Most sophisticated free firewall?

Anyone?

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Personal firewall that is..

Eric wrote:
> Anyone?

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Eric wrote:
> Personal firewall that is..

There's no such thing.

What exactly are your requirements? What do you want to achieve?

cu
59cobalt
--
"Personal Firewalls are crap. Throw away any personal firewall. Personal
Firewalls are bad[tm]."
--Malte von dem Hagen on security-basics

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

I would not go thus far as to say the death of personal firewall. The
best one in our opinion is still ZoneAlarm Free.

This was the review we've done earlier:
http://goodfreeware.blogspot.com/2006/08/welcome-and-best-an tivirus-freeware.html

Chris
--
We review the best freeware (SM)
http://goodfreeware.blogspot.com/

On Dec 3, 7:59 pm, "Eric" wrote:
> Personal firewall that is..
>
> Eric wrote:
> > Anyone?

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

B. Nice wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>> b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>>> Technically ZA free leaks like a sieve.
>>
>> Please provide a reputable, recognized group that shows your position -
>> link would be nice.
>
> Your own reactions to similar requests normally have been "look it up
> yourself" or "I don't have to prove anything".
>
> I see no reason to act differently.

I find it most telling that Leythos is not asking for technical reasons,
but for the opinion of a "reputable, recognized" group. Whatever that is
supposed to be. It's pretty interesting how someone would rate that over
hard (reproducible) technical data.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Leythos wrote:

"...Since I've already tried, for 30 minutes..."
---
Have a look at this:

http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php

Hope the reputation-part meets your approval :)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Kayman wrote:

>Leythos wrote:
>
>"...Since I've already tried, for 30 minutes..."
>---
>Have a look at this:
>
>http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
>
>Hope the reputation-part meets your approval :)

Totally irrelevant to any discussion about software FWs.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Yohann wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote in news:AhJch.1740$SJ3.52
> @tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
>
> > http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
>
> Who cares about Outbound filtering? It's snake oil.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/05/S ecurityMyths/de
> fault.aspx

So here's a company that's telling you not to believe what competing companies
are saying, and you're supposed to believe them.

Why is that?

Because they're Microsoft?

If not for software firewalls, how does one prevent Microsoft's programs from
"phoning home" for updates, among other things?

Notan

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

jon wrote:
> Kayman wrote:
>> Have a look at this:
>>
>> http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
>>
>> Hope the reputation-part meets your approval :)
>
> Totally irrelevant to any discussion about software FWs.

M-hm. You have some arguments to go with that opinion?

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Leythos wrote:

"...it was very interesting to see a few things:

1) Windows firewall failed all test :) "

Well, yes. The way I understand is that Windows firewall never claimed to
filter outbound applications.
---
And:

"3) It provides proof that the Windows XP Firewall is all but useless."

Ineffective as for performing outbound application filtering.
---
And:

"Thanks for providing the link, I will attempt to learn about the site
owners."

You are welcome.
Global firewalls 'outbound application filtering' ranking
Global firewalls 'outbound application filtering' ranking
When available, please post your finding with respect to the site owners.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Kayman wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>> "...it was very interesting to see a few things:
>>
>> 1) Windows firewall failed all test :) "

Which isn't very surprising, since the Windows-Firewall doesn't do
outbound filtering, and doesn't claim to do it. The tests are targeted
at firewalls that *claim* to be capable of outbound filtering.

Leythos' statement above is equivalent to "A-ha! Windows notepad fails
at detecting viruses!!1eleventeen". Duh.

> Well, yes. The way I understand is that Windows firewall never
> claimed to filter outbound applications.

Correct.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

After all that..could we have a top 5 best free personal firewalls?

Thanks

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
>
> > Kayman wrote:
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >>> "...it was very interesting to see a few things:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Windows firewall failed all test :) "
> >
> > Which isn't very surprising, since the Windows-Firewall doesn't do
> > outbound filtering, and doesn't claim to do it.
>
> Actually it does (to capture state information for related connections) but
> allows all traffic by default. My only problem with is that this should be
> an explicit rule, just like we add it to many other packet filters by
> default.
>
> > Leythos' statement above is equivalent to "A-ha! Windows notepad fails
> > at detecting viruses!!1eleventeen". Duh.
>
> Actually it does: Just open the binary in Notepad and browse a bit around,
> you'll easily find strings table and import sections which can give you
> somewhat good evidence for malicious activity.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Leythos wrote:

>In article , mcdaddums3
>@hhotmail.ccom.invalid says...
>>
>> Kayman wrote:
>>
>> >Leythos wrote:
>> >
>> >"...Since I've already tried, for 30 minutes..."
>> >---
>> >Have a look at this:
>> >
>> >http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
>> >
>> >Hope the reputation-part meets your approval :)
>>
>> Totally irrelevant to any discussion about software FWs.
>
>Why? The reputation of the reviewing author/company is what lends itself
>to the belief that the results are produced properly.

Sorry - I was having serious reading/comprehension problems that
night.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article ,
>b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> Technically ZA free leaks like a sieve.
>
>Please provide a reputable, recognized group that shows your position -
>link would be nice.

the OP asked for an opinion....not a proof

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

On 4 Dec 2006 23:29:47 -0800, "Eric" wrote:

>After all that..could we have a top 5 best free personal firewalls?
>
>


1: IPTables.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

I would agree that our reviews are currently more inclined to our
personal experience. In fact, it's sharing to our friends and peer
groups more than anything else. But we try to be focus on quality vs
quantity.

Chris
--
We review the best freeware (SM)
http://goodfreeware.blogspot.com/

On Dec 3, 10:35 pm, B. Nice wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2006 06:00:21 -0800, good.freeware.c...@xoxy.net wrote:
>
> >I would not go thus far as to say the death of personal firewall. The
> >best one in our opinion is still ZoneAlarm Free.
>
> >This was the review we've done earlier:
> >http://goodfreeware.blogspot.com/2006/08/welcome-and-best-a ntivirus-f...
>
> >ChrisIf ZA is the topic, you must be referring to this:http://goodfreeware.blogspot.com/2006/08/best-personal- firewall.html
>
> However, I find nothing on that page except personal preference.
>
> Technically ZA free leaks like a sieve.
>
> /B. Nice
>
> --
> Comments I make or advice I may provide is primarily aimed at home users.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:29:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article ,
>nono@hotmail.com says...
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> >b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> >> Technically ZA free leaks like a sieve.
>> >
>> >Please provide a reputable, recognized group that shows your position -
>> >link would be nice.
>>
>> the OP asked for an opinion....not a proof
>
>If you don't have a factual basis for your "opinion" then what do you
>have?

what about beliefs, preferences, impressions ?
to call "reputation", "recognition", "link", factual sounds quite
pompous.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Osiris wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:29:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>> nono@hotmail.com says...
>>> the OP asked for an opinion....not a proof
>>
>> If you don't have a factual basis for your "opinion" then what do you
>> have?
>
> what about beliefs, preferences, impressions ?

That has no place in a security group unless it's based on fact.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:33:30 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article ,
>nono@hotmail.com says...
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:29:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> >nono@hotmail.com says...
>> >> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:38:18 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article ,
>> >> >b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> >> >> Technically ZA free leaks like a sieve.
>> >> >
>> >> >Please provide a reputable, recognized group that shows your position -
>> >> >link would be nice.
>> >>
>> >> the OP asked for an opinion....not a proof
>> >
>> >If you don't have a factual basis for your "opinion" then what do you
>> >have?
>>
>> what about beliefs, preferences, impressions ?
>> to call "reputation", "recognition", "link", factual sounds quite
>> pompous.
>
>How about it being Pompous of you to assume that an Opinion carries any
>truth unless backed by some facts that can be validated - and the
>results from a "reputable" group gives reason to believe what they state
>as fact is fact.
>

1: what exactly is truth ? Something that everybody holds to be the
case ? Or most people ? or just you ? But then, each of these 3 groups
can be wrong...
2: "reason to believe"... exactly: thus the "fact" is reduced to a
belief.
3: Opinions cannot be founded by only facts. If they were, the
opinions would be knowledge.
4; truth is a shaky concept. One can know things that are not true.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

On 7 Dec 2006 15:24:42 GMT, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
wrote:

>Osiris wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:29:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>>> nono@hotmail.com says...
>>>> the OP asked for an opinion....not a proof
>>>
>>> If you don't have a factual basis for your "opinion" then what do you
>>> have?
>>
>> what about beliefs, preferences, impressions ?
>
>That has no place in a security group unless it's based on fact.

try to define fact and you will see that that is flawed.
security is just as much based on opinion, even feelings, as it is on
situations that are by many (relevant) people believed to be the case.
Logical positivism is dead.
and hyperrationality is dangerous as well as stupid.

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Osiris wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2006 15:24:42 GMT, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
>> Osiris wrote:
>>> what about beliefs, preferences, impressions ?
>>
>> That has no place in a security group unless it's based on fact.
>
> try to define fact

An observation that is reproducible.

> and you will see that that is flawed.

Yeah? How?

> security is just as much based on opinion,

Yes, but opinion that should be grounded in fact. As I said before.

> even feelings,

No.

> as it is on situations that are by many (relevant) people believed to
> be the case.

Who believes this?

> Logical positivism is dead.
> and hyperrationality is dangerous as well as stupid.

M-hm. Of course you are not going to support this opinion with any kind
of argument, because that would be stupid as well, and your opinion
should be reason enough for everyone, right?

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

Osiris wrote:
> >After all that..could we have a top 5 best free personal firewalls?
> 1: IPTables.

2: Netfilter

SCNR,
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper

Re: Most sophisticated free firewall?

OK, how about the real IP/subnetmask/port firewall built into your
DSL/CableModem?
It's free, it operates at layer 3, and it is working outside your PC's
messy world, inline
before the Ethernet frames even reach your PC. Also most of the ones I
have seen
(cisco/linksys) are capable of doing some filtering for the OSI layers
4-7 (anti-virus/
spyware) again *before* the encapslated data even reaches the insecure
world of
your PC. These kind of devices also can do NAT to hide the IP address
of your internal
private network.

Now, to add something to this tread, what about low cost devices that
could look for
IP spoofing, man in the middle attacks, port scanning, layer 4 attacks
(such as TCP
sequence number attacks), etc. See www.caymas.com. Has anyone done
research
on low cost (< $1k, for example) devices for upper layer protection
*before* the data
even reaches the insecure world of Windows)?

I'm aware of what's available in UNIX/LINUX, but thinking about low
cost devices.

It may be that the best low cost solution is a dual homed computer
running snort,
iptables, imap, Nessus... but wondering if any devices are being
shipped that do
all this in firmware?

Cheers, ~DRH~