Router without Firewall

July 18, 2005 at 10:53:22
Specs: WinXP Pro, Athlon 64

Do you guys know of a good router that DOES NOT have a built in firewall on it? (And by good i mean one that will have a good connection that wont slow us down).

I'm tired of trying to configure the router to everything when i've allready got a software firewall that works just fine.

Thanks


See More: Router without Firewall

Report •


#1
July 18, 2005 at 12:30:56

>>Do you guys know of a good router that DOES NOT have a built in firewall on it? I'm tired of trying to configure the router to everything when i've allready got a software firewall that works just fine.

Munky,
No need for a new Router. You can bypass the firewall for a specific pc by entering the pc's ip in the Routers DMZ zone.


Report •

#2
July 18, 2005 at 13:36:46

Hey thanks, but the fact is that our router just crapped out, so its time to get a new one anywase. Do they make routers that dont have firewalls? Also, its me and the Mrs' using one connection, and we both need the dmz and the router was resitrcted to one.

Report •

#3
July 18, 2005 at 14:06:07

Well, I'm gonna throw in my two cents as a network engineer. Effective security is layered. Having a firewall in a router device helps quite a bit because a hacker must hack in effect two different OS's. The firewall in a router also absorbs all the unsolicited connection attempts, thereby speeding your computer up because your computer will only receive connection attempts to ports forwarded to your computer, which are few in number.

All additional layers of security will have costs. Setting up some port forwarding here and there is well worth what you're gaining in security and performance. It's not if you have a firewall now, but how many.

Doesn't matter anyway. NAT is what forces you to port forward. NAT actually isn't technically a firewall. If you want multiple computers connected to your ISP, and your ISP is only giving you one IP address, you have to use NAT.

"Republicans in Congress are moving to ratify a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, thus ending the Iraq insurgency."


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
July 19, 2005 at 10:27:11

>>Hey thanks, but the fact is that our router just crapped out, so its time to get a new one anywase. Do they make routers that dont have firewalls? Also, its me and the Mrs' using one connection, and we both need the dmz and the router was resitrcted to one.

Munky,
AFAIK SOHO routers use NAT as the method for sharing a single IP address. While there may be "professional" routers offered without NAT, they would be very expensive(CISCO for example).
Your options it seems are to use ICS (although you may still have configuration issues), or, get a second IP address from your ISP and use a HUB instead of a router.



Report •

#5
July 19, 2005 at 10:43:06

"Your options it seems are to use ICS..."

Guess what Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) uses? Our good buddy NAT! Still gotta do port forwarding configs, etc. to allow things to function.

Difference there is one Windows computer is publicly facing to the internet, which means if a hacker hacks that PC, they'll get to the other one very easily since both are windows machines. ICS is also more prone to problems than a good SOHO router, and requires the ICS hosting computer to absorb all connection attempts, do the actual NAT computations, and run a DHCP service. You also lose Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI) firewalls built into most current SOHO routers (SPI doesn't cause the problems the original poster was complaining about). Therefore, it's what he has now, but slower, less reliable, and less secure.

Therefore, his only real option is to get an additional IP address from his ISP, and use a hub or switch instead of a router. Again, you lose quite a bit of security and some in performance.

My point is it's common for people to get annoyed by port forwarding, etc. However, many overlook the benefits of being more secure.

"Republicans in Congress are moving to ratify a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, thus ending the Iraq insurgency."


Report •

#6
July 19, 2005 at 12:28:57

>>All additional layers of security will have costs. Setting up some port forwarding here and there is well worth what you're gaining in security and performance. It's not if you have a firewall now, but how many.

>>My point is it's common for people to get annoyed by port forwarding, etc. However, many overlook the benefits of being more secure.

hero,
IMHO surfing the web without a "layered" approach to security is foolish, and I suggest Munky reconsider.
It appears that many dont realize an under/unprotected pc not only puts them at risk, but puts the security of the internet at risk as well.


Report •

#7
July 19, 2005 at 13:59:37

Agreed. :-)

"Republicans in Congress are moving to ratify a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, thus ending the Iraq insurgency."


Report •


Ask Question