good freeware firewalls?

[JerryM]

I  have used Kerio 2.1.5 with satisfaction for probably 5 years. I just let it run. It passes the GRC tests. Maybe Comodo is better, but I have not tried it.

Jerry

[testy]

I just installed Sygate 5.6 and so far I'm very  happy.  Everything going smoothly.  I've been to several websites to check how effective it is and it has so far passed all the tests. 

[ramblinrose]

I just installed Sygate 5.6 and so far I'm very happy. Everything going smoothly. I've been to several websites to check how effective it is and it has so far passed all the tests.

Where can I find Sygate 5.6? Please.....thank you....Rose

[timcan]

I just installed Sygate 5.6 and so far I'm very happy. Everything going smoothly. I've been to several websites to check how effective it is and it has so far passed all the tests.

Where can I find Sygate 5.6? Please.....thank you....Rose

Hi Rose, you can get it here  http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=sygate  Hope this helps.

[DavidR]

I just installed Sygate 5.6 and so far I'm very  happy.  Everything going smoothly.  I've been to several websites to check how effective it is and it has so far passed all the tests. 

What are you doing about sygate's know problem with localhost loopback vulnerability. Sygate can't differentiate between a localhost proxy (like web shield) and the program using the proxy. So if you give permission to web shield, by default anything that uses the web shield proxy inherits that permission and won't be challenged. So any malware that uses the http protocol and port 80 to connect would be filtered through the web shield unchallenged.

You can do a simple test try using another browser that hasn't already got permission to connect and it should wizz through unchallenged.

[Jarmo P]

David is right about his reply.
The tests, scan tests like grc, they test only inbound protection. That is most important and what firewalls were first intended to do.

Leaktests are another matter, I never cared to do those, but with avast proxies, I guess Sygate's results would be not so good.
They are if malware is installed in your computer and wants to get out.

I have been told that web shield only allows known browsers out, but cannot be sure. Anyways a program like processguard should cover what to let out.

I let Internet Explorer once out, it is running.
Then I start another instance of IE, PG still asks me if I should allow it.
So it seems like a strong protection, against any program starting, not just internet.
But agreed, there is a loopback hole in Sygate, so without a HIPS like PG, you are loosing outbound protection.

Not sure RamblingRose if you should use SPF 5.6, it is easy to tell Win XP SP2 security center that you are controlling you firewall with 5.5 running. Then it won't bother you again.
There is nothing more in 5.6 "beta" and what problems you have had now are sure from other reasons. Some other firewall installed in your computer same time or remains there, etc.

[testy]

I just downloaded some oddball web browser and installed it.  Tried to use it but Sygate caught it and popped up to say the browser was attempting to use port 80 to connect to internet,  did I want to allow it.  Is this the loophole you are referring to?

[polonus]

Hi testy,

Isn't every browser trying to go out to the Internet on port 80? Boy, that is quite normal because every single browser that uses the http & https and similar protocols do this, if your browser is protected by Avast webshield, Avast connects to a higher port even (see their homepage how to install inside your browser). Well if you do not allow your browser out on port 80 you will not be able to surf with the browser, because you cannot launch it to connect your start page.
The only time it is not secure when other services try to hop on alongside this port 80 also, but you need a good sniffer to see that. By the way what was the oddball browser? Just curious,

polonus

[testy]

I previous poster said because of a loophole in Sygate, and with web shield activated, some browser could just sail right through port 80 undetected. 

[DavidR]

I just downloaded some oddball web browser and installed it.  Tried to use it but Sygate caught it and popped up to say the browser was attempting to use port 80 to connect to internet,  did I want to allow it.  Is this the loophole you are referring to?

Not in this case as Jarmo mentioned, avast has implemented a list of approved application (sorry they don't publish this list, which is a pain) that can use the web shield proxy, this is primarily to avoid conflicts, but does have a knock on security benefit.

You should notice that the web shield isn't scanning this browsers content, no change to the Scanned Count: or Last Scanned:, etc. in the Web Shield detailed view (on-access scanners window).

The action of having an approved list that can use the web shield proxy does lessen the potential vulnerability of sygate and local proxy loop back, unintentional as it was.