Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

[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

[Craig]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> 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.
>

But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:

> FreeNAS
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.

[Craig]

Craig wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
> Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
>
>> FreeNAS
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
>> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
>> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
>> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
>> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.
>

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

<eh>

-Craig

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Craig" <netburgher@REMOVEgmail.com>


| But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
| Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
|
>> FreeNAS
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
>> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
>> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
>> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
>> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.

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.

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

[louise]

Ckyp wrote:
> "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.
>
> --
>
I used to use Sygate, had all kinds of conflicts with Comodo
in addition to its endless nagging.

I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT
Router. I like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags"
are clear and informative.

Louise

[Gary R. Schmidt]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Craig" <netburgher@REMOVEgmail.com>
>
>
> | But, if the OP insists ... they might want to check out FreeNAS. Not
> | Linux but Unix (FreeBSD). The blurb:
> |
>>> FreeNAS
>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freenas
>>> NAS (Network Attached Storage) server supporting: CIFS, FTP, NFS, RSYNC,
>>> SSH, AFP, Unison, UPnP, iSCSI protocols, local and MS Domain
>>> authentication, Software RAID (JBOD,0,1,5), disk encryption with a Full
>>> WEB configuration interface. 32MB only.
>
> 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.
>
And NIC's that offload the processing from the CPU. Intel e1000-based
cards do that, among many others, no doubt.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

[Sebastian G.]

louise wrote:


> I'm now using Online Armor free in addition to an NAT
> Router. I like Online Armor very much and find it's "nags"
> are clear and informative.


I find it nags an obvious attack point for a shatter attack.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org>


| And NIC's that offload the processing from the CPU. Intel e1000-based
| cards do that, among many others, no doubt.
|
| Cheers,
| Gary B-)
|

Yesw. I had an Intel NIC that had a RISC i960 CPU that clock doubled the PCI 33MHz bus
speed to 66MHz and I used in on a Symantec Ghost server. This server NIC gave me great
performance when distributing Ghost images.

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