Battle Comodo Firewall, Online Armour Free Firewall or ZoneAlarm Free firewall?

[WinAndLinuxTutorials]

Which one is better and why?

 

[Ink]

How do you define as better, because ZoneAlarm Free lacks HIPS?

 

[WinAndLinuxTutorials]

How do you define as better, because ZoneAlarm Free lacks HIPS?

Thanks for sharing this information with us I didn't know it doesn't have HIPS.

 

[jamescv7]

Zonealarm and few other firewall were maintain to be a basic firewall thus the effectiveness would differ than a firewall with HIPS.

 

[Deleted member 178]

i wonder why companies add HIPS to their firewall, an HIPS is more a realtime feature that should go along the RT Guard of an AV. A firewall is just about inbound/outbound connections, networks adapters, port protection and traffic monitoring.

to answer the OP, i choose Comodo FW, you have many thread about CFW and OA, to have an idea.

 

[illumination]

Have to agree with umbrapolaris about the hips part. I would chose Comodo firewall out of the three..

 

[VladDracul]

Without any hesitation,Comodo.More configurable,more options,more power.And its HIPS are far more user friendly even for newbies than OA.

 

[McLovin]

Have always like Comodo because of the features. Plus I know my way around Comodo.

 

[NathanF1]

The last time I used Comodo Firewall was 2.5 - 3 years ago [replacing Zone Alarm ] and it was exhibiting the erratic and brash behavior of the company's CEO. It had heaps of usability and performance issues, the ability to make your system unusable with a single click on one of the many prompts, endlessly bombarding you without any real sign of remembering decisions and creating proper rules. The ever present defects were also a detractor. I was putting up with the overbearing vigilante behavior because of the widespread belief it was the best there is. As secure as I might have felt about using it, it was a tiring exercise of being on the edge at each interaction.

Then I tried Online Armor and it was a revelation - strong HIPS with a real usability edge, easy to live with, and back then - a lot better than Comodo from a resource usage P-O-V. Excellent protection without the need to sift through a barrage of detailed, but not really meaningful Comodo popups, not that OA didn't have its own set of issues and idiosyncrasies.

And I've been using OA ever since [all flavors, plus Outpost Firewall and Privatefirewall]. It has had a slower development rate, but the definite development resources disadvantage has to be mentioned as one of the reasons for it [my heartfelt thanks to the dedicated ever helpful volunteers and the development teams of the small companies behind it - Tall Emu, and now Emsisoft].

A few days ago I tried CIS 2012 Pro [you CIS aficionados @ MT ] - it has definitely been greatly improved. Fast, more composed, the strength of the protection is as always a given. But it still feels somewhat fragmented, and there are times when CIS "projects" confusion.

Judging on technologies, protection merit and price, Comodo would get my vote. It has grown and improved a lot, and definitely should be considered the benchmark for proactive protection.

P.S. apologies for the trip down the memory lane

 

[jota13]

Once I have Online Armor Premium. It was really good software but I uninstall it because I have another HIPS. One good HIPS sufficient.

Once I use ZoneAlarm free but I uninstall it because I have problems with this software.

I think Online Armor Premium and Comodo Firewall are very good software's but I prefer Comodo Firewall.

 

[Detection]

I voted Comodo due to its protection, but it completely cripples things with no easy way to allow them through the FW, and even after uninstalling it some things still fail to connect

Zonealarm is nice and simple and easy to make exceptions

 

[blues]

PrivateFirewall

 

[Ink]

PrivateFirewall

+1 for PF.

 

[HeffeD]

I voted Comodo due to its protection, but it completely cripples things with no easy way to allow them through the FW, and even after uninstalling it some things still fail to connect

:huh:

Care to elaborate a little bit? What does it cripple, and how could it be blocking something when it's no longer installed?

 

[Valentin N]

Comodo firewall; it's more than just a firewall and has a lot of feature to protect the user - something that you don't see in all free firewalls. I like the UI

 

[woomera]

IMO CFW is far superior than any other firewall available, paid or freeware.
OA is second but far behind CFW.

 

[Littlebits]

PrivateFirewall

Privatefirewall is what I would say is the best one available because it is much more stable and hardly ever blocks legitimate programs.
It might not be as powerful as Comodo or Online Armor, but most users don't need a powerful firewall, usually the more advanced paranoid users who don't trust their own actions. It is completely false that you must have a powerful HIPS firewall to be protected, many users get by just fine only using Windows Firewall.

But what I don't like about Privatefirewall is the upgrade process. Save settings, uninstall, reboot, then reinstall, import settings, then sometimes another reboot. This usually applies to each upgrade.

This is what makes ZoneAlarm Free more appealing, auto-upgrades in the background and most of the time no reboot required. No issues with other programs and bugs are at a minimum, something I could not say for the other firewalls. Doesn't auto block safe processes with no notifications like Comodo and Online Armor do. Better for most users who don't know how or don't want to mess with a complicated firewall.

My vote goes to ZoneAlarm Free, of coarse if Privatefirewall could do something about their complicated upgrade process, then my vote would go to Privatefirewall even though it is not a choice on the poll.

Now days, Windows Firewall and a good router with a firewall is good enough for most users. I don't know if many of you are aware that the use of personal firewalls is dying just like Anti-Spyware programs did in the past. Another 5 years or so, they will probable be extinct mainly because the improvements in Windows Firewall and many AV already filter network traffic (network shield, guard, etc.) Also most users have routers with firewall. HIPS features already integrated into many AV's.

What is more popular now is Windows Firewall control applications like Windows Firewall Notifier, TinyWall, BiniSoft Windows Firewall Control, Sphinx Windows 7 Firewall Control and fireBwall, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Justin]

In my tests i always found that comodo firewall is far better than any other firewalls so i chose comodo firewall

 

[blues]

Just to be fair, I installed Comodo Firewall this weekend (using the techsupportalert.com suggestions on the installation as a guide. The only change I made from the article was to set the firewall to alert me to new internet connections, trusted or not.

I must say, in fairness, that it is running quite compliantly and quietly on my system thus far.

In terms of how they run on my XP Pro SP3 system, PF and Comodo are much better than OA (which had been my favorite until it stopped playing nicely.)

I don't find the Comodo interface particularly user friendly and intuitive...but I'm sure that much of that is lack of familiarity early on. Otherwise, no complaints whatsoever (at this early juncture.)

 

[HeffeD]

most users don't need a powerful firewall, usually the more advanced paranoid users who don't trust their own actions.

:huh:

I don't think not trusting your own actions is even a consideration...

I think even the most paranoid of users trust their own actions. It's the actions that have nothing to do with them, that most people worry about.

It is completely false that you must have a powerful HIPS firewall to be protected, many users get by just fine only using Windows Firewall.

It is also completely false to assume that because many users get by fine, said protection is adequate.

Most people go through their entire life without getting struck by lightning, or hit by a car. It would be stupid to presume that because many never experience this, you don't need to be cautious.