How Does Your Firewall Rate? - Outpost, Comodo, Jetico, ...

[laurentdc]

Did you ever seen this comparative ?

Windows Personal Firewall Analysis :
http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php

I wanted to argue about Comodo, the best for monthes, but Outpost just ran first !!!

" ... Outpost Firewall Pro 2008 6.0.2162.205.402.266 also fulfils the promised perfection. This means that Outpost also scores 9625 points, which is 925 points more than its previously tested version. ... "

[mouser]

I have been a long time fan of Outpost.
I recently gave up on it -- just too many bugs, too much slowdown of my pc.  got tired of dealing with its issues.
It is without a doubt a very powerful, and very well thought out firewall in terms of interface.
But just too much instability for me to deal with any more.

I used Comodo for a while and was *very* impressed.  I thought i was going to stay with Comodo but eventually decided to use Eset's new firewall just because Comodo was a bit overwhelming for me in terms of options and stuff.

[laurentdc]

I’m ok with db90h below about XP firewall.
I’ve used ZoneAlarm free for years before with no troubles, but most people will not be able to really decide about unusual configuration : what to accept and what to reject. Perhaps, now, it has become bloatware…

Comodo Firewall got all Internet users credits nowadays and it’s free: I just can only say “try it” !

Some interesting links :
http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
http://bibou0007.com/aide-a-la-desinfection-f8/configuration-conseillee-par-toute-l-equipe-t223.htm

Perhaps, Mouser, should you began to change your firewall topic if it doesn’t fit your convictions anymore (I’m talking for saying evident things…).
https://www.donationcoder.com/Reviews/Archive/Firewall/index.html

For people who want high protection, a Comodo Firewall could be a good try assowiated with an antivirus.
For others, XP Firewall with a good antivirus (like Avira Antivir also free) is enough, but do not go to dangerous sites or do not use dangerous or somewhat illegal softwares…

Regards

I agree. Like all things tainted and twisted by money, ZoneAlarm's formerly superior software has become bloatware designed only to part people from their hard earned money.

Most people don't need anything more than the built in XP firewall. As of SP2, XP offers some protection against unauthorized outbound traffic, but if there were to be anything people might need in combination with XP, its what ZoneAlarm used to be -- a tight little outbound traffic monitor. 

Oh.. and for those people still running anything but XP (or server 2003), please don't reply saying 'what about people who aren't running XP?'. If you aren't running XP, its time to upgrade. Get over your fear of change and just do it.

Anyway.. Creating a very simple one wouldn't be so difficult at all. Making it secure, compatible, and user-friendly would, however, be a daunting task.

-db90h (December 01, 2005, 04:09 AM)

[mouser]

one thing i can say for sure: choosing your firewall based on how well it ranks in the leak-tests scores is a very very bad idea in my opinion.

of course top security should be your top concern, but if you go by scores alone you are basically asking to get a system that doesnt let anything in or out and doesnt let anything run that is even slightly out of the ordinary.  which probably means you will have to do a fair amount of customizing to get it to run the stuff you actually use..

just as important has to be how easy and flexible it is to customize it to behave more realistically.

i think we all have to beware these overly-simplistic firewall and antivirus tests.  they motivate companies to make their programs unrealistically paranoid and locked-down.  the result is an antivirus program that false alarms on everything, or a firewall which you will kill yourself over trying to get it to let your software connect to the internet.

[laurentdc]

Good shot !

[Armando]

I've been using Online Armor for a while now and love it -- fairly light, not buggy, no internet connection slowdowns. And rates really high on leak-tests scores. Sorry  .

If you take the time to do the "start up" configuration properly before running it for the first time, it should go very smoothly (it is possible to have some temporary freezes the first times, but this is only temporary as it will learn -- with your help! -- which programs are allowed to run/access the internet or not).

Currently running the free 2.1.0.95 version. 

[bleh75]

Agreed mouser good points  I got tired of the constant nagging with basically every firewall I've tried I'd like to find a decent one I'll have to read up on some i guess.

[sajman99]

I've been using Online Armor for a while now and love it -- fairly light, not buggy, no internet connection slowdowns...

-Armando (March 07, 2008, 01:31 AM)

+1 for Online Armor. It provides very effective protection without excessive nagging.

[f0dder]

+1 for xp-sp2-and-later built-in firewall

[cyberdiva]

+1 for Online Armor. It provides very effective protection without excessive nagging.

-sajman99 (March 28, 2010, 01:49 PM)

It's interesting how different our impressions and experiences can be.  I got a free license for Online Armor and was thrilled--until I installed it.  It slowed my computer to a crawl, caused BSODs, etc.  Other people reported similar experiences.   I quickly got rid of it and moved to Outpost, first the free version, finally a lifetime license for the Pro version.  I've been pretty happy with it, though I still miss Sygate.

[Bamse]

Only interesting because they all have been buggy as hell for years so works well in some combinations/setups, not so much in others. Online Armor has points with me because of user interface which is clearly meant to be used - opposite most others in this category. Will almost say it is easy to use but still a security product so trial and error.

I thought most considered Matousec test to be invalid or at least irrelevant to common sense and users?

I was reading on Spybot forum yesterday and some guy got his machine cleaned. After that last post from the helper was a long long one suggesting to do all sorts of things. Half of them useless but they mean well. Among those suggestions were "better" firewalls from "these excellent vendors" blah blah. The guy then replied with something like in all due respect he would not use a firewall because he had been through a Comodo phase - and failed. He ended up approving everything and quickly got tired of problems - which is how real life works unless you have security on the brain. Just theory unless adjusted to humans. You not only need to see the point of complicating computer life but also have a special mindset I think. Not knowing too much about security as well perhaps Brilliant reply. Not a question of looking at numbers or ranks but if program is usable.

Sphinx Firewall Control is cool if interesting in outgoing signals http://www.sphinx-so...com/Vista/index.html but he is also beta-testing away, see forum. Will satisfy most people but of course only a minor part of a "real" firewall, including AV, HIPS and what not.

[TucknDar]

+1 for xp-sp2-and-later built-in firewall

-f0dder (March 28, 2010, 03:56 PM)

+1 (and a little common sense added as well, lack thereof could break even the best firewall...)

[shadzovgra]

Comodo Firewall is alright, considering it is free. Most of the advanced options are for tech heads who know what they're doing with regards to personal online protection. There latest release however, version 8.2.0.4508 is a total mess. Custom rules aren't remembered from within the program and as such, a security leak has been developed with regards to out going programs. One other thing and I have written to them about this. Has anyone noticed that when running Comodo on either Windows 7 or 8.1, you notice a huge slowdown when running batch files. I made and use a batch file to clear the event logs of both Platforms when I need to. Without Comodo installed, the batch file takes all of ten seconds to run. Install Comodo and watch that slow to almost two minutes, expecially with Windows 8.1. Comodo tried to put the blame back on me, stating the speed a batch file runs depends on how potent your CPU is. Well, I'm running a AMD FX 9590 and there's nothing slow about that little job. When I informed them of this, they must have thought I was telling a bit of bullshit and demanded I send  copies of my system info, Comodo logs, etc to prove I was telling the truth. They at least had the balls to apologize for the problem and said it would be fixed by their software engineers with later releases. Joke of the year I think. The Firewall is free, so I really can't see them paying their people to fix a little problem like that. Other than that though the program is not too bad. At least the option for developing custom rule sets is there and they work , along with the option to export your rules as a XML file. Just be careful of what version you use.

[ilikefree09]

I have been using Private Firewall for a while now and think it is very good as a two way firewall.
Easy to use and totally free
https://www.privacyw...rsonal_firewall.html