Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

[Ckyp]

"W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>there some reviews on this topic?

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.

--

[M.L.]

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

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.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ckyp" <ckypper@crew>

|
| "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>> What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>> there some reviews on this topic?
|
| 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/

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[§]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Ckyp" <ckypper@crew>
>
> |
> | "W. Watson" <wolf_tracks@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> What are some of the better choices (see Subject), free or commercial? Are
>>> there some reviews on this topic?
> |
> | 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.

Bingo!

Another solution; acquire a obsolete pc via freecycle, add a spare nic
and cruise on over to ipcop.com and grab the iso.

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

My minimal experience with wallwatcher has been most positive.

[Richard Steinfeld]

§ wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:

>> | 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.
>
> Bingo!
>
> Another solution; acquire a obsolete pc via freecycle, add a spare nic
> and cruise on over to ipcop.com and grab the iso.
>
>>
>> Such devices can also be monitored with software such as WallWatcher.
>> http://www.wallwatcher.com/
>>
>
> My minimal experience with wallwatcher has been most positive.

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

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonicANDTHISTOO.net>


|
| 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.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Leythos]

In article <13r4jfktajrkh0e@corp.supernews.com>,
rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonicANDTHISTOO.net says...
> 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.

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"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan>


|
| 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.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[M.L.]

>> 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.

Outbound protection only though.

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

[David H. Lipman]

From: "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid>

>>> 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.
|
| Outbound protection only though.
|

Not true at all !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp