Battle Which is the best free Firewall to use with Avast Free?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dragonmew

Level 3
Thread author
Verified
Feb 21, 2013
360
hi i use avast free and im wondering whats the best free firewall to use it with reason why im doubting comodo as yo ucan easily change these advance settings and mess your system up like i did it made my pc run slow as hell, and comodo also puts me off for example i use firefox i click allow yet when i start my computer up next day it asks again. please reply asap thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: silversurfer

dragonmew

Level 3
Thread author
Verified
Feb 21, 2013
360
Hmmmm everyone seems to vote for Comodo FW.
Now my stand point on Comodo fail wall is clear, but that being said i have a alternative that does not require any tweaking and it does not even use ANY system resources.

I assume you have a router from your ISP which you use to connect to the Internet right?
Well if thats the case then you have a Hardware based firewall in it for free, it does not need tweaking, it does not need updates, it does not need any manual labor, hell you do not even know its there and yet it does a 1000 times better job then CFW.
Just log in to your router and see if its enabled.

Step 2: Enable Windows firewall.

And you are done.

That being said if a hacker bypasses your RHFW (Router Hardware Firewall) then Comodo will not stop it either as its WAY beyond anything Comodo can bring to the table.

Case closed + 100% result.

Cheers
yeah my firewall setting is on talktalk which is below standard but i think its a custom setup its still usefull to have a software FW tho but comodo sucks tbh
 

Nico@FMA

Level 27
Verified
May 11, 2013
1,687
so n.nvt what software firewall would you recommend that isnt comodo

Hmmm there are loads of software firewalls out there and most of them are doing a pretty good job.
But depending on your knowhow, some might dazzle you with all the functions they have build in.
And having a firewall running means you need to understand it otherwise the firewall might make the wrong calls for you, resulting in a placebo effect rather then actual security.
So simple said for "noob" style security Windows Firewall does a rather good job.
For moderate knowhow outpost, tinywall, privatewall, zonealarm, ashampoo fw ....take your pick.

Some might be better then the other but in the end they pretty much provide the same level of security down the line, and one could say that they are doing no better job then Windows Firewall as you are still limited to your router hardware firewall and your own computer understanding.
So even a Internet security solution might cover it all and does not require tweaking or human intervention.

Most people need to realize that they are performing tasks on a computer that are way out of the mainstream standard and as such no firewall will provide them with the protection needed to "outofthebox" browsing.
A firewall was not made to protect you against torrents and p2p dangers, yet some do cover those regions, but down the line they have not been made to protect you against spyware, adware related attacks.
That means if you run Comodo which use to be a good firewall in the past then it does not protect you any better then windows FW as you will go past the protection scope with your surfing and downloading habits.
So running windows FW would be good enough.

See my point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FleischmannTV

jackuars

Level 27
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 2, 2014
1,689
www.matousec.com
Lost all credibility years ago. If you pay enough you will have the highest rating.
It does look good on paper but it does provide 0% real security.

Link: Matousec Proactive Security Challenge Analyzed

6. Final Thoughts
Of course any experienced user can use most of the same tests used in Matousec testing since they are located on the website for a free download (http://www.matousec.com/downloads/). Therefore, money can't plausibly influence the validity of the actual tests since the tests are available to everyone.

The test results are linked by a PDF file and anyone can see the types of tests a product fails or passes. Since the raw data is posted to the site, you can ignore the overall score and just look at the tests passed or failed. However, the PDF has little value when it doesn't list enough testing levels to allow readers to make sound interpretations of the results. They might as well not even list level 1 products.

I'm suspicious of many scoring practices in the Proactive Security Challenge. For example, I find it problematic that they give products 0% for levels not tested and that they score products by the number of possible tests (when many of the tests were not actually administered). I found it confusing that they compare products based on the total number of possible tests. And the claim that their results validate (or invalidate) the security claims of vendors is false.

However, no other similar testing service (for proactive security or outbound protection testing) exists as far as I know, so Matousec has little competition. And, as stated at the beginning, I appreciate the thoroughness and technical details of their service. It should be noted that their website is informative and detailed about their testing methods.
 

Nico@FMA

Level 27
Verified
May 11, 2013
1,687
Link: Matousec Proactive Security Challenge Analyzed

6. Final Thoughts
Of course any experienced user can use most of the same tests used in Matousec testing since they are located on the website for a free download (http://www.matousec.com/downloads/). Therefore, money can't plausibly influence the validity of the actual tests since the tests are available to everyone.

The test results are linked by a PDF file and anyone can see the types of tests a product fails or passes. Since the raw data is posted to the site, you can ignore the overall score and just look at the tests passed or failed. However, the PDF has little value when it doesn't list enough testing levels to allow readers to make sound interpretations of the results. They might as well not even list level 1 products.

I'm suspicious of many scoring practices in the Proactive Security Challenge. For example, I find it problematic that they give products 0% for levels not tested and that they score products by the number of possible tests (when many of the tests were not actually administered). I found it confusing that they compare products based on the total number of possible tests. And the claim that their results validate (or invalidate) the security claims of vendors is false.

However, no other similar testing service (for proactive security or outbound protection testing) exists as far as I know, so Matousec has little competition. And, as stated at the beginning, I appreciate the thoroughness and technical details of their service. It should be noted that their website is informative and detailed about their testing methods.

Naah i respect the effort but US Court, EU Court, UK Court, Germany Court and The court of the Netherlands have ruled several times against Matousec and have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that money DOES give you a higher ranking.
Several of the worlds biggest FW brands have brought a case against Matousec in several nations (See above) and they won every single one of them.
Now maybe Matousec did change their habits and their marketing model which would be good, but to me as i use to work for a company that sued the crap out of Matousec i know first have that Matousec is a fail...
 
  • Like
Reactions: FleischmannTV
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top