Firewall Software Recommendations?

Discussion in 'Virus Information' started by W. Watson, Feb 11, 2008.

  1. W. Watson

    W. Watson Guest

    What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
    there some reviews on this topic?
     
    W. Watson, Feb 11, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. W. Watson

    Ckyp Guest

    I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:

    http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/

    I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new program.
    You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you if you
    want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
    advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this firewall.

    I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is supposed
    to provide more security, at an added cost.

    --
     
    Ckyp, Feb 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. W. Watson

    M.L. Guest

    What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or
    I use it in the "Train with Safe Mode" and turn off the Proactive
    Defense. I only get nagged the 1st time an app tries to access the
    Internet, and that's only for apps that Comodo doesn't recognize. I
    think it can be one of the less annoying firewalls. And it's highly
    rated too.
     
    M.L., Feb 12, 2008
    #3
  4. From: "Ckyp" <ckypper@crew>

    |
    |
    | I like the freeware "Comodo" firewall:
    |
    | http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
    |
    | I do find it necessary to disable it, though, whenever I install a new program.
    | You can "switch to installation mode", but then it will keep nagging you if you
    | want to switch back. Apart from that nagging problem, it seems to work as
    | advertised. And it's a big improvement over previous versions of this firewall.
    |
    | I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall is supposed
    | to provide more security, at an added cost.
    |

    Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software FireWalls and don't hog
    resources.

    Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.

    Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
    http://www.wallwatcher.com/
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 12, 2008
    #4
  5. W. Watson

    § Guest

    Bingo!

    Another solution; acquire a obsolete pc via freecycle, add a spare nic
    and cruise on over to ipcop.com and grab the iso.
    My minimal experience with wallwatcher has been most positive.
     
    §, Feb 12, 2008
    #5
  6. W. Watson

    M.L. Guest

    I don't know much about it, but I've read that a hardware firewall
    Outbound protection only though.
     
    M.L., Feb 12, 2008
    #6
  7. First, software firewalls aren't generally recommended. Seldom is system
    security
    increased by adding more software. If you like the 'features' that software
    firewalls
    offer, by all means do use them - just don't get fooled into believing they
    make you
    safe.

    I recommend hardware.

    That having been said, try any and all of the free offerings. Some are quite
    feature
    rich so you can decide which features you like best. Usually, what most of
    us would
    call internet noise will cause these firewalls to jump to your defense and
    thwart the
    'attack' - thus giving you the 'warm fuzzies' all over.

    I once likened this to a dog that wakes you up late at night by barking at
    passing
    cars ... nice doggy.

    Firewall applications I have tried (although some time ago) include Kerio,
    Sygate,
    ZoneAlarm, and Tiny. I'm now running McAfee and the one that came with
    Vista.
    Since this is a notebook computer, the Vista one is good for when I'm not
    behind
    a router.

    HTH
     
    FromTheRafters, Feb 12, 2008
    #7
  8. |
    | Outbound protection only though.
    |

    Not true at all !
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 12, 2008
    #8
  9. From: "W. Watson" <>

    | What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
    | there some reviews on this topic?

    Hardware based FireWall appliances are far better then software FireWalls and don't hog
    resources.

    Even a NAT Router with simplistic FireWall constructs is preferred.

    Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
    http://www.wallwatcher.com/

    { had to post m.p.s.v to include viewers not privy to the other X-post }
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 12, 2008
    #9
  10. W. Watson

    Kerry Brown Guest


    I'm going to have to remember this line. It's one of the best descriptions
    of software firewalls I've seen. I love it.
     
    Kerry Brown, Feb 12, 2008
    #10
  11. W. Watson

    Leythos Guest

    Actually, even the simple NAT appliances provide INBOUND protection from
    unsolicited traffic/scanning. As a matter of fact, in a 1:MANY NAT,
    which is how those cheap appliances are setup, unless you poke a hole in
    it, and the default is no holes mapped, you won't get any Unsolicited
    traffic inside the LAN.

    Additionally, most of the cheap NAT routers offer a way to make ports
    LOCAL, that can't leave your LAN - and I always make ports 135-139, 445,
    1433-1434 local ports.

    When you combine the cheap NAT routers with monitoring software like
    wallwatcher you have an effective means to monitor in/out traffic from
    your NAT appliance.

    --

    Leythos - (remove 999 to email me)

    Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
    that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
    look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
    http://forums.speedguide.net/archive/index.php/t-223485.html all exposed
    to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
    You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
    'exposed to kids'.
     
    Leythos, Feb 12, 2008
    #11
  12. W. Watson

    huck Guest

     
    huck, Feb 12, 2008
    #12
  13. W. Watson

    Ckyp Guest

    This is a secret code, so don't give it out to anyone. It is posted here:
    http://tinyurl.com/2aryzy

    Insert the line of code appearing in the window, and it will allow you to uninstall
    and update the installation directory.

    --
     
    Ckyp, Feb 12, 2008
    #13
  14. This brings up a whole 'nother approach for me.
    I've been using the final free Sygate Personal Firewall on my PCs for
    some time now, and I greatly regret Symantec's purchase and trashing of
    the product. I've actually used Sygate in both free and bundled forms
    for 7 years (hint: the free version was better!). I like the way that it
    works -- a perfect balance between sensible operation, good performance,
    usability (no small consideration) and resource use (another important
    aspect of a security program). But the free version does have a glass
    cieling: a limit on the amount of custom rules it'll accept, and I've
    banged against that limit.

    Now, about a hardware firewall:

    I've got two old PCs. One is a 486, 100kc speed, can't recall the memory
    (it's maxed out for whatever its limit is) -- something like a 2g hard
    drive. I've got Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11 for it. I've also got original
    install disks for Windows 95 and Windows XP (home upgrade).

    The second PC is a laptop with W95 on it. I don't have specs. It's
    working fine. This laptop is so primitive that it doesn't even have any
    CD drive on it -- just a floppy and a HD.

    I'd appreciate knowing if either of these machines can make sense as a
    hardware firewall.

    I apologize for replying in the same cross-posting that the OP used.

    TIA

    Richard
     
    Richard Steinfeld, Feb 13, 2008
    #14
  15. From: "Richard Steinfeld" <>


    |
    | This brings up a whole 'nother approach for me.
    | I've been using the final free Sygate Personal Firewall on my PCs for
    | some time now, and I greatly regret Symantec's purchase and trashing of
    | the product. I've actually used Sygate in both free and bundled forms
    | for 7 years (hint: the free version was better!). I like the way that it
    | works -- a perfect balance between sensible operation, good performance,
    | usability (no small consideration) and resource use (another important
    | aspect of a security program). But the free version does have a glass
    | cieling: a limit on the amount of custom rules it'll accept, and I've
    | banged against that limit.
    |
    | Now, about a hardware firewall:
    |
    | I've got two old PCs. One is a 486, 100kc speed, can't recall the memory
    | (it's maxed out for whatever its limit is) -- something like a 2g hard
    | drive. I've got Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11 for it. I've also got original
    | install disks for Windows 95 and Windows XP (home upgrade).
    |
    | The second PC is a laptop with W95 on it. I don't have specs. It's
    | working fine. This laptop is so primitive that it doesn't even have any
    | CD drive on it -- just a floppy and a HD.
    |
    | I'd appreciate knowing if either of these machines can make sense as a
    | hardware firewall.
    |
    | I apologize for replying in the same cross-posting that the OP used.
    |
    | TIA
    |
    | Richard

    The latency on said platforms would be high. A COTS dedicated appliance would be faster.

    Think of it as walking on pavement and then you come across a 20 ft section of mud and then
    pavement again.
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 13, 2008
    #15
  16. W. Watson

    Leythos Guest

    Laptops are not designed to run 24/7, they can have cooling issues.

    An old 486 might run a nix version, but you would be better off with a
    P2 or P3 machine, or purchasing an appliance, in the long run it would
    save you much time, which is money for most.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
    Leythos, Feb 13, 2008
    #16
  17. From: "Leythos" <>


    |
    | Laptops are not designed to run 24/7, they can have cooling issues.
    |
    | An old 486 might run a nix version, but you would be better off with a
    | P2 or P3 machine, or purchasing an appliance, in the long run it would
    | save you much time, which is money for most.
    |

    Just from comparing the power consumption issue of a COTS FireWall appliance vs. a PC setup
    as a FireWall you would save money.
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 13, 2008
    #17
  18. W. Watson

    Craig Guest

    But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
    Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
     
    Craig, Feb 13, 2008
    #18
  19. W. Watson

    Craig Guest

    Sorry, brain-fart. The thread is about firewall and I jump up and down
    about a NAS.

    <eh>

    -Craig
     
    Craig, Feb 13, 2008
    #19
  20. From: "Craig" <>


    | But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
    | Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
    |
    The advantage of a PC setup as a FireWall is greater flexibility and configuration
    possibilities.

    However, I would look as optimizing the the networking to decrease latency. That is using
    the best NICs. Such as using 64 bit PCI which runs at the PCI bus speed 66MHz vis PCI 32bit
    which only runs at 33MHz. You would also want a PC that has the fast bus throughput.
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 13, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.