You are pretty safe. Lots of people get carried away with firewalls and security and will tell you you should. But it is really a matter of how much you want to inconvience yourself. Every layer of security you add on makes tasks harder than they were without it. With the router and XP's firewally things won't be getting through if they aren't supposed to, a 3rd party firewall will give you the added "benefit" of not letting things out.

As you likely already know, if someone is skilled and dedicated enough they can get through anything.

I've got 6 computers, at least 3 run 24/7 and are connected through a router and I'm not running antivirus or firewalls (except built in) on any of them.

Routers do have hardware firewalls. However, the statement that a router is all the protection you need is not correct. Any system connected to or directly through the router will benefit from that- but I say that with caution because I am not sure what the extent of 'all kinds of wires' is. If cable have been run connecting your system directly to a router port, then you will benefit from the security.

But that is not a blanket protection. Each computer connected still needs the software ant-virus program and 2 or more spyware/adware programs. Additionally, a software firewall like McAfee has or the Windows Firewall can be used.

Set the firewall to log if you can, then check the logs occasionally and see if there have been attempts to access that the firewall stopped. Ideally a properly configured router will make the IP of each machine 'invisible' on the Internet.

Never think a hacker wouldn't be interested in your system because you don't have any 'sensitive info' on it! The 'sensitive' part is the system itself! When an attack is launched that will ultimately shut down a site causing a Denial of Service, it is caused by thousands of computer system trying to access that site at the same time.

The way this is done is by the crackers accessing systems and leaving code that can be activated by them at a specific time. No, you won't blow up and chances are you won't know it was done. But the value is sometimes not what's on a system but the system itself!

Any router using NAT will make the IPs of the individual computers not visible to the outside.

Bobbye is the perfect example of what I'd hate to see happen to my computers. I don't want to be running a software firewall (outside of the Windows one) and don't want an antivirus and 2-3 spyware scanners. Right there you have 4-5 software packages running or needing to be ran just to keep your system 'safe'. To me it is a waste of resources both computationally and of my time.

My setup on this computer is Windows Vista Home Premium with its firewall on, behind a router. I use gmail for email (and another online for work) rather than outlook or outlook express. I use Opera for internet. Opera doesn't get hit with fantastic exploits like IE, and gmail and my work can for viruses server side so I'm safe there.

If you use IE and Outlook or OE and download stuff (programs, zips, ect) from P2P then perhaps you should do what Bobbye does. But for me it is a huge inconvience to do so.

In my opinion it is Opera. There have been a few threads with arguments for Opera and those for Firefox too.

Every argument for Opera or Firefox can be countered by the opposing side so I don't want to get into it too much here.

But to paint everything with a broad brush, I'd say use Opera if you want a well polished browser that does a lot of things right out of the box. Use Firefox if you want a minimalist browser that you can individually add (download) features to (for).

The is no need to get rid of it. Just have Opera set as your default browser (it will probably ask the first time you launch it).

I've been using Firefox since it was first released to the public- going on three years. IE6 remains on my system, but I rarely encounter a site where I am forced to use it. Since IE is a bundled Windows components, it's easier to leave on.

As for the security programs, I have an AV program, 3 spyware/adware programs, have the Windows firewall on and a router. I don't like security suites- when something goes wrong, it's difficult to find the cause in a suite. My systems aren't 'bloated' because I have carefully chosen my software programs.

My systems are safe, well-maintained and clean. Each of us chooses what types of security we think is best for our systems. SNGX1275, it may not be "your" way and that's okay, but to insinuate "my" way is in some way "bad" is unacceptable.

Unacceptable? Unacceptable for what?

Before you entered the thread I had already stated there would be people like you that disagreed with my approach. I then used you as an example. I never said it was "bad" I just stated why I didn't do it, I don't need that bloat on my systems.

"Bobbye is the perfect example of what I'd hate to see happen to my computers."

So I shouldn't take this statement 'personally'? Perhaps you shouldn't have used 'me' as your example!

Thanks halo71. I usually don't. But it seemed in this case it was.

By the way, tell your friend only one firewalll and only one anti-virus program. Multiple spyware/adware programs are OK.