>> Hell, I'd use Netbarrier if all ports were active but not >> configureable... > >i don't understand -- what reason(s) do you have for not using netbarrier >as a low-cost firewall? > >jack Jack, Thanks for asking for clarification. I should have made it clear that I wanted the MacSense device to have all ports open AND use Netbarrier if MacSense couldn't figure out a way of reprogramming their firmware for wider port services. Personally, I suspect the device wasn't expected to be placed into the type of service I need, and I was sold something by a salesperson with more experience being nice to the customer than understanding the technical needs and limitations of product vs. installation criteria. That was the intention of the statement, but my fingers won't keep up with my brain. I am saying NetBarrier is a better choice by far for firewall protection than the half-conceived stuff in the MacSense routers. MacSense is great for homeowner or small/mid-sized business, but a lot of people don't know or care to understand about "ports" on a LAN or WAN. Nor should they, I guess. I have a differnet bent on things as we host commercially and I have a number of clients for whom I am the on-call sysadmin -- and I have no intention of letting my clients get unwanted visitors. However, for more serious firewalls to LANs that have something like a DSL or cable connection, NB or its competition is smarter. Hopefully, your local IS person has bothered to become educated about security risks for Macs or mixed-networks. If all they are is MS certified, they probably don't know shi*, but even they can be trained after a few good hacks :) Oh, if you are interested in learning a bit more about security and servers that get hacked (at least, web servers), wander on over to <