In the grand scheme of things it is great that you 1) noticed something like this, and 2) came looking for help, but in reality it is really nothing to worry about.

I'm guessing you don't have a router between your modem and computer. As such your computer literally "sits" on the internet and is visible to every other device on the internet. This means any device, or computer, can [i:2yxifgzm]attempt[/i:2yxifgzm] to directly access your computer and there are many out there that will try. The good news is that your firewall is blocking any attempt to access your computer that wasn't initiated by you. The bad news is that this can slow down your internet connection because each communication actually makes it to your computer and then your firewall must deal with each packet. Most recommend a router between the modem and computer, and Ken, or security guru, has also mentioned this in the past. Most routers perform many fuctions, but the two most important (in my opinion) are NAT(Network Address Translation) and a hardware firewall (often called a Stateful Packet Inspection firewall). You can read his article about [url=http://www.davescomputertips.com/articles/security/golden_rules_of_computer_security_2.php:2yxifgzm]NAT in Ken's article[/url:2yxifgzm]. Stateful Packet Inspection means that the router examines each packet sent to your IP. If the communication wasn't initiated by a computer on your network the packet is dropped immediately. No muss. No fuss. If the packet is in response to a request (go to this web page, etc) from a computer on your network the packet goes through.

[quote:21gyykwv]Should I allow Google and Yahoo to scan my Ip's ( create rule in Outpost for them)? If the answer is yes, in what way this will affect my security?[/quote:21gyykwv]
No, definitely not. Allow your firewall to continue blocking them.

[quote:21gyykwv]Is a resident firewall still needed in case I will go for the router protection?[/quote:21gyykwv]
That is debatable, some do not consider it necessary. It depends largely on the user and the level of risk they are prepared to take. I would always advocate both, even if just to be on the safe side.
So, I would recommend using both. If the host machine is capable of running an installed firewall without any negative impact then there is certainly no harm and possibly a lot of good.

Cheers.....Jim

[quote="coolczone":3423nxkh]1.Should I allow Google and Yahoo to scan my Ip's ( create rule in Outpost for them)? If the answer is yes, in what way this will affect my security?[/quote:3423nxkh]
Your firewall is blocking them. If you haven't lost any access to Google, Yahoo, etc then I see no need to change your firewall rules.
[quote:3423nxkh]2. Is a resident firewall still needed in case I will go for the router protection?[/quote:3423nxkh]
Well. In most cases it isn't required, but I like to have them. Why? A good firewall will prompt you for every inbound and outbound connection, which gives several benefits (especially for those who aren't techy types):
1. You learn which programs are trying to access the internet - you'll be surprised how many programs do and wonder why some do when you can't think of any need for them to have access.
2. Outbound connection requests. After you've used the computer for a week or two, and have rules set for most programs that you are familiar with, it becomes an "early warning system" and a great way to catch malware. As an example you download something labeled as a theme, pdf, simple program, or doc. As soon as you try to run or view the download your firewall jumps up with a warning about an outbound connection. If the download was not a reputable product downloaded from a reputable site it would be a good time to do some scanning and searching on the web. Seem far fetched? Running AV software? I've seen it happen.
3. If the computer is portable. When you join someone's network that you don't have control of (Starbucks, McDonalds, air port, etc) you need a software firewall.