Poll

What Free Firewall do you use with Avast?

Zone Alarm
59 (45.4%)
Sygate
31 (23.8%)
Outpost
19 (14.6%)
Tiny
2 (1.5%)
Primedius
0 (0%)
GoldTach
0 (0%)
Look and Stop
2 (1.5%)
Kerio
17 (13.1%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Author Topic: Poll, What Free Firewall do you use with Avast  (Read 68755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Datagg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Perceive things that you cant see
    • Girlfriends Lingerie
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2004, 08:34:25 PM »
900 views 4000 members and only 40 votes, YUCK!

Im worried bout them stats myself Jam. We either have laziness there, lack of knowledge, or ones who truly believe they are safe without a firewall. The last one statement, god help them all if that true.

Quote
Okay do I need to reformat to rid myself of NAV and ZA?

If you are having troubles only. But before that, I would run a registry cleaner, or better yet seek out left over leeches from past uninstalls first. If your running ok, dont worry about it.  With avast, if there was some kind of corruption from NAV to avast, it would have shown up by now, so on that front you sound ok.  

Same with firewalls. If you tried them all, deleted each one, and all is working with your current sygate, then your ok also. The piggy backing of them, if left overs exited would cause immediate probs, so you sound ok there also.

Quote
Is outposts "FREE" version any better than Sygates?


In my opinion yes, it offers so much more on surface and behind the scenes.  But, if your protected and feel good about sygate, then no worries.  


Quote
Is Sygates a leech?[/

Compared to others, no it is not.  Sygate actually understands and respects what an uninstal actualy means.  It uses minimal resources, and I have not seen problems with it.


Hope all that help bro,

Peace,

Dan
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 08:37:17 PM by Datagg »
X64
GA-K8N-SLI
AMD 64 3500+
Nvidia Nforce4
e-Geforce 6800GT - PCI-E 256M
Gig of PC3200 DDR2

JAM-Computers

  • Guest
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2004, 09:20:23 PM »
In my opinion yes, it offers so much more on surface and behind the scenes.  But, if your protected and feel good about sygate, then no worries.  

Okay, I have to ask "Why"? I like Sygate because it is highly graphical and passed all the tests I could find,
shields up
norton's
their own (Duh)
leak test
and a few others.
What makes Outpost "FREE" better in your opinion? Is it an actual feature or simply that you like it better?
Just curious.

Thanks
James

Offline Datagg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Perceive things that you cant see
    • Girlfriends Lingerie
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2004, 10:03:27 PM »
All that I know like it better. I did not say Sygate wasn’t good, matter of fact it would be one of the alternatives I would use also.  As far as why, outpost better, well besides from the technical end of it, and as a tester for them, compared to others, there are also plugins that others don’t have.

1, Such as An active x control plug in
2, Advertisement blocking plug-in
3, Attatchment filters plug-in
4, Content filtering (malicious websites)

Plus more.....

You can also purchase more plugins, and there are free user plugins available and that people create all the time .  So in essence you have many programs in one neat package.

For more info, visit www.agnitum.com for more details on program. There is much to read, comparison charts, and a flash movie you can watch also.

Good luck to you sir,

Dan
« Last Edit: May 11, 2004, 10:05:29 PM by Datagg »
X64
GA-K8N-SLI
AMD 64 3500+
Nvidia Nforce4
e-Geforce 6800GT - PCI-E 256M
Gig of PC3200 DDR2

Offline whocares

  • Super Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • I'm not a llama! :-)
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2004, 10:38:18 PM »

1) 900 views 4000 members and only 40 votes, YUCK!

2) ones who truly believe they are safe without a firewall. The last one statement, god help them all if that true.

1) I'll vote, if you inlcude Kerio 2.x .. or is tiny supposed to stand for this ?

2) I use a PFW just 4 fun and only recently..
never had a worm stopped by it, that would have gotten in or out otherwise.. (never had a virus worm/trojan at all, that is..)
Do all your Winupdates, Secure your WIn (...blablarhabarberetcetc..) use BRAIN1.x and that's it



 ;)

CoJo

  • Guest
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2004, 11:10:20 PM »
900 views 4000 members and only 40 votes, YUCK!

LOL...I hear ya!! ;D

It would be great to have more folks post their experiences, wouldn't it?

cojo

Offline bob3160

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 44280
  • 60 Years of Happiness
    • bob3160 Protecting Yourself, Your Computer and, Your Identity
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2004, 11:23:19 PM »
CoJo,
If my opinion count's get Outpost.
Bob
Free avast! Security Seminar: http://bit.ly/2N1eaR2  -  Important: http://www.organdonor.gov/ -- My Web Site: http://bob3160.strikingly.com/ - Win 10 Pro v1909 64bit, 24 Gig Ram, 1TB SSD, AvastOmni 20.7.xxx, How to Successfully Install Avast http://goo.gl/VLXdeRepair & Clean Install https://goo.gl/t7aJGq

CoJo

  • Guest
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2004, 11:27:34 PM »
Cojo, ZA has been known to cause errors and other situations , lots of the computers I have repaired has been cuased by ZA problems.  I know that they have fixed a few of these issues from past versions, but I still seee it.  Allthough I am a beta tester for Agnitum, outpost, I recomended it way before that came to pass to anyone.  It is as easy, or easier than ZA as far as user interaction goes, and has many more features, on the surface, and behind the scenes, as far as superiority is concerned.  As far as resouces go, it does hijack your computer as NAV does, its " True Vector " is a leech, and remains active even when shut down. And in many cases remains behind even when there is a uninstal of the product. They claim this has been fixed, yet I havent seen it.

In conclusion, if the FREE ZA is working for you, then keep it. But if your having, lock ups, slow shutdowns, or even programs forgetting past given yes or no permissions, the time may have come to get outpost. They also have a free version available that I have installed on many systems to date.  Also, if you have a past current subscrition to other programs, you would qualify for a discount on the pro version.

If you ever decide to switch, make sure you treat the uninstal as you would NAV, go int ot hte registry and clean out out entries, look for hidden folders and delete them all.

Good luck to you sir,

Dan

thanks, Dan...
you have given me a lot to think about! :)
are you saying that ZA Free does the hijack like NAV or Outpost does...resources? etc.?
the only thing I've noticed is what I feel are slow shutdowns, but I don't even know what is usual for a shutdown...i.e., average length of shutdown for XP Home...or does that depend on programs I have running? :-[ sorry to ask such a basic question!

I also want to pare my Startup as I feel there are too many programs that load that I don't use all the time--like my printer!
but after the experience I had messing with my computer and having to reformat, I am really, really paranoid about touching anything on this system.

I should have gotten a medal when I got my spyware stuff! ;D

Peace!

cojo
p.s. I don't have the equipment to be a sir ;)

Offline Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • I won't bite too hard!
    • A World Beyond Imagination!
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #52 on: May 12, 2004, 03:25:25 AM »
I'd have to say a hardware firewall.

A software firewall relies on the operating system to make it work and keep it running stable what happens if a virus modifies your firewall startup files?  :(

A hardware firewall does not.
I do however believe that using a hardware firewall WITH a software firewall is cool.... but not necessary.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 03:25:55 AM by Steele »
"A man can tell a thousand lies, I’ve learned my lesson well, Hope I live to tell the secrets I have learned, till then, It will burn inside of me..."

Offline Datagg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Perceive things that you cant see
    • Girlfriends Lingerie
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #53 on: May 12, 2004, 03:48:40 AM »
Steele that is true to an extent.  For inbound attack, a hardwired firewall is fine. But that does not help outbound. A piece of malicious software can be installed on your computer in many various ways, and the only control you have over those from connecting out, would be a software firewall.  As far as being up to your os, this is true, yet outpost, will monitor any internal changes in your computer, and adjust and re ask you for permissions. For instance, IE.EXE we all know to be internet explorer. If I was to install a bug, on your computer, and that bug is spy ware, or a virus, that is designed to hook up to me, the hacker who wants to steal your personal information, I would send it, and create it as IE. EXE. Why would I call it this, because you once gave IE permission to hook up to the internet, right, so being a basic program, I know to call it IE.EXE in the hopes that your firewall will use the past permission to just hook up to me, and you’d never know.  Id has your credit cards, and everything else you hold so near and dear.

With outpost, it will notice that the past IE.EXE has been altered, and will need to be re verified BY YOU if to be allowed to hook up again with permission.

A hardware firewall will do nothing in this case to protect you, nor will most software firewalls, except for outpost, and a few others.

So having an only hardwired firewall only, is a complete error in judgment, and anyone who relies on just this method for protection, will or already has been compromised.

Naming a program to mimic another, and it hooks up, is called a “Leak ". You need a firewall to stop those outbound attacks.

So in conclusion, the safest way you can be is with both, hardware and firewall. But if you are only able to get one, the software one is the best, for it will protect inbound and outbound transmissions
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 04:02:46 AM by Datagg »
X64
GA-K8N-SLI
AMD 64 3500+
Nvidia Nforce4
e-Geforce 6800GT - PCI-E 256M
Gig of PC3200 DDR2

Offline Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • I won't bite too hard!
    • A World Beyond Imagination!
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #54 on: May 12, 2004, 04:01:11 AM »
New hardware firewalls (like mine) now have the abilty to filter INCOMMING AND OUTGOING requests....

So this is no longer an issue.   ;)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 04:01:30 AM by Steele »
"A man can tell a thousand lies, I’ve learned my lesson well, Hope I live to tell the secrets I have learned, till then, It will burn inside of me..."

Offline Datagg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Perceive things that you cant see
    • Girlfriends Lingerie
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #55 on: May 12, 2004, 04:04:17 AM »
To an extent, the updates to hardwired firewall will always be behind a software one. Do some checking, youll see this is true.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 04:14:46 AM by Datagg »
X64
GA-K8N-SLI
AMD 64 3500+
Nvidia Nforce4
e-Geforce 6800GT - PCI-E 256M
Gig of PC3200 DDR2

Offline Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • I won't bite too hard!
    • A World Beyond Imagination!
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #56 on: May 12, 2004, 04:18:40 AM »
Right... because I "the user" requested an update from behind my hardware firewall to ALLOW that request to pass through the port I specified.

I made the request and the request is granted and passed through a port that I configured to allow an app to access. An malicious piece of spyware or a virus that tries to call home from behind my firewall would be BLOCKED as I have not configured that unknown program/app to pass through my filters page from within the configuration page of my firewall.

A software firewall is much easier to attact and disable than that of a hardware one.

If you format your hard drive.... you lose your firewall and now you have to start from scratch by downloading and setting up your software firewall aplication again from behind an UNPROTECTED connection to the net. A virus can also try to delete the start-up code of your software firewall too... viruses can not execute from within a hardware firewall.

I on the other hand am protected from SQUARE ONE..from the second I start from scratch I am protected since my firewall is not operating system dependant. It protects my PC even when it is TURNED OFF. (although there is nothing to protect!  ;D) It is always active.

I do understand your point of view.
Firewall layering (hardware+software) is a good idea for those who don't have control over inbound and outbound connections.  :)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 04:21:25 AM by Steele »
"A man can tell a thousand lies, I’ve learned my lesson well, Hope I live to tell the secrets I have learned, till then, It will burn inside of me..."

Offline Datagg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Perceive things that you cant see
    • Girlfriends Lingerie
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2004, 04:33:52 AM »
I agree with you also steel. But there is one point you’re missing here, and frankly this is the business I am in sir. If you tell your hardware firewall permission for IE.EXE, and there is a malicious code that mimics that same name, permission will not be asked for. Why? Your hardware firewall has already been granted permission for IE.EXE, therefore it will continue to use your settings, bypassing or to monitor if that IE, has been altered, or a malicious code that has the same name.

Try various LEAK tests on the internet, call something by a known program you already gave permission to, and see that it will hook up just the same.  

As of this date, there is no way for a hardware firewall to notice subtle changes in a program, it’s these subtle changes that we want to deny at times. We are dealing with firmware updates, vs., software updates, world of difference.

I supply information here to the request to the ones that ask me, nothing is meant to flame another if this is how it is perceived.

This is the work I do, im not boasting one company over another, nor knocking down one for another. Im giving the facts as I know of them in my field. If this is offensive to anyone I apologize.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 04:36:25 AM by Datagg »
X64
GA-K8N-SLI
AMD 64 3500+
Nvidia Nforce4
e-Geforce 6800GT - PCI-E 256M
Gig of PC3200 DDR2

Offline Datagg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Perceive things that you cant see
    • Girlfriends Lingerie
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #58 on: May 12, 2004, 06:19:08 AM »
I thought I would show this to hopefully show more on this entire issue of software VS hardware firewalls.

Here is a question asked recently and the reply


Quote
I'm about to get my first broadband connection, and I know I need to get a firewall. However, I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what type of firewall I need. Some people tell me I should get a hardware firewall, while others tell me a software firewall is preferred. What's the difference, and more importantly, which is better?
Quote


Good question. The truth is that in a typical home office environment, one type of firewall isn't necessarily better than the other. They are some differences, though, and they can be used together to give you an even greater degree of protection.

Hardware firewalls are important because they provide a strong degree of protection from most forms of attack coming from the outside world. Additionally, in most cases, they can be effective with little or no configuration, and they can protect every machine on a local network.
A hardware firewall in a typical broadband router employs a technique called packet filtering, which examines the header of a packet to determine its source and destination addresses. This information is compared to a set of predefined and/or user-created rules that determine whether the packet is to be forwarded or dropped.

 A more advanced technique called Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI), looks at additional characteristics such as a packet's actual origin (i.e. did it come from the Internet or from the local network) and whether incoming traffic is a response to existing outgoing connections, like a request for a Web page.

But most hardware residential firewalls have an Achilles' heel in that they typically treat any kind of traffic traveling from the local network out to the Internet as safe, which can sometimes be a problem.
Consider this scenario: What would happen if you received an e-mail message or visited a website that contained a concealed program? Let's say this program was designed to install itself on your machine and then surreptitiously communicate with someone via the Internet — a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack zombie or a keystroke logger, for example? And trust me, this is by no means an unlikely scenario.

To most broadband hardware firewalls, the traffic generated by such programs would appear legitimate since it originated inside your network and would most likely be let through. This malevolent traffic might be blocked if the hardware firewall was configured to block outgoing traffic on the specific Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) port(s) the program was using, but given that there are over 65,000 possible ports and there's no way to know which ports a program of this nature might use, the odds of the right ones being blocked are slim.

Moreover, blocking too many ports would almost certainly adversely affect your ability to use some programs (many games, for instance). Also, some broadband router firewalls don't even provide the ability to restrict outgoing traffic, only incoming traffic.

Advantages of Software Firewalls
Now consider what a software firewall might do in the aforementioned scenario. When you first set up a software firewall, you can specify which applications are allowed to communicate over the Internet from that PC. Programs that aren't explicitly allowed to do so are either blocked or else the user is prompted for confirmation before the traffic is allowed to pass. Therefore, it would likely intercept this kind of traffic before it left your computer.
Another potential scenario where a software firewall would be useful is in the case of an e-mail worm with its own e-mail sever, like the recent "SoBig" worm. Its built-in mail server could attempt to send mail on the valid Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) port (25), which would probably pass through the router because of its trusted origin.
 
On the other hand, a software firewall could be configured to only allow Microsoft Outlook to use port 25 (assuming Outlook is your e-mail client). Any attempt by another application to use the port would be dropped, or blocked pending user confirmation. For that matter, the application's attempt to use any port would be blocked if the firewall was configured that way.
By comparison, a hardware firewall that had the ability to filter outgoing traffic might allow you to block most kinds of traffic from a particular PC, but it wouldn't be able to flag you and alert you to repeated attempts to infiltrate your computer.
One obvious downside to software firewalls is that they can only protect the machine they're installed on, so if you have multiple computers (which many small offices do), you need to buy, install, and configure a software firewall separately on each machine. This can get expensive and can be difficult to manage if you have a lot of computers.
 
But the fact of the matter is that software firewalls generally offer the best measure of protection against certain types of situations like Trojan programs or e-mail worms. Speaking of which, a firewall isn't the only protection method available to you. Whether you end up using a software firewall or a hardware firewall, you should always supplement it with anti-virus software.
A good anti-virus package is just as important as a firewall, and I would seriously suggest that you invest in a good one (I'm partial to avast). However, keeping your virus definitions updated is far more important than which program you use. I cannot stress the importance of this enough. Making sure your definitions are current is absolutely critical to maintaining your protection. Many Anti-virus programs today can be configured to automatically update themselves, so you have no excuse for not maintaining them.
The bottom line is that with any home-office broadband connection, a hardware firewall should be considered a bare minimum, and supplementing it with a software firewall on one or more computers (and don't forget anti-virus software) is almost always a good idea.


Hope this clears issues up a bit for those in doubt on what action to take.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2004, 06:25:16 AM by Datagg »
X64
GA-K8N-SLI
AMD 64 3500+
Nvidia Nforce4
e-Geforce 6800GT - PCI-E 256M
Gig of PC3200 DDR2

neal62

  • Guest
Re:Poll, Best Free Firewall for use with Avast
« Reply #59 on: May 12, 2004, 07:29:00 AM »
I do agree with what Datagg states about Outpost. I used other software firewalls in the past and have stayed with Oupost and it works very easily and efficiently for me. One thing that a software Firewall can benefit from is this...If a infection that sometimes is passed via e-mails enters a pc and that pc's software "Java Script" is already disabled then in most cases the  infected e-mail will not be allowed to execute itself.
    I use a hard drive based e-mail program that by default disables "Java Script" when the program is activated. This way if a virus manages to get through everything else ex: firewalls, anti-virus programs etc, hopefully the infection cannot execute itself. But, for anything else that enters through open ports then I feel very comfortable with "Outpost" for a firewall in comparison with any competitors. Also mentioned by others is to keep your Wins Update security patches (fixes) current. This along with other detection programs (software type) will in most cases allow you to operate your pc with a minimum of problems from virus, trojans, worms etc.
 ;)