Battle Which Firewall do you find best?

[mercurial]

Which Firewall do you prefer & why ?

1. Comodo Firewall

2. Private Firewall

3. Online Armour Premium

4 Outpost Firewall Pro

 

[Deleted member 178]

If just the firewall module:

1- CFW (very very tweakable, very light)
2-OAP (less tweakable)

if the whole product:

1- OAP (more features, graphic monitor, network lookup)
2- CFW (less features)

 

[McLovin]

Has to be Comodo, for the reason of it's advanced settings.

 

[mercurial]

If just the firewall module:

1- CFW (very very tweakable, very light)
2-OAP (less tweakable)

if the whole product:

1- OAP (more features, graphic monitor, network lookup)
2- CFW (less features)

Hmmmm, intresting which would you rate as the better one for overall protection ? CFW has HIPS and Defense + so i think it should have an edge there.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Comodo Firewall = FW + HIPS (named D+) + policy-based & full virtualization sandbox
OAP = FW + HIPS + policy-based sandbox + banking mode + web filter

make your choice ^^

i used both from a very very long time and my favorite right now is OAP

 

[mercurial]

Comodo Firewall = FW + HIPS (named D+) + policy-based & full virtualization sandbox
OAP = FW + HIPS + policy-based sandbox + banking mode + web filter

make your choice ^^

i used both from a very very long time and my favorite right now is OAP

lol i have yet to check out OAP will do it later today and have yet to use CF
after a huge break though i am leaning towards OAP atm, but the reviews for OAP have not been on par with CF so i am a bit confused there arrrrr. I guess i will have to run um both and see which one fits my bill the best.

 

[Deleted member 178]

I guess i will have to run um both and see which one fits my bill the best.

Exactly, listen your experience first , use others one as information

 

[Ink]

None of them.

The 3rd-party Firewall install drivers and can cause conflicts, if not removed correctly or have bad compatibility.

As more Antivirus' become more than Virus removers, is there any need for a Firewall with HIPS.

Running reputable applications (aka Trusted), is there a need to block something you trust.

So which one do I find best? I would say Windows Firewall (excluding prior to Vista).

 

[arsenaloyal]

I use Outpost Firewall Pro,as to the need for a firewall, i use it because i am on a LAN network without a router,so i use OFP to stealth and block all the ports except the one i want allowed.

Have been using OFP without any problems for about 3-4 years now.

 

[mercurial]

I use Outpost Firewall Pro,as to the need for a firewall, i use it because i am on a LAN network without a router,so i use OFP to stealth and block all the ports except the one i want allowed.

Have been using OFP without any problems for about 3-4 years now.

Intresting...but doesn't all the third party firewall stealth your ports ?

 

[arsenaloyal]

I use Outpost Firewall Pro,as to the need for a firewall, i use it because i am on a LAN network without a router,so i use OFP to stealth and block all the ports except the one i want allowed.

Have been using OFP without any problems for about 3-4 years now.

Intresting...but doesn't all the third party firewall stealth your ports ?

I suppose they do,but OFP has many extras including an inbuilt web filter which blocks ads,more detailed view of network and also a lifetime license !

 

[illumination]

If just the firewall module:

1- CFW (very very tweakable, very light)
2-OAP (less tweakable)

if the whole product:

1- OAP (more features, graphic monitor, network lookup)
2- CFW (less features)

I have to agree with Umbra here, as these two firewalls are my favorites as well. Although i would add that OAP gives more of a detailed control over your programs on your system as well as the extra features.

Both are very good firewalls in their own way, it is just a matter of which will suite your needs for your uses!

 

[Plexx]

I would prefer Windows 7 Firewall and TinyWall to be honest since no drivers or kernel-components are installed.

Reason being they are good for the average user, unless you want to go all out and sacrifice some utility or performance, then you got OA and CFW mainly.

 

[HeffeD]

Intresting...but doesn't all the third party firewall stealth your ports ?

The problem with the "stealth" concept, is that there is no such thing...

Someone has decided at some point that if their computer doesn't respond to standard networking protocols, they will be invisible.

This is not the case...

The problem is that if a computer makes a request, (A simple ping, for example) it expects a response. This is standard networking protocol. Yes, even if a machine is turned off, a reply that the host is unreachable will result if a machine is pinged.

This lack of a response because you're "stealthed" actually tells someone (if they care) that not only is there a computer at that address, but it's actively dropping requests. :exclamation:

So much for 'stealth'.

 

[mercurial]

The problem with the "stealth" concept, is that there is no such thing...

Someone has decided at some point that if their computer doesn't respond to standard networking protocols, they will be invisible.

This is not the case...

The problem is that if a computer makes a request, (A simple ping, for example) it expects a response. This is standard networking protocol. Yes, even if a machine is turned off, a reply that the host is unreachable will result if a machine is pinged.

This lack of a response because you're "stealthed" actually tells someone (if they care) that not only is there a computer at that address, but it's actively dropping requests. :exclamation:

So much for 'stealth'.

LOL nice answer ...you shed some good light on port stealthing.

 

[madyrocksin]

The fact is any firewall can be by passed!!
Talk about attacks i will say CFW does better, but the problem is u need to tweak it accordingly!!
Another advantage with CFW is that even if a RAT(Most are FUD) manages to enter your system, the code to deactivate a security suite will be useless since most of the codes for doing so will be executed in sandboxed automatically!!
I have heard that OAP too is good but can't speak specifically about it
but as far as i know OAP lacks security against ARP cache poisoning attacks and few other which i m not too good at understanding

 

[Littlebits]

The best firewall?

1. Windows Firewall
2. ZoneAlarm Free (pure firewall, no BS)
3. Windows Firewall companions like (BiniSoft Windows Firewall Control, fireBwall, Windows Firewall Notifier, TinyWall and Sphinx Windows 7 Firewall Control)

Windows Firewall companions are starting to get very popular, many of which are portable. The popularity of third-party firewalls is starting to fade away since they are no longer necessary. Many firewall vendors have already discontinued or made security suites because even they know firewalls are no longer a necessary part of security protection.

Firewalls were originally developed to block spyware and hacking for home users. Spyware is basically gone today and only corporate systems get hacked. Also with the improvements in Windows Firewall and most home users have routers with firewalls with are much more effective than a software based firewalls. Home users no longer need software based firewalls other then Windows Firewall.

Why? because they never cause any system problems or problems with programs. They all uninstall completely without leaving behind boot network drivers that continue to cause problems after uninstalling or upgrading. It is very unlikely that a home user will be exposed to a hacker or spyware.

Thanks.

 

[mercurial]

The best firewall?

1. Windows Firewall
2. ZoneAlarm Free (pure firewall, no BS)
3. Windows Firewall companions like (BiniSoft Windows Firewall Control, fireBwall, Windows Firewall Notifier, TinyWall and Sphinx Windows 7 Firewall Control)

Windows Firewall companions are starting to get very popular, many of which are portable. The popularity of third-party firewalls is starting to fade away since they are no longer necessary. Many firewall vendors have already discontinued or made security suites because even they know firewalls are no longer a necessary part of security protection.

Firewalls were originally developed to block spyware and hacking for home users. Spyware is basically gone today and only corporate systems get hacked. Also with the improvements in Windows Firewall and most home users have routers with firewalls with are much more effective than a software based firewalls. Home users no longer need software based firewalls other then Windows Firewall.

Why? because they never cause any system problems or problems with programs. They all uninstall completely without leaving behind boot network drivers that continue to cause problems after uninstalling or upgrading. It is very unlikely that a home user will be exposed to a hacker or spyware.

Thanks.

Good answer, i like how you keep your system simple and smooth w/o to much of a hassle. I have been a Zone Alarm Firewall user for quite a while i just recently uninstalled to see how the other firewall's have been faring. Though i tend to do stuff which i know will get me malware / viruses so i could see how well my current config fares just pure curiosity . I prefer updating my frined's pc with just MSE + Win 7 Firewall or Avast the best way to keep it simple for them w/o to much of a hassle just install and forget it.

 

[HeffeD]

...most home users have routers with firewalls with are much more effective than a software based firewalls.

Yes and no. Hardware firewalls are unable to intercept untrusted applications accessing the internet the way a software firewall can.

But in general, even a router with NAT enabled and the hardware firewall turned off is going to leave your software firewall to only be dealing with outgoing requests.

You can see this magic yourself by going to GRC and running the ShieldsUp! port scan with your firewalls (hardware and software) turned off and only having NAT enabled on your router.

Hey, look at that! I'm "stealth" with no firewall. (Although due to standard networking protocols, your router will likely respond to Ping even though NAT is turning away all other non-specific traffic)

 

[Littlebits]

...most home users have routers with firewalls with are much more effective than a software based firewalls.

Yes and no. Hardware firewalls are unable to intercept untrusted applications accessing the internet the way a software firewall can.

But in general, even a router with NAT enabled and the hardware firewall turned off is going to leave your software firewall to only be dealing with outgoing requests.

You can see this magic yourself by going to GRC and running the ShieldsUp! port scan with your firewalls (hardware and software) turned off and only having NAT enabled on your router.

Hey, look at that! I'm "stealth" with no firewall. (Although due to standard networking protocols, your router will likely respond to Ping even though NAT is turning away all other non-specific traffic)

You shouldn't have untrusted applications on your system to begin with.
If you do, then either yourself and/or your AV has failed you, that has no to do with a firewall.

All programs on your system should be trusted or you should uninstall them. I see no point then having to let a firewall decide what it trusted and what is untrusted connection. If it is a trusted program then the connection should be trusted as well. If I had to count the number of times a trusted connection got blocked by a software firewall I would be out of fingers and toes. Think of how many times you have to manually tweak your software firewall to allow a trusted connection which it would continue to block. That is where Windows Firewalls fills in, it never blocks trusted connections.

Yes ShieldsUp! port scan can let you in on a few secretes and give you a guide to help you stealth your ports. +2

Thanks.