See how efficient your Firewall is!

MoHux · Feb 18, 2008, 19:34:51

If you don't want to read it all ....... scroll down the page;

HERE

Looks like I shouldn't be relying on Windows Firewall!!

Rik · Feb 18, 2008, 19:36:09

Comodo has a good rep, Mo, though the latest version seems to have a few problems.

madasahatter · Feb 18, 2008, 19:39:31

that's an interesting read - especially when you look at the poor performance of some of the well known (and really quite expensive) ones such as Norton and McAfee. Interesting also that 2 out of the top 4 are free!!

Simon · Feb 18, 2008, 19:51:43

My BitDefender didn't do too well.

somanyholes · Feb 18, 2008, 20:09:56

Quotethat's an interesting read - especially when you look at the poor performance of some of the well known (and really quite expensive) ones such as Norton and McAfee. Interesting also that 2 out of the top 4 are free!!

even more amusing that sygate which stopped being developed years ago still beats a lot of em like mcaffe. online armour is the best Ive used so far, not a comodo fan...

QuoteMy BitDefender didn't do too well.

bit defender holds well for av though

security suites = bad (i will keep saying this lol)

Sebby · Feb 18, 2008, 20:23:20

Wow, that's an enlightening read. Thanks, Mo.

MoHux · Feb 18, 2008, 22:09:12

Inactive · Feb 18, 2008, 23:30:35

This would appear to fly in the face of " you get what you pay for ".

Noreen · Feb 18, 2008, 23:40:48

Not sure when those tests were actually done but it's possible that latest versions of some firewalls may produce different results. As Rik implied it doesn't include the latest version of Comodo.

Inactive · Feb 18, 2008, 23:46:14

Quote from: Noreen on Feb 18, 2008, 23:40:48
Not sure when those tests were actually done but it's possible that latest versions of some firewalls may produce different results. As Rik implied it doesn't include the latest version of Comodo.

It doesn't Noreen, but there is some comment from Comodo relating to it on the page.

Noreen · Feb 19, 2008, 00:18:02

I don't think that it's referring to the latest version of Comodo which is 3.0.17.304, In. I get the impression, reading back through those pages that the tests were conducted about three months ago. No doubt many of those firewalls will be unchanged but maybe not all.

Inactive · Feb 19, 2008, 01:00:50

Fair enough Noreen, I only skip read it.

scook94 · Feb 19, 2008, 21:35:03

Just wondering, I never re-installed a s/w firewall on my new PC as I wasn't sure if there was any point with a NAT enabled router. Certainly "Shields Up" at grc.com gives me the thumbs up (although I realise it doesn't test with unauthorised access coming from my PC), what would you guys recommend? NAT enabled router and s/w firewall?

madasahatter · Feb 19, 2008, 21:49:22

Quote from: scook94 on Feb 19, 2008, 21:35:03
NAT enabled router and s/w firewall?

Can't hurt I suppose, but at the moment I'm just using the firewall in the router together with an antivirus agent (comodo at the moment - used to use AVG free, but started hogging CPU for some reason), in conjunction with Windows firewall, and I don't seem to have any problems.

Of course, they may well be famous last words......

Simon · Feb 19, 2008, 21:52:27

I use both, but it can be a double edged sword if you're trying to get something like Limewire connected, which can be fickle at the best of times. I do like to see what's going in and out, which a hardware firewall doesn't really inform you of first hand, but sometimes, software firewalls can be difficult to configure.

scook94 · Feb 19, 2008, 22:12:50

Well I guess with Comodo being free and with x64 support it can't hurt to give it a whirl!

Ann · Feb 19, 2008, 22:29:59

All this leak testing does, as far as I understand, is test the outward firewall capabilities. As I don't use any outward firewall I think I'll fail! However, I don't really see a need to. I also test with Shields Up and with the 2Wire 2700 got all clear so am satisfied that that's enough for me.. with a good antivirus application as well of course.

Sebby · Feb 19, 2008, 22:31:21

I agree, Ann.

scook94 · Feb 19, 2008, 22:34:06

But then there's the argument that not all antivirus s/w are proficient in detecting trojans and other malware...

Sebby · Feb 19, 2008, 22:44:58

That's true, but I feel comfortable that I'm good enough with computers to avoid such things in the first place.

madasahatter · Feb 19, 2008, 22:50:32

Quote from: scook94 on Feb 19, 2008, 22:34:06
But then there's the argument that not all antivirus s/w are proficient in detecting trojans and other malware...

Quite true - but if you keep your eyes on the reports, and if need be/possible change accordingly......

Simon · Feb 19, 2008, 23:11:21

Quote from: Sebby on Feb 19, 2008, 22:44:58
That's true, but I feel comfortable that I'm good enough with computers to avoid such things in the first place.

I think that's half the battle, Seb.

talos2 · Feb 20, 2008, 09:39:11

Been trying the Online Armour, seems OK but it does slow down the system somewhat, anyone else use it ?

Gary · Feb 20, 2008, 10:01:41

I know some people don't like suites, for my needs Kaspersky 7 and the free version of superantispyware works a treat, I don't need spyware blaster as my registry is monitored for changes by my security,we all have our preferences and what works for you is best. I found that having a multitude of spyware applications, a software firewall, and a different AV caused conflicts at some time or another on different systems but having a firewall router does give you a degree of safety but even they can be hacked now, I like to see outbound connections, no AV or spyware app is 100% and if you have a keylogger or other malware that is not found, unusual outbound activity may give you a clue, as Sebby said I like to think I can avoid such things by being competent with computers and avoiding social engineering scams etc, but as the malware authors get more devious I think you need that kind of protection. Once you start feeling safe on the net, that's when something nasty is going happen

somanyholes · Feb 20, 2008, 10:07:17

Hey

Have been using online armour for a few months, and haven't been affected by slowdown's, I think
it's been using less resources than comodo has. Not sure as to what version you are using of online armour but there may be services running that you don't need.

On the outbound protection front. These are my thoughts which you may disagree with.

Outbound protection is needed less if you have a number of other things protecting you. Such as

1. Use webmail
2. Use firefox with noscript
3. Use a sandbox such as sandboxie
4. Common sense (even then it will only do so much)

Reasons to have outbound protection are

1. Your nat firewall, will not provide any outbound protection except if you set up rules allowing or blocking access, this is not a nice way of controlling outbound access.

2. Your antivirus will not protect you from all threats no matter how good it is. It may not stop spyware, adware, rootkits, wireless attacks etc. IT WILL NOT STOP EVERYTHING.

3. With no outbound protection, you will not be terminate unwanted connections as easily as if you have.

4. People say, I know what I'm doing i won't get infected because I use my brain. All it takes on this front, is kids, grandchildren, friends, partners etc.

5. The main reason to have it is so less tech savy people, can deal with issues quickly rather than having to ring up their local it bod.

6. It helps you learn what you system is actually doing, in an easy to digest way.

Am sure there are a boatload more reasons which people can think of.

Basically, if you don't know how to use netstat, or have a way on monitoring your connections, get outbound protection. (even then rootkits can still be invisable to you.