Using NoobProof alongside the OS X firewall... Is there any point?

[0dev]

Right, as I understand it, NoobProof uses IPFW to set rules, but I've already set up the OS X firewall in System Preferences to block all incoming connections.

I've just set up NP to basically do the same, but I must ask... Is there any point?

Also, do the two conflict, or does the firewall in System Preferences use IPFW too?

 

[GGJstudios]

Mac OS X v10.5, 10.6: About the Application Firewall

Advanced note: The Firewall applies to the Internet protocols most commonly used by applications, which are TCP and UDP. It does not affect AppleTalk. The Firewall may be set to block incoming ICMP "pings" by enabling Stealth Mode in the Advanced settings. Earlier ipfw technology is still accessible from the command line (in Terminal) and the Application Firewall does not overrule rules set with ipfw. If ipfw blocks an incoming packet, the Application Firewall will not process it.

 

[0dev]

So even if you set the built in firewall to block ALL incoming connections, it only applies to popular protocols?

I take it if something gets past ipfw, the built in firewall can block it too? So I get double security?

 

[GGJstudios]

So even if you set the built in firewall to block ALL incoming connections, it only applies to popular protocols?

I take it if something gets past ipfw, the built in firewall can block it too? So I get double security?

I only use the built-in Mac firewall. There's no need for anything more than that.

 

[0dev]

If ipfw blocks more than the built in firewall surely there is a point? After all, any security measures you put in place will only slow down a hacker, so the more you have the better.

 

[GGJstudios]

If ipfw blocks more than the built in firewall surely there is a point? After all, any security measures you put in place will only slow down a hacker, so the more you have the better.

The real question to ask is what are the chances that your Mac will ever become the target of a hacker's attack? The chances for most users is slim to none. It is extremely rare for an average user to be the target of a hacker attack.

 

[0dev]

That's like saying, there's no point putting locks on my doors because my house is in a nice area where there are very few robberies. Yes, it may be unlikely, but that doesn't mean you have to keep everything open.

So, as long as I get additional security alongside my OS X firewall from ipfw, and it isn't interfering with my system, I'll leave it set up. It isn't slowing anything down or damaging anything, and it's providing extra security should I need it. No reason for it not to be there TBH.

 

[maflynn]

I could be wrong but at one point apple used ifpw with a gui front-end and moved away from that in 10.6 (or 10.5?). While the current firewall that apple uses is ok and probably good enough. ifpw is certainly more robust.

Personally ifpw has a better and longer track record then apple's current application firewall and so I'd go with ifpw myself. Using both is redundant and unnecessary.

 

[0dev]

I could be wrong but at one point apple used ifpw with a gui front-end and moved away from that in 10.6 (or 10.5?). While the current firewall that apple uses is ok and probably good enough. ifpw is certainly more robust.

Personally ifpw has a better and longer track record then apple's current application firewall and so I'd go with ifpw myself. Using both is redundant and unnecessary.

Yes, I believe they used it in Tiger and anything prior to it OS X-wise.

I have four firewalls now. I run a very tight ship

 

[spinkick]

Yes, I believe they used it in Tiger and anything prior to it OS X-wise.

I have four firewalls now. I run a very tight ship