Free Firewall

[Xie]

My vote goes w/ Sygate. I've tried Zone alarm, tiny in the past. Both can bork your system [speed] good. Also have had the joy of messing w/ NIS and it's like a virus. :x Also as suggested stay away from Black Ice at all costs.

 

[gonaads]

I use Zone Alarm pro
I have ZA free edition on my daughters' computers and they do just fine. No slow downs or anything.

 

[NetRyder]

Windows Firewall in SP2 works fine if you're a cautious user by nature. Think about it this way - if you've been affected by malware (viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, adware, etc.) anytime in the recent past, it's not very prudent to use Windows Firewall. As mentioned above, it does not monitor outbound connections, so an already infected computer will be able to send out information (in case of password-stealing trojans, for example) or a worm will be able to propagate across a network without intervention.

I personally use it because it does the job I want it to do (inbound filtering) nicely, and simply doesn't do anything I don't need it to. Then again, I haven't had problems with malware of any sort for several years, so anything else is overkill for me.

So the decision is up to you. If you have enough confidence in yourself, the SP2 firewall is there already...just use it. If you have even the slightest doubt, go with a full-featured, third-party software firewall. My personal recommendation would be Kerio, not only because it's free, but also because it does what it's supposed to very well.

 

[LordOfLA]

someone somewhere pointed me towards a free opensource firewall that looked to me to be as good as outpost pro..

If I can manage to convince my grey cells to remember what and where I'll post details.

 

[Johnny]

As stated, when it comes to inbound then the sp2 firewall is good. But the thing that is most important is the out bound, Sp2 firewall does not monitor that.

Me personally I would stick with the router and soft firewall. When I only had one pc I had it hooked up to a one port router and used zone alarm free to control outbound traffic. It worked flawlessly. It's something to think about.

As for others mentioned, older kerio was nice, sygate is good. and Yes at all cost, stay away from black ice and nis ..

 

[chastity]

Well its not free as far I know but seems to be good from what I've seen is Kaspersky Anti-Hacker. Nothing against any of the others suggested here but to this one is fairly good at being easy to get everything going but is not as tough on the system as NIS can be, I would advise if your looking at NIS to get a older version as I guess the 2005 version you can't just install the firewall without the anti-virus

 

[LordOfLA]

Here we go the link was on my pc at home:

http://www.r-firewall.com/

(me likes remote desktop)

 

[xtweaker]

First what i highlighted as bold:

The person you are talking about is a female. Please, do me a small favor, before you post, LURK. You have only just joined, but from just reading prior posts you should have known that Jewelzz is our female admin here at osnn.net.

Also, your posts sounds a lot like an attack, its forcefull. You did not have to do that. Also, by the sound of your post you have never used ZoneAlarm, as ZoneAlarm is not for the corporate networks, even if they wished it was used for that, as that would cause to many problems with random programs.

For a good firewall, Windows SP2's built in one is inadeqaute. No outgoing is filtered, or checked, only incoming, and it is hidden, there is no real way to see what is going on, and why. Or what programs are trying to make an outgoing connection, and where they are trying to go. Windows XP's built in firewall does a good job at blocking incoming, but it is outgoing which also matters, and it matters a lot more than incoming, considering outgoing is how spam gets sent from zombie machines.

Now for my personal choice of firewall? There are none i really like, but i'd put my money with Zone Alarm, as it is something i have worked with, and is quite effective. Only problem with it that i have found is that the network interface can allready be up and accepting network traffic, EVEN when the firewall is not loaded, so it gives other PC's on the network a small timeframe in which to possibly infect you. This is a problem with Windows XP's firewall as well, so it is not like it is new or anything.

X-Istence

Wow I'm sorry. First of, it's the first time I see her posts, and I didn't see her name. I replied fast and didn't look. Sorry abotu the gender mismatch, it wasn't intended at all.

Second... It wasn't an attack either. I just know a lot of people just ditch the NEW XP Firewall because they used the OLD version before and that one really did suck. The new version has many new features and is a lot different. It's not nearly the same at all. Just wanted to make sure that whoever ditched it did try all of its features.

It's true that it doesn't offer outoing filtering, but personally I don't need it at all. I can identify pretty much any program on my system that sends personal information (except spywares, pretty much none unless you leave the option checked on to send survey info). I never get spywares installed, never got a virus and for the rest (if any), I don't really care if it doesn't do any harm. Programs that actually send private information are RARE. It's mostly just anonymous survey data, bug reports or license checks. Anyhow...

I did try ZoneAlarm several times in the past, tried several versions as well as they released new features and functionallity, so yes I do know what it does and how it works.

I've also tried Sygate, Tiny Personal Firewall, and another one called Conseal PC Firewall. I've also had a router for a long time and used the built-in firewall in it. So yes, I do know.

For a home network with several PC's that are being used by several people, or in a small corporate environment, I would recommend something more of course, with outgoing port filtering, in order to protect the environment from viruses that spread through the network using security holes (like Gaobot or MBlast), or to prevent PC's from spamming the network if they are infected with spywares or adwares (until they are fixed), but for a simple personal PC, I think that Windows XP Sp2 Firewall is just enough and does a good job without any bells and whistles... unless you're a security freak and are paranoid with any outgoing packet that you didn't explicitly send yourself...

Sorry if I sounded rude or if my previous post sounded like an attack, it wasn't at all. And Sorry Jewelzz for not seeing you're a pretty lady

 

[xtweaker]

Windows Firewall in SP2 works fine if you're a cautious user by nature. Think about it this way - if you've been affected by malware (viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, adware, etc.) anytime in the recent past, it's not very prudent to use Windows Firewall. As mentioned above, it does not monitor outbound connections, so an already infected computer will be able to send out information (in case of password-stealing trojans, for example) or a worm will be able to propagate across a network without intervention.

I personally use it because it does the job I want it to do (inbound filtering) nicely, and simply doesn't do anything I don't need it to. Then again, I haven't had problems with malware of any sort for several years, so anything else is overkill for me.

So the decision is up to you. If you have enough confidence in yourself, the SP2 firewall is there already...just use it. If you have even the slightest doubt, go with a full-featured, third-party software firewall. My personal recommendation would be Kerio, not only because it's free, but also because it does what it's supposed to very well.

Well put. That pretty much covers my point of view as well.

 

[FishBoy]

i dont really think xp's is the best, but it's the easiest to get and it's free of course
but yea i think sygate is good too i didn't like zone alarm, but last time i tried them was like a year ago

 

[lad_in_brum]

In my opinion I would still use the router as well as a firewall.

I use:
Zone alarm - It has had problems with slowdowns etc in the past, but with the latest versions ive not had a problem.
XP's firewall
Router

That setup seems to do the job for me..with the router blocking most incomming stuff.
I then use sophos antivirus and microsoft antispyware to catch all the other crap.

 

[the_music_man]

I would use Sygate because Zonealarm has really bad compatbility issues *for me it didn't work with number of programs* just my 3 cents!

 

[X-Istence]

Wow I'm sorry. First of, it's the first time I see her posts, and I didn't see her name. I replied fast and didn't look. Sorry abotu the gender mismatch, it wasn't intended at all.

It is quite common on newsgroups, forums, and other places where people post to lurk sometime to get to know the way you are to post, who the people kind of are, and who you'd rather not get into a flamewar with. Just a suggestion from someone who has made the same mistake.

Second... It wasn't an attack either. I just know a lot of people just ditch the NEW XP Firewall because they used the OLD version before and that one really did suck. The new version has many new features and is a lot different. It's not nearly the same at all. Just wanted to make sure that whoever ditched it did try all of its features.

Sorry, I was kind of harsh. I do agree that it has become a tad more stable, and better for use, but I think the fact that it does not let you choose outgoing is a bad choice. Lot's of stuff can be installed through outlook's security bugs, and all the other ways it can land on the system. This is where it is good for a home user to have the option to stop certain applications from going on the internet and doing what they do best.

It's true that it doesn't offer outoing filtering, but personally I don't need it at all. I can identify pretty much any program on my system that sends personal information (except spywares, pretty much none unless you leave the option checked on to send survey info). I never get spywares installed, never got a virus and for the rest (if any), I don't really care if it doesn't do any harm. Programs that actually send private information are RARE. It's mostly just anonymous survey data, bug reports or license checks. Anyhow...

You are an exception to the rule. Many home users when taught that they can surf the web without annoyances popping up, will get scared when something pops up from zonealarm, as all their favorite applications are already in zonealarm. So then they call me, and i can help them fix it. Which is better than just having outgoing flowing without limits.

I did try ZoneAlarm several times in the past, tried several versions as well as they released new features and functionallity, so yes I do know what it does and how it works.

My excuses

[qoute]
I've also tried Sygate, Tiny Personal Firewall, and another one called Conseal PC Firewall. I've also had a router for a long time and used the built-in firewall in it. So yes, I do know.[/quote]

Okay. I doubt the router built-in firewall would do anything at all, unless the router itself has services open. As there is no way to force packets to be routed through NAT if they don't exist in the NAT routing table.

For a home network with several PC's that are being used by several people, or in a small corporate environment, I would recommend something more of course, with outgoing port filtering, in order to protect the environment from viruses that spread through the network using security holes (like Gaobot or MBlast), or to prevent PC's from spamming the network if they are infected with spywares or adwares (until they are fixed), but for a simple personal PC, I think that Windows XP Sp2 Firewall is just enough and does a good job without any bells and whistles... unless you're a security freak and are paranoid with any outgoing packet that you didn't explicitly send yourself...

In a corporate enviroment firewalls mostly are a pain in the behind, so most of it is done by stopping certain protocols from being routed between routers. The only ones being routed at the school i work at is the SMB protocol, HTTP, HTTPS, IMAP and DOMAIN. This means that any others will be dropped at the edge routers. So if a virus was installed on PC A, in a room with 10 other PC's it would be contained to the one switch PC A is on, which is shared with 4 others. So a max of 5 PC's can be infected. Installing a Firewall would cause problems for other software that we use as well, as teachers have this monitoring applications which also opens up ports, and we have to make exceptions for that all. Firewalling in a corporate enviroment is not a viable option. (Note: Roche, where my dad works, his laptop does not have a firewall).

As for just incoming filtered, I don't believe it is an option for a home user, as i have previously mentioned in my post.

Sorry if I sounded rude or if my previous post sounded like an attack, it wasn't at all. And Sorry Jewelzz for not seeing you're a pretty lady

I was a bit harsh in judging you.

 

[jonifen]

@Jewelzz, I would keep the router and use a firewall on top of it, I do. You can't beat the NAT firewalling, but it doesn't allow you to block outgoing traffic

I agree with this guy... I'd use a router even if I only had one computer connected to it.
If you REALLY want to ditch the router, I'd go with the normal XP firewall with SP2 - my brother in law is using it these days and its a lot better than Zonealarm's and Norton's efforts IMHO

 

[xtweaker]

I agree with this guy... I'd use a router even if I only had one computer connected to it.
If you REALLY want to ditch the router, I'd go with the normal XP firewall with SP2 - my brother in law is using it these days and its a lot better than Zonealarm's and Norton's efforts IMHO

Question is... Does Jewelzz want outgoing filtering or not? She didn't specify. If she does, then she can't use XP SP2's firewall, and in that case, from the reviews I've seen, Kerio seems to be a good choice.

If she doesn't care about outgoing filtering, XP SP2 is already there, does a fair job and even has a learning mode (prompts you when a new application wants to open ports). You can also allow applications manually (instead of using rules where you need to know every port the application is using) just like other firewalls like ZoneAlarm...

She did say however that she wants to get rid of her router, so even though adding NAT on top of it (which would be like having 2 layers of firewalls) would be full proof, it's not what she is asking for and I don't think she would need THAT much security.

So Jewelzz, what do you want exactly from what we've been talking about so far?

 

[Jewelzz]

So Jewelzz, what do you want exactly from what we've been talking about so far?

In no particular order ... A man, money, happiness, shall I continue?

 

[xtweaker]

In no particular order ... A man, money, happiness, shall I continue?

Gimme a ring if you ever think about moving to Montreal

 

[Khayman]

In no particular order ... A man, money, happiness, shall I continue?

I can give you two of of three



(and before anyone wisecracks. money is the odd one out)

 

[Jewelzz]

They're lining up around the world, wooo hooo

 

[xtweaker]

Here's a sexy pose just for you Jewelzz... now You HAVE to come to Montreal, right? :laugh: