§ wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:

>> | I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
>> is supposed
>> | to provide more security, at an added cost.
>> |
>>
>> Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software
>> FireWalls and don't hog
>> resources.
>>
>> Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.
>
> Bingo!
>
> Another solution; acquire a obsolete pc via freecycle, add a spare nic
> and cruise on over to ipcop.com and grab the iso.
>
>>
>> Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
>> http://www.wallwatcher.com/
>>
>
> My minimal experience with wallwatcher has been most positive.

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