Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

21 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Firewall

views
     
super macgyver
post Dec 18 2006, 05:21 PM

★~13k Spam Club~★
********
All Stars
19,322 posts

Joined: Jan 2003



QUOTE(GameSky @ Dec 18 2006, 02:24 PM)
super macgyver: False, they..using outdated engine means you're more vulnerable to worms, port scan, trojan attacks "/..
*
tongue.gif of course u need to team up it with kaspersky too.
natakaasd
post Dec 18 2006, 07:22 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,188 posts

Joined: Nov 2005


I am still using ZA. Version 6.1. LOL. It might not be the latest, but it is stable. I can assure you.

Cheers!
natakaasd
post Dec 18 2006, 07:25 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,188 posts

Joined: Nov 2005


QUOTE("super macgyver")
of course u need to team up it with kaspersky too.


False again. AVs can't or rarely block Port Scans. And not to mention, infiltration can't be block without a firewall. Thirdly, you cannot monitor or control incoming or outgoing traffic Efficiently and Accurately.

Cheers!

This post has been edited by natakaasd: Dec 19 2006, 09:54 AM
super macgyver
post Dec 18 2006, 07:53 PM

★~13k Spam Club~★
********
All Stars
19,322 posts

Joined: Jan 2003



QUOTE(natakaasd @ Dec 18 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE("super macgyver")
of course u need to team up it with kaspersky too.


False again. Avs can't or rarely block Port Scans. And not to mention, infiltration can't be block without a firewall. Thirdly, you cannot monitor or control incoming or outgoing traffic Efficiently and Accurately.

Cheers!
*
y involve avs? since it dun even got web protect sumore. doh.gif

1.Outpost
2.KIS
3.Comodo

http://www.firewallleaktester.com/termination.php
natakaasd
post Dec 19 2006, 09:54 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,188 posts

Joined: Nov 2005


Sorry, typo. I wanted to have AVs(Anti-viruses), not AVS. Apologies.

Cheers!
mtrans
post Dec 22 2006, 12:57 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
10 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
guys

i'm using the built in firewall from winxp pro
natakaasd
post Dec 22 2006, 07:36 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,188 posts

Joined: Nov 2005


Built in Firewall for XP Pro is no that good, friend. It is only a very minimal portion of a firewall... Unless you really don't know what firewall to use, only you resort to WIN XP Built-In Firewall. Go Get One of these:-

1. Zone Alarm (No longer recommended by many LYN members now)
2. Outpost Firewall (Highly Recommended for Seasoned Users)
3. Sygate Firewall (Update-less.)

and a few more I can't remember....

Cheers!

eXPeri3nc3
post Dec 22 2006, 09:08 AM

It's coming! 3ɔu3ıɹǝdxǝ ♥
*******
Senior Member
9,257 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7



QUOTE(natakaasd @ Dec 22 2006, 08:36 AM)
Built in Firewall for XP Pro is no that good, friend. It is only a very minimal portion of a firewall... Unless you really don't know what firewall to use, only you resort to WIN XP Built-In Firewall. Go Get One of these:-

1. Zone Alarm (No longer recommended by many LYN members now)
2. Outpost Firewall (Highly Recommended for Seasoned Users)
3. Sygate Firewall (Update-less.)

and a few more I can't remember....

Cheers!
*
IMHO,

Built in WinXPPro Firewall:
  • Nuisance, caused me generic win32 error dry.gif
  • The worst protection any firewall can provide
  • Worst protection rating by some websites [I'd posted here before]

    Zone Alarm:
  • If not resource hogging I would say very troublesome when you face TrueVector errors... My friend faced it before, that's very troublesome.
  • Despite it's protection, sometimes outbound connection cannot connect through...
  • False alarms
  • Nuisance pop-ups

    Outpost Firewall:
  • Not user friendly
  • If pro version, better function, but trial.
  • More flexible if you know how to set the config.
  • Can stand side by side with Zone Alarm, besides Comodo's Firewall
  • Can't be nuked like other firewalls. You'll get what I mean.

    Sygate Firewall:
  • Very user friendly
  • Can backtrack IP
  • CAN also be easily nuked for no reason
  • Low security
  • No more updates or security patches available for sygate. That's why I changed.

Tho' I'm BT-ing and not using any firewall atm tongue.gif tongue.gif
GameSky
post Dec 22 2006, 12:45 PM

Nyancat too much
*******
Senior Member
6,381 posts

Joined: Jun 2005
From: meow meow
Outpost is my pick "/...

though I no longer use it...Windows Firewall laugh.gif...too lazy to set rules dry.gif
keyz
post Dec 22 2006, 06:01 PM

Regular
Group Icon
VIP
1,271 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Terengganu


Press relase, taken from :

http://www.agnitum.com/news/outpost-firewa...nation-test.php

Outpost was the only one of 13 software firewalls to pass all 38 tests conducted by Guillame Kaddouch, an expert in computer security who operates the security web site firewallleaktester.com. Test results are available on Kaddouch's website at http://www.firewallleaktester.com/termination.php

QUOTE
In the wild malware often choose to terminate the security software in the system they are running on, instead of trying to use complex methods to circumvent them.


QUOTE
Self-defense or self-protection features have become a requirement for any security software solution to be taken seriously as some malicious applications like viruses, Trojans and spyware can disable or shut down security software in order to give themselves the freedom to steal information or whatever payload they have been programmed to activate.


In the summary (the winner) :
  1. Outpost Firewall Pro 4.0
  2. Kaspersky Internet Security 6
  3. Comodo Firewall


This post has been edited by keyz: Dec 22 2006, 06:02 PM
GameSky
post Dec 22 2006, 06:05 PM

Nyancat too much
*******
Senior Member
6,381 posts

Joined: Jun 2005
From: meow meow
Though Outpost is not user friendly, especially for newbies...but the protection is way better than ZA "/
eXPeri3nc3
post Dec 22 2006, 08:24 PM

It's coming! 3ɔu3ıɹǝdxǝ ♥
*******
Senior Member
9,257 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7



The level of anti-leak protection for Outpost is rated good while Comodo is excellent... =/ sweat.gif

http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-p...sts-results.php

It's basically two side of a coin, it's almost impossible to find a firewall which has no weakness/perfect. smile.gif
eXPeri3nc3
post Dec 24 2006, 11:10 AM

It's coming! 3ɔu3ıɹǝdxǝ ♥
*******
Senior Member
9,257 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7



Downloading and trying Comodo Firewall now. Will give feedbacks after this. thumbup.gif
eXPeri3nc3
post Dec 25 2006, 01:12 PM

It's coming! 3ɔu3ıɹǝdxǝ ♥
*******
Senior Member
9,257 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7



Update - Comodo serves it's job. Not bad. NO problems so far... Besides my cFosSpeed detect 2 active connections only whereas last time it usually at least 30+ sweat.gif
super macgyver
post Dec 25 2006, 01:36 PM

★~13k Spam Club~★
********
All Stars
19,322 posts

Joined: Jan 2003



QUOTE(eXPeri3nc3 @ Dec 25 2006, 01:12 PM)
Update - Comodo serves it's job. Not bad. NO problems so far... Besides my cFosSpeed detect 2 active connections only whereas last time it usually at least 30+ sweat.gif
*
wat cfosSpeed u trying to say? ur p2p sw? blink.gif
eXPeri3nc3
post Dec 25 2006, 06:35 PM

It's coming! 3ɔu3ıɹǝdxǝ ♥
*******
Senior Member
9,257 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7



QUOTE(super macgyver @ Dec 25 2006, 02:36 PM)
wat cfosSpeed u trying to say? ur p2p sw? blink.gif
*
line calibrating software... sweat.gif

Update - I take back what I'd said... It screwed my msn... no matter how I allow it it still won't connect... and... the protection changed from Effective to BAD... doh.gif

I dunno what the heck happened... dry.gif

Might as well stick back to Outpost Firewall Pro
super macgyver
post Dec 25 2006, 07:09 PM

★~13k Spam Club~★
********
All Stars
19,322 posts

Joined: Jan 2003



QUOTE(eXPeri3nc3 @ Dec 25 2006, 06:35 PM)
line calibrating software... sweat.gif

Update - I take back what I'd said... It screwed my msn... no matter how I allow it it still won't connect... and... the protection changed from Effective to BAD... doh.gif

I dunno what the heck happened... dry.gif

Might as well stick back to Outpost Firewall Pro
*
laugh.gif ur coment is just valid for few hour only on firewall testing arh?
natakaasd
post Dec 25 2006, 09:32 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,188 posts

Joined: Nov 2005


When essential programs can't run, Even testing only within 1 hour, the program is considered OR almost considered as malfunctioning. How can you use a firewall that does not allow you to even chat? ... Cheers...
eXPeri3nc3
post Dec 25 2006, 09:56 PM

It's coming! 3ɔu3ıɹǝdxǝ ♥
*******
Senior Member
9,257 posts

Joined: Aug 2005
From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7



QUOTE(super macgyver @ Dec 25 2006, 08:09 PM)
laugh.gif  ur coment is just valid for few hour only on firewall testing arh?
*
Reply as below

QUOTE(natakaasd @ Dec 25 2006, 10:32 PM)
When essential programs can't run, Even testing only within 1 hour, the program is considered OR almost considered as malfunctioning. How can you use a firewall that does not allow you to even chat? ... Cheers...
*
Well said. Couldn't put it in another better phrase.
Just a note, I can kill Comodo with task manager.
I can't kill Outpost with task manager. wink.gif
tps18489
post Dec 29 2006, 12:03 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,514 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Hello guys. I have a problem here. I'm using Sygate Personal Firewall Pro now. I notice that my Sygate takes a very long time to load if my LAN connection is on when I boot my PC. But when I don't switch on my LAN connection during the PC startup, Sygate loads very quickly. In the end, I can only switch on my LAN connection after Sygate loads. Does anyone know why? Thanks.

21 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0208sec    0.43    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 28th November 2025 - 04:46 AM