Windows Firewall and CPF? Packets scanning?

Hi! Its been a long time since I last came here… nice sorting out in the forums… anyway, I was wondering if it was perfectly ok for CPF to work side by side with Windows Firewall, or will the two have comflicts? So far, I have not been having problems, and I do not feel secured if windows firewall is off. In fact, is it alright to switch windows firewall off?

Also, I was wondering how much will my surfing speed slow down if I was to enable ‘Packet Checksum vertification’. (I’m on a 512 kbps Broadband connection)???

Last question would be, I am having a huge amount of medium’ warnings of ‘Access Denied’ in the logs. Should I be concerned?

Thanks for the help and advice in advance.

All the way CPF!

Based on other users posts, CPF runs well with XPs Firewall.

Do you need XPs Firewall? No.

Should you feel safe with XPs Firewall? No, I wouldn’t.

Also, I was wondering how much will my surfing speed slow down if I was to enable 'Packet Checksum vertification'. (I'm on a 512 kbps Broadband connection)???

I don’t know, it will have an impact… but, no idea to what degree. But, there’s one way to find out. Try it & report back. ;D

Last question would be, I am having a huge amount of medium' warnings of 'Access Denied' in the logs. Should I be concerned?

Post some examples. You can export CPFs log to an HTML file & then cut ‘n’ paste some examples from there.

ok… I tested the packet vertification thingy. Speed difference was not visible at all, but using a tweak in mozilla, the speed difference was 0.2 secnds for google.com , so I guess I’ll leave it on. ;D


Date/Time :2006-10-06 00:04:13
Severity :High
Reporter :Network Monitor
Description: Blocked by Protocol Analysis (Bad TCP Checksum)
Direction: TCP Incoming
Source: 1x2.3x.1.1x:x0
Destination: 1x.1x4.6x.22x:2962
Reason: The packet has an invalid TCP checksum value


The above was just taken. This happened a few minutes after I enabled the packet thingy. (50 OVER ALERTS of the same thing!) Should I start worrying? The X represents a number.


Date/Time :2006-09-09 15:28:47
Severity :Medium
Reporter :Network Monitor
Description:Inbound Policy Violation (Access Denied, ICMP = UNREACHABLE)
Protocol:ICMP Incoming
Source: 16x.21.13x.1x
Destination: 192.1x8.1.x5
Message: UNREACHABLE
Reason: Network Control Rule ID = 5

this is the medium alert that I keep getting. Anything wrong or unusual?

I would assume that the impact would probably be on CPU usage rather Net speed. Since CPF is doing more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date/Time :2006-10-06 00:04:13
Severity :High
Reporter :Network Monitor
Description: Blocked by Protocol Analysis (Bad TCP Checksum)
Direction: TCP Incoming
Source: 1x2.3x.1.1x:x0
Destination: 1x.1x4.6x.22x:2962
Reason: The packet has an invalid TCP checksum value


The above was just taken. This happened a few minutes after I enabled the packet thingy. (50 OVER ALERTS of the same thing!) Should I start worrying? The X represents a number.

Er… Pass. But, based on the message… it is obviously something to do with the Packet Checksum Verification option. Is it a problem? I don’t know. Who’s the foreign IP? Someone you know? What was the source port?

_____________ _________________ ________________ ______________

Date/Time :2006-09-09 15:28:47
Severity :Medium
Reporter :Network Monitor
Description:Inbound Policy Violation (Access Denied, ICMP = UNREACHABLE)
Protocol:ICMP Incoming
Source: 16x.21.13x.1x
Destination: 192.1x8.1.x5
Message: UNREACHABLE
Reason: Network Control Rule ID = 5

this is the medium alert that I keep getting. Anything wrong or unusual?

Again, it depends on who 16x.21.13x.1x is & the frequency. But, not a major problem. Somebody or something is trying something that CPF is not allowing. It’s normally only a problem if something is not working as a consequence.

I’ve seen quite a few ICMP related messages that are sourced by my DNS. These can be safely ignored.