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.

[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

[Leythos]

In article <wA7sj.6869$R84.5236@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> ,
me@privacy.invalid says...
> >> 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.

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 - spam999free@rrohio.com (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.../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'.

[huck]

"Ckyp" <ckypper@crew> wrote in message
news:e841e83ed0afbe0dea6cf0c466b1aab3@nymkey.com.. .
>
> "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.
>
> --CKYP= the problem with Comdo firewall I cant update it never= and i have
> tried everything to unstall Comdo firewall but it will NOT unstallit all I
> want is to be able to update it. can you give me any help on this= THANKS
>

[Ckyp]

"huck" <fish254@cox.net> wrote:
>"Ckyp" <ckypper@crew> wrote in message
>news:e841e83ed0afbe0dea6cf0c466b1aab3@nymkey.com. ..
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> --CKYP= the problem with Comdo firewall I cant update it never= and i have
>> tried everything to unstall Comdo firewall but it will NOT unstallit all I
>> want is to be able to update it. can you give me any help on this= THANKS
>>

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

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

--

[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