 scenarios and provides detailed (too detailed) ways to reduce the possibility of each scenario from happening...

Just to clarify, though, Curt - you disabled the firewall in Windows XP Sp-2 immediately after installation?

Ah... sorry, I just had to ask 

IMO there are some slight "epistemological problems" with the discussion here... I don’t want to sound like this thread’s smartass — I know it’s just a relaxed forum discussion, ahem — I'm no security expert, but : there are no clearly defined (precise) parameters to make objective comparisons. And no real hard numbers or studies.

From what I've read, the "[what's really] necessary" parameter (the expression used in the thread's subject) is mostly used in subjective ways, as very personal evaluations of what's essential, without defining much the most important other singular-individual and plural-contextual factors (hardware, software, human environment, network, the computer literateness of the person using the computer, etc.). (and yes, I kind of understand that the question is about finding the right balance between usability, performance, and security).

Without any term definitions, what would an "essential, indispensable" security measure for Windows be? Only an up to date OS and a computer security literate and responsible user (now... define that!)?… Anyway. Then if I want to go beyond what's "necessary" I guess I'd probably add a router or a basic firewall, and a capable anti-virus? Then, what? I might add an HIPS, sandboxe, etc.?

PS : Apart from the usually pretty tangibles performance drawbacks linked to some security software, I wonder how does one know that her data isn't just flying through multiple wholes, open ports without her consent (it’s not like there will suddenly be files missing in a folder… like if these where books on a bookshelf!)... Is the "I ran my computer without a firewall without a firewall — or win XPs basic firewall — for 3 years without a single problem" convincing? How can one be that sure that the computer ran "without a problem" and that all data stayed quietly at home? Sounds like an homeopathic arguments to me...

BTW, something that I'll install soon: DropMyRights.

Some related "alternatives" have been talked about (albeit briefly) in other threads (like this one) :
- <a href="http://sudown.sourceforge.net/index.php">suDown</a>;
- sudowin

And, btw, Online Armor free firewall offers the possibility of running any app with reduced privileges, on the fly (and of course, keep it like that for how long you wish). It's a bit more simple to use than dropmyrights, but... will consume more resources -- since it'S a software firewall.

Which kind of internet connection do you have?

I am not sure how to translate this into English, so I ask for your help on this, f0dder: "Hybrid kabel tv (TDC's webspeed)", for both Internet and telephone. TDC's spamfilter is very fine, but I don't think they filter or protect anythjing else.

But thanks for the warning; I will probably re-install my firewall very soon.

Okay, , I have reinstalled Outpost Pro.