From: "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonicANDTHISTOO.net>


|
| This brings up a whole 'nother approach for me.
| I've been using the final free Sygate Personal Firewall on my PCs for
| some time now, and I greatly regret Symantec's purchase and trashing of
| the product. I've actually used Sygate in both free and bundled forms
| for 7 years (hint: the free version was better!). I like the way that it
| works -- a perfect balance between sensible operation, good performance,
| usability (no small consideration) and resource use (another important
| aspect of a security program). But the free version does have a glass
| cieling: a limit on the amount of custom rules it'll accept, and I've
| banged against that limit.
|
| Now, about a hardware firewall:
|
| I've got two old PCs. One is a 486, 100kc speed, can't recall the memory
| (it's maxed out for whatever its limit is) -- something like a 2g hard
| drive. I've got Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11 for it. I've also got original
| install disks for Windows 95 and Windows XP (home upgrade).
|
| The second PC is a laptop with W95 on it. I don't have specs. It's
| working fine. This laptop is so primitive that it doesn't even have any
| CD drive on it -- just a floppy and a HD.
|
| I'd appreciate knowing if either of these machines can make sense as a
| hardware firewall.
|
| I apologize for replying in the same cross-posting that the OP used.
|
| TIA
|
| Richard

The latency on said platforms would be high. A COTS dedicated appliance would be faster.

Think of it as walking on pavement and then you come across a 20 ft section of mud and then
pavement again.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp