Almost immediately after Microsoft announced the availability of the much-anticipated Windows XP Service Pack 2 (XP SP2), the deluge of negative reviews began. Now I expect this sort of stuff from lesser known online-only publications -- even from the occasional mainstream tech publications. But this time it seems a bit mean-spirited and illogical.
Much or what's been written so far focuses their criticisms on the updated Microsoft firewall. The crux of their arguments push two points...
- It's not as good as a commercial firewall.
- It can be disabled by another program.
Are you kidding me?
As for it's features, Microsoft doesn't claim its firewall is better than third-party firewalls. Forget for a second that it's far superior to the protection it offered in earlier versions of Windows. And conveniently, let's not compare it to the protection offered by competing OSes. Does anyone remember a little anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft a few years ago? It was primarily because Microsoft included a browser with Windows. The argument was that it was bad for users... A browser wasn't necessary for the operating system... That users should be the ones to choose what software and capabilities they needed... That Microsoft was unnecessarily price-gouging users by including features they didn't need in Windows. I believe consumers have a right to expect to be able to do some very basic things with their computers. Among them, like being able to attach them to the internet, browse the web, and to send and receive email -- all without worrying about viruses, spam, or other malicious attacks on their system. The lawsuit allows OEMs to address those expectations. In fact many OEMs include third-party filrewalls with new Windows systems now. Last year around this time you may remember that a virus called MS Blaster was unleashed, and depending on who you ask, it may have infected as many as 9 million Windows PCs worldwide. Microsoft took the brunt of the criticism for the event. The dirty little secret however, was just how many of those infected systems were running either anti-virus or firewall applications. Some estimates are well over half.
Most of the same people criticizing the MS Firewall now are the same ones that argued against Microsoft including a browser with Windows. Why aren't they arguing that Microsoft should just buy someone like ZoneAlarm and just include it with Windows? I wouldn't mind that, and I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't either. Unfortunately an antitrust suit was looking out for our interests by making sure something like that will never happen. To me that's just silly. When we buy a new car, isn't it expected that the windows be included in the cost? Certainly. Is it any less reasonable to expect that they have glass in them too? Duh.
As for the firewall's ability to be manipulated by on outside application, this is quite simply one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Talk about missing the point. For this to happen. the program turning off the firewall would have to have either administrator or system level access. In other words, a program that could turn off the firewall would already have compromised your system's security. If an intruder has already gained that level of access to your system, whether your firewall is on or off is a moot point -- you've already been compromised! Think of it this way... No one criticizes the quality of XP's authentication, and security experts unanimously agree that insecure passwords are the biggest holes available to potential intruders. If someone does get into your system via a real or hacked user account, the least of your worries is if your firewall is still running!! I read someone the other day describing an operating system with no firewall as being akin to buying a house with doors, but no locks on them. OK, I can play the metaphor game, so let's think of it this way: If someone were to get into your house though a door you leave open, does it matter if your other doors are locked or not? Anyone? Anyone?
Despite the bad press, it's refreshing to see that there are still some very credible voices of reason out there that don't have an axe to grind.
The bottom line here is quite simply that XP SP2 is not perfect, but it's a big improvement for the vast majority of the millions of Windows users out there, and will more than address their needs.