Another Firewall (Now Totally FREE)

[timcan]

Hello!
Just a question, i use Tiny Personal Firewall and i set it on "Ask me..."
for every incoming and outgoing conections, and i made the ShieldsUP tests and the result was that all the ports are stealth, exept two ports, port=0 , and port=1 wich were closed....I did not made any changes to the firewall, so is this bad thing, that this two ports are closed and not invisible?? Or I will have to make some changes...I dont like when i feel not protected 

  Hi,pls see this http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=695699&postcount=4  Hope this helps,  tim

[SNOWHITE]

Hi Tim,
This is not helping me much as it is for Tiny Firewall 2005 ( it costs a lot too), my firewall is old version Tiny Personal Firewall 2.0.15A (freeware version). I like it couse its not slowing the computer and it's fast too, also if you make the configuration properly it gives an exellent protection as i read somewhere its one of the first firewall that passed the Leack test I did some google search but i still cant find anything on this making all the ports stealth for this version of TPFW.
Anyway thanks for the reply 

[bob3160]

SNOWHITE
Maybe it's time to change your Firewall ? 
Thanks again Sasha for the testing.
If I only had my computer back, I'd be able to install it to. :'(

[DavidR]

Right, so it will be interesting to see if it fails the leak test also.

Hey David, Actually it passed GRC's leak test. (for me anyway)

Time for a vist to the firewallleaktester.com link I gave and see what that throws up.

[SNOWHITE]

SNOWHITE
Maybe it's time to change your Firewall ? 
Thanks again Sasha for the testing.
If I only had my computer back, I'd be able to install it to. :'(

Hi bob ....e he heh i am not going to uninstall TPFW just like that, i need this FW, its lighter than all other FW that i have tryed and heard about it.Just becouse is old version doesnt mean that he cant protect my computer exept if someone give me a good explenation why to uninstall it....

[szc]

Time for a vist to the firewallleaktester.com link I gave and see what that throws up.

I tested it with Gibson's test and few others and it passed:

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=372ccff8e6982bdd2cf60d6d9947912a&topic=23060.msg190600#msg190600

However, I don't believe there is any other firewall out there that will pass every single one of those tests listed on that page.

I also tried to test FireHole.exe and avast! reported some trojan or something:



Don't know is it a false positive or what...

[szc]

Hi bob ....e he heh i am not going to uninstall TPFW just like that, i need this FW, its lighter than all other FW that i have tryed and heard about it.Just becouse is old version doesnt mean that he cant protect my computer exept if someone give me a good explenation why to uninstall it....

Good reason is the fact that firewall is outdated and probably there are no security updates for it any more... people out there are searching for new ways how to breach your security and accordingly to that, your firewall protection must be up to date in order to fully protect you.

The lightest firewall I had installed was Look'n'Stop, wonderful simple looking firewall, rule based with wonderful options and features. It was so light on system resources it's unbelievable...

[bob3160]

Saha that warning probably came up because the program you used is considered by CA and others as a
Probe Tool : 

A tool that explores another system, looking for vulnerabilities. While these can be used by security managers, wishing to shore up their security, the tools are as likely used by attackers to evaluate where to start an attack. An example is an NT Security Scanner.

Which can be used for both good an evil depending on the person using the tool.

[Jarmo P]

Ashampoo is very basic. Read about what they found out in wilders:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=140427&page=2

No need to get enthusiast to some newcomer fw. It never pays to do so.

The only one that have raised some real interest is Comodo. It is a bit resource heavy etc. for my liking. I have not tested it nor intend cause I am happy with my current setup.

But filseclab, netveda, they are gonners I think

[bob3160]

Ashampoo is very basic. Read about what they found out in wilders:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=140427&page=2

No need to get enthusiast to some newcomer fw. It never pays to do so.

That's not what all the tests that Sasha has hone reveal.

[szc]

This is the best one:


AJohn wrote:

Looks like the firewall needs a lot of work. Will be interesting to see how it does when considering how advanced Comodo is becoming and how advanced Outpost already is.

Of course they are becoming "advanced" but you can also see that on your mem usage and system resources usage. I don't need some tool that's supposed to be installed just as a neccessity, not a luxury, and take all my system resources. Antiviruses and Firewalls should be something that we don't even know it's installed on our systems. Computers are here for doing businesses and be creative, not to turn them into security fortresses. These programs should be as light as they can be.

[Jarmo P]

Antiviruses and Firewalls should be something that we don't even know it's installed on our systems. Computers are here for doing businesses and be creative, not to turn them into security fortresses. These programs should be as light as they can be.

Yes Sasha, in an ideal world. Truth is that many are happy with XP SP2 firewall, and it is ok in itself. It passes all the scan site tests like grc just fine.

But truth is also, that a good software firewall needs to have control over inbound and outbound connections, ports, protocols etc. I don't see what I read in wilders and what you posted here it can. Any firewall these days can of course pass grc leaktest, heh.

Many people also run HIPS programs. Like me PG free and SnoopFree. So it is not an ideal world by far. And i am also by far not a most paranoid user.

[bob3160]

But truth is also, that a good software firewall needs to have control over inbound and outbound connections, ports, protocols etc. I don't see what I read in wilders and what you posted here it can. Any firewall these days can of course pass grc leaktest, heh.

It's a question also asked by Tech and it was answered. Maybe it's time to re-read the thread again? 

[Jarmo P]

Bob, Tech did a good guestion, and the answer from Sasha was among my post above and what i read in wilders. It does not have that capability, sadly. 

Sasha unfortunately as a graphic designer (I refused to him get me an avatar one cause I like to surf naked as he said) gets sometimes carried away a bit too much with a good fancy firewall user interface.
Hope you don't mind Sasha my comment and we be ok.

[mauserme]

I also tried to test FireHole.exe and avast! reported some trojan or something:

Many of them make avast! react and some just wouldn't run for me.  These are the results I got:

Leak Test - Passed
Tooleaky -  Passed
Firehole - Would not run/avast! alerted
Yalta - Classical Test failed
           Advanced test was grayed out
Outbound - Would not run
PCAudit - Would not run/avast! alerted
AWFT - Test 1 failed
            Test 2 would not run/avast! alerted
            Test 3 would not run/avast! alerted
            Test 4 Passed/avast! alerted
            Test 5 Passed/avast! alerted
            Test 6 would not run/avast! alerted
DNS Tester - Failed
Surfer - Results not clear - appers to have failed
Breakout - Test 1 woud not run/avast! alerted
                 Test 2 failed
Jumper - Failed
CPIL - Failed
Thermite - Would not run/avast! alerted
Copy Cat - Would not run
MB Test - Would not run
Wallbreaker - Tests 1,2,3, and 4 failed
PC Audit - Failed
Ghost - Failed
PC Flank - Passed

Maybe someone can try those tests that would not run for me.