Whats wrong with the default MS firewall?
Yes, it is not easy to config ranges, (impossible, one port at a time
), etc. but it does a good job of keeping things out..
It also blocks some outgoing, but we find that to be a bad thing. A typical user blocks good and bad and allows good and bad, randomly, 50% chance, then we get a call, "my puter aint workin"
Normally, we set up Trend to allow ALL outgoing, even then we got a call once a day from someone who blocked IE because of some windows update.
On top of that, all the above firewalls I have tested, have big problems in a cooperate world with large databases.
The MS one is simple and when I make a switch to Avast, I plan on using it. Free and functional, low mem-CPU.
Unless, you friendly people here can convince me not to.
Remember, our clients are set up differently; not like the typical user environment.
We use CPULOCK, it is kind of like Vista's UAC but better and been around longer.
Even when antivirus and antispyware definitions do not catch something new, CPULOCK blocks them or at least makes it so the malware does not run on the next start up.
So, malware going out, (being blocked from within the computer by a firewall), is not our concern, and we consider it a hassle.
What I want to know of is any real world situations where malware has penetrated the MS firewall and therefore we should not use it.
Thank you.
