Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Best free firewall for Windows?
Curt:
Sorry for not making myself clear. I didn't care to download matousec's test report to see why this security suite from Eset presumably is totally worthless. To the best of my understanding Eset Smart Suite may be the best protection I can get at all.
Recent Eset Smart Suite awards:
Best free firewall for Windows?
40hz:
Sorry for not making myself clear. I didn't care to download matousec's test report to see why this security suite from Eset presumably is totally worthless. To the best of my understanding Eset Smart Suite may be the best protection I can get at all.
Recent Eset Smart Suite awards:
(see attachment in previous post)
-Curt (July 27, 2008, 10:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
How can it be to the best of your understanding if you're deliberately not going to listen to what someone else has to say? Why not download the report, read it, and then rip Matousec a new orifice up here on the forum? I'd love to get your input, along with anybody else's, about anything related to the topic that could further my understanding.
Just a thought. ;)
BTW: I don't buy into the whole leak-test argument either. Still, when the leak test notion first came out most of the security heavyweights seemed to give it a lot of credence. Besides, even if closing leaks were what it was all about, once that was fixed, somebody would just go and find a new flaw to exploit. What's relevant evolves or gets replaced. It's in the nature of the beast for priorities to keep changing.
Dirhael:
My problem with Matousec is that he isn't really testing firewalls, he's testing several variants of HIPS products. It's telling that several (well at least two as far as I know) of the high-ranking products in his tests doesn't even include proper firewall functionality at all. This in itself wouldn't bother me were it not for the fact that he insists on calling it a "firewall challenge." These tests haven't really helped us as users of firewalls all that much either (if at all). His tests have caused many developers to focus like crazy on developing functionality to beat the tests, making the firewalls just about useless for anyone without enough technological insight to know how to answer the overload of (usually worthless) questions it presents you with.
40hz:
His tests have caused many developers to focus like crazy on developing functionality to beat the tests, making the firewalls just about useless for anyone without enough technological insight to know how to answer the overload of (usually worthless) questions it presents you with.
-Dirhael (July 27, 2008, 04:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
Interesting. I had no idea Matousec packed so much clout. I just thought they were "yet another opinion" floating around out there. Live and learn.
It's telling that several (well at least two as far as I know) of the high-ranking products in his tests doesn't even include proper firewall functionality at all.
--- End quote ---
Even more interesting. Could you elaborate? Thx. :)
cthorpe:
It's telling that several (well at least two as far as I know) of the high-ranking products in his tests doesn't even include proper firewall functionality at all.
--- End quote ---
Even more interesting. Could you elaborate? Thx. :)
-40hz (July 27, 2008, 11:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
ProSecurity in the Excellent category is a "HIPS that was clearly heavily influneced by Processguard." It appears to have a yes or no check for accessing network in its rules. No filtering that I see. http://wiki.castlecops.com/Prosecurity
System Safety Monitor 2.3.0.612 is in the Good section. It is a HIPS that has basic outbound internet protection. It also lacks filtering. http://www.syssafety.com/
FWIW, I use the paid version of System Safety Monitor on my PC. It handles protection from termination and other HIPS duties while my firewall does firewall tasks.
C
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version