Computer firewall vs. Router firewall?

FlacoMike · Mar 3, 2006

I've seen a few threads around about Smoothwall and IPCop, etc. And i'm curious to know what the advantages of having a computer-based firewall over a router are?

In other words:

Why have Internet --> Modem --> Smoothwall PC --> Switch --> Network PCs

When you can have Internet --> Modem --> Router --> Network PCs?

Is it faster? Better security? Or a matter of preference?

(Reason i'm asking is because i'll be upgrading from dialup to Verizon FiOS soon, and i'm already planning out my network configuration)

Mr. Chambers · Mar 3, 2006

There are pro's and con's to each method. A smoothwall/monowall/ipcop box offers much greater level of control over a convientional router box. However, it also cost more than most entry-level routers, and is obviously a bit harder to initially configure.

The reason *I* personally use a PC-based firewall is because alot of home routers crap out when faced with many concurrent connections (torrents for example). A PC-based firewall is typically much more adept at handling a connection.

[edit]

I almost didn't see it - Welcome to the forums!! Enjoy your stay and your FIOS - I'm jealous!

Randyman... · Mar 3, 2006

Just get a descent Router with a Firewall and NAT/SPI built in, and run the XP SP-2 firewall with a GOOD A/V client (NOT Norton), and you will be as secure as the nastiest sites are nasty... Not a single incident with this config, and I do tempt fate quite often. If you want anal control over what packets are leaving your PC, then either use a different Firewall, or wait for the XP SP-3 Firewall which is rumored to have outbound packet filtering (at least it will for Vista)...

FlacoMike · Mar 3, 2006

Thanks for the replies! So i'm under the impression that PC based firewalls offer more options and customability, and routers are cheaper, yet do the job.

Last question: are there any speed differences between the two?

TalRW · Mar 3, 2006

performance wise a PC router will be more powerful, but you only notice this when you are experiancing a large amount of connections and packets going through the router (usually bit torrent causes this). In that case normal consumer routers can crash during this load but PC routers won't. But it all depends on your needs, if you are just running a small home network with one maybe 2 users I would say just get a regular router as it's easier cheaper and the performance is good enough. If you need something more powerful go with the PC router.

brakezone · Mar 4, 2006

I use a freebsd system as my firewall and I think it works out really well.

The performance and stability are a bit better than a router. Also, you have a much greater control over the configuration. Freebsd has excellent security as well. Additional to this, there are all kinds of things you can do as far as adding additional LAN and internet services. For example, you could have a machine with 3 ethernet cards. 1 card could be from the wide area network, the 2nd card could go to the internal LAN, the third card could go to a internet server. You could then organize your firewall rules to isolate the internet server from your LAN completely.

BulldogMcC · Mar 5, 2006

Randyman... said:
Just get a descent Router with a Firewall and NAT/SPI built in, and run the XP SP-2 firewall with a GOOD A/V client (NOT Norton), and you will be as secure as the nastiest sites are nasty... Not a single incident with this config, and I do tempt fate quite often. If you want anal control over what packets are leaving your PC, then either use a different Firewall, or wait for the XP SP-3 Firewall which is rumored to have outbound packet filtering (at least it will for Vista)...

Can you point me to information you base your "Not Norton" recommendation from?

Randyman... · Mar 5, 2006

Reccomendation from a former paying Norton AV user, ME! Once you run Norton and get infected 4 or 5 times like I did, it will be clear to you as well. Once I put Kaspersky on my PC's - I have not had one incident (over a year now). Kaspersky found viruses Norton didn't even know about, and Kaspersky is also vastly superior in prevention as well. IIRC, Norton was also initially scared to take action on the whole Sony DRM Rootkit deal - where as Kaspersky was agressive and added it to their blacklist shortly after it was discovered. Kaspersky is also a more efficient program, and gets updates multiple times per day...

That's all I could come up with as I sit on the throne

...

BulldogMcC · Mar 5, 2006

I asked because I have had Norton AV on at least one of my rigs for, well as long as I can remember without issue. I will try running kaspersky on one of the rigs and see if there is anything Norton missed. The DRM rootkit is a touchy issue for a corporation though, it was not a bad hacker, but a bad corporation, and as such was at least a target for legal action. I know I am getting my new CD and coupon

I kept abreast of the information on the Net and fortunately did not have the rootkit hit any of my rigs. I will let you know what I find from the other application scan.

Randyman... · Mar 5, 2006

More OT: Exactly - The Sony Rootkit was indeed a "Touchy Subject" that left gaping holes in the security of our OS. A clear target waiting to get exploited. Norton was scared of getting sued or whatever, so they did not act at first. Kaspersky had the best interest of its customers in mind, and blocked the installation of the Sony Rootkit early on - they were proactive. That is the kind of company I like to support. There is no denying that I got infected multiple times with Norton, and none with Kapersky (same surfing habits).

I stick by my claim that you are secure with a good A/V (

), SP-2 Firewall, and a descent hardware router with NAT&SPI... Spybot S&D is also reccomended...

:thup:

BulldogMcC · Mar 5, 2006

I just ran AntiVir, because it is free, and got this:

End of the scan: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:45
Used time: 2:01:11 min

The scan has been done completely.

7863 Scanning directories
469162 Files were scanned
0 viruses and/or unwanted programs was found
0 files were deleted
0 files were repaired
0 files were moved to quarantine
0 files were renamed
6103 Archives were scanned
68 Warnings
3 Notes

Every single warning was because AntiVir could not get into a norton AV or the Microsoft Firewall files. Granted, I have pretty safe browsing habits. I will try the trial version of kaspersky tonight.

FlacoMike · Mar 6, 2006

Thanks for the info guys...it looks like for my small home network, the best choice would be to simply go with a normal router, probably Linksys or D-Link with built-in WiFi.

Computer firewall vs. Router firewall?

FlacoMike

Registered

Mr. Chambers

Member

Randyman...

Member

FlacoMike

Registered

TalRW

Member

brakezone

Member

BulldogMcC

Member

Randyman...

Member

BulldogMcC

Member

Randyman...

Member

BulldogMcC

Member

FlacoMike

Registered

Similar threads