Can anyone recommend a good firewall?

[emuleman]

Hello,
Just got NOD32 and I love it! I have read that it is best used with a firewall to completely safeguard your computer system, correct? Could anyone recommend a decent firewall? I heard the windows firewall that comes with XP has its limitations, and that is doesn't provide enough protection, is this true? Just looking for something I can install to give me a little bit more peace of mind knowing my computer is protected. I have seen a few free firewalls as well as some that need to be purchased. Do you really get more protection from the ones you purchase, or are some of the free ones ok? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, Thanks!!

[Long View]

Are you using a hardware firewall ? if not then I would get one in preference to any software available.

[WSFuser]

The Windows Firewall would be provide inbound protection but if you want outbound protection too then you could take a look at Comodo Firewall.

[HiTech_boy]

Make sure Windows Firewall is set to ON + Don't allow exceptions , then you can test it here:

Stealth test:
http://www.pcflank.com/scanner1s.htm

Advanced port scanner:
http://www.pcflank.com/scanner1.htm

I like Windows Firewall because of the fact it is simple and effective - keeping intruders out . You can also try ZoneAlarm or Outpost , or the new Eset Smart Security (still in BETA , all-in-one suite with AV,AS and firewall protection in it)

Read this post about firewalls
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=24415

[Thanasis159]

Comodo hands down!!! Great firewall!!!

[Long View]

Not sure everyone would agree with you about comodo

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=177062

[Thanasis159]

From my experience it is great. It gives great outbound protection, it is relatively light on resources and it is free... I don't think that any other firewall can top that. And i mean in all three ways. I think that the only firewall ( i am always talking from my experience in order to avoid misunderstanings) that is quite as good or even better is Outpost Firewall Pro but it is quite pricey. I saw the post you are talking about and things like 1 and 2 have never happened to me. No CPU utilisation ( i monitor dll injections) and I 've never had any web browsing speed slowdown. The loggings are not perfect I agree as for the uninstaller... I don't think I'll ever need it. In my opinion it is a great catch for 0 euros.

[ankupan]

Hi,

give a try to Online Armor.

Good firewall with HIPS and easy to manage :)

[Megachip]

Free Firewalls:
Comodo (V3 seems to be nice, but alpha state) and Sunbelt (former kerio)

Paidware:
Outpost

[Joliet Jake]

Comodo and a version 3 is in the pipeline soon.

[Thanasis159]

With many improvements including HIPS!

[Sxperm]

I have experienced with 2 firewalls - ZA Pro and Comodo. I am the one who switched from ZA pro to test Comodo and found many conflicts while I was using.

- I cannot use webcam viewing via MSN or webcam would be terminated.
- I cannot use bittorrent like Bitcomet

Both of them I set to highest trust level but it still have a problem so I had decided to come back to ZA pro. I think Comodo is best firewall for protect outbound and free but it need to improve about software compatibility.

[twl845]

{QUOTE-> I have experienced with 2 firewalls - ZA Pro and Comodo. I am the one who switched from ZA pro to test Comodo and found many conflicts while I was using.

- I cannot use webcam viewing via MSN or webcam would be terminated.
- I cannot use bittorrent like Bitcomet

Both of them I set to highest trust level but it still have a problem so I had decided to come back to ZA pro. I think Comodo is best firewall for protect outbound and free but it need to improve about software compatibility. <-QUOTE}
One big difference between ZA and CFP is that eventually ZA will screw up your computer, usually when you do an update. Comodo is reliable.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
I must interject and say that I have never experienced any problem / conflict with ZoneAlarm firewalls - they are simple, reliable and quite effective. A very decent choice for anyone.
Mrk

[twl845]

{QUOTE-> Hello,
I must interject and say that I have never experienced any problem / conflict with ZoneAlarm firewalls - they are simple, reliable and quite effective. A very decent choice for anyone.
Mrk <-QUOTE}
Hi Mrkvonic, I remember when the ZA fw was simple and reliable. As of the last few years the Zone Labs boys have added a little too much bloat for me. I had half of ZASS disabled just before I made my last update to 6.5 as I recall. I bought version 5.5 originally after using the basic fw for a few years, and updated successfully each time until I pushed my luck once too often and got a really screwed up version along with alot of other folks. Just check the ZA forum and you'll see quite a few people at their wits end. Check it a week after any update, and people are really upset. Some folks are still using versions in the 4.0 series because they're too afraid to update. I just won't put myself through that misery just to keep the product. I did the complicated clean uninstall (while smoking a half pack of cigerettes LOL) and switched to Comodo. Immediately my computer had new life. it responded more crisper, booted up faster, and shut down faster. However, if you don't have any problems with ZA, I'm glad. :)

[Carver]

I started using the Firewall ZoneAlarm Free on my very first computer, after a few years I went to ZAP 3 it was Great. I stoped using ZAP at 5.72 because it keept blocking stuff that had clear access and it was bloated too. I have been using outpost Pro for about 3 years now. It too is getting to be a resource hog. About the up coming Comodo firewall v3.0 I am definitely going to try the beta.

[the Tester]

Comodo is my recommendation.

[Bio-Hazard]

Hello!

I would definately give Online-Armor a try. It is very easy to use and set up. It also has HIPS which gives you extra protection. I also have used Comodo Pro and i didnt have any problems with it. Like others have said they are brinning out new version (it is still in alpha stage) which also going to have HIPS in it.

[fce]

i already used Jetico and KIS firewall....but i feel more safer to Comodo Ver.3

you gotta try it to believe it...and test your firewall to be sure.

I try Hightecboy link and the result for comodo is all Stealthed.

[Woody777]

I have had few problems with the current version of ZA --- It really doesn't screw up your computer. Comodo has its own problems. I personally think that Comodo has just as much potential to cause damage as ZA. It is your choice but if you have the memory available (I don't) I could be happy with ZA. Comodo has one of the worst log files I have ever seen. Making up firewall rules isn't that easy either. ZA allows for easy networking & has a decent form of HIPS. There are Many firewalls but I think the best one is the one that works for you if your happy with it use it. ZA is very safe . Comodo 2.4.7 really now has no support at all. Comodo is busy with the next version & understandably is preoccupied with version 3. I just recently decided to try Private Firewall I am very happy with it. It just works & has great hips.

[LoneWolf]

{QUOTE-> Hello,
Just got NOD32 and I love it! I have read that it is best used with a firewall to completely safeguard your computer system, correct? Could anyone recommend a decent firewall? I heard the windows firewall that comes with XP has its limitations, and that is doesn't provide enough protection, is this true? Just looking for something I can install to give me a little bit more peace of mind knowing my computer is protected. I have seen a few free firewalls as well as some that need to be purchased. Do you really get more protection from the ones you purchase, or are some of the free ones ok? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, Thanks!! <-QUOTE}


Have tried many,the only one I can really recomend is Look N Stop (http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm)
30 day trial if your interested.
Don't forget Anti spyware and possiably a HIPS for added protection.
Because just a firewall and AV will not compleatly safeguard your computer system.

[luciddream]

If you're not too worried about outbound protection and/or have other means to filter it without having to use a bulky, resource consuming 3'rd party firewall... then just use Windows Firewall. It blocks intrusions just fine and it's extremely light & simple.

I've found Comodo Pro 2.4 to be a very good firewall to my experiences. The only problem I've run into is that it deletes logs at reboot, but that really isn't a big deal to me. If you want both inbound & outbound protection, and don't want to pay for it, it's the best choice out there IMO.

Somebody recommended getting a hardware firewall, this is excellent advice. This measure is far more important than deciding on software. You'll get conflicting opinions on software because if differs with each individuals setup, but you'll find it's unanimous that people recommend a hardware based solution to intrusions. A NAT router w/ SPI firewall is the way to go.

When Comodo 3 is perfected I'm going to give it a good hard look. If it's what I expect it to be it will take the place of my Windows Firewall/Prevx combo. Keep your eye on this.

As for Zone Alarm, I think they had a good product all the way up to 6.5. I used ZASS 6.5 and was happy with it. The AV engine wasn't that good but I never got infected anyway, I loved the firewall. Ever since this Checkpoint company took over they completely ruined what was a decent product IMO. Zonelabs did a much better job.

[Doc Serenity]

I used Comodo for awhile but had too many problems.
And it's a bit difficult to remove.
Online Armor is keeping me happy. And has great support too.
Good luck.
Doc

[Thiggy]

Online Armor is my choice. OA isn't free, but you can trial it and decide for youself. Once you set it up, you'll hardly notice it's running. It's also light on system resources. Currently only for XP, but the team is looking to bring a Vista version to market. You'll find OA at www.tallemu.com.

A new build is in the works and should be out soon; Mike says in the Tall Emu General Help forum maybe next week. It has quite a few new features and improvements.

Best...

[Rilla927]

{QUOTE-> Hello,
Just got NOD32 and I love it! I have read that it is best used with a firewall to completely safeguard your computer system, correct? Could anyone recommend a decent firewall? I heard the windows firewall that comes with XP has its limitations, and that is doesn't provide enough protection, is this true? Just looking for something I can install to give me a little bit more peace of mind knowing my computer is protected. I have seen a few free firewalls as well as some that need to be purchased. Do you really get more protection from the ones you purchase, or are some of the free ones ok? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, Thanks!! <-QUOTE}

If you truly want a no muss, no fuss, easiest FW to use that gives you inbound/ outbound protection Online Armor is it.

Believe me, you will get peace of mind with OA FW and it uses very little resources which is a big plus.

[swami]

Look'n'Stop! If you already have Nod32, then just take MVPS hosts file and Opera or Firefox for a browser. That's all you ever need.

[ajcstr]

How about Sygate - that is still floating around an I always liked it. Any problem with still using it on an XP machine?

[YeOldeStonecat]

http://www.untangle.com/

[Nebulus]

My vote goes to Sygate as well. It doesn't use too many resources and it provides great protection. And personal edition is free :)

[Mrkvonic]

I third Sygate - the best thing to hit Windows... in the firewall dept...
Mrk

[Multi Talented]

{QUOTE-> One big difference between ZA and CFP is that eventually ZA will screw up your computer, usually when you do an update. Comodo is reliable. <-QUOTE}

Sorry, but i totally disagree with you on that one. How can ZA screw up your computer? Perhaps not uninstalling the previous version properly and then installing the newer version of ZA when the older version was NOT properly removed in the first place, in reference to old registry keys/files, etc. Then YES, you will have problems, but if it was done properly in the first place, there should be NO problems.

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> Sorry, but i totally disagree with you on that one. How can ZA screw up your computer? Perhaps not uninstalling the previous version properly and then installing the newer version of ZA when the older version was NOT properly removed in the first place, in reference to old registry keys/files, etc. Then YES, you will have problems, but if it was done properly in the first place, there should be NO problems. <-QUOTE}


ZA can screw up any computer. Have a look at the survey ZA Forum is running to gather up all their issues, there are 100's if not more posts on ZA issues there and here.;D

You are dead right about not properly uninstalling their product, but why would the poor user be subjected by CP to such complex steps to delete? They assume programmer level skills exist in their user base!:(

[mercurie]

{QUOTE-> ZA can screw up any computer. Have a look at the survey ZA Forum is running to gather up all their issues, there are 100's if not more posts on ZA issues there and here.;D

You are dead right about not properly uninstalling their product, but why would the poor user be subjected by CP to such complex steps to delete? They assume programmer level skills exist in their user base!:( <-QUOTE}Escalader beat me on posting. ;) Make no mistake about it ZA is to hard to uninstall completely. My problems have been rare but I have followed well documented step by step proceedures. In comparison to most other firewalls I think it is to much of a risk of going wrong in the unistall.

I have also at times in the long past had true vector break and show no protection X in the icon tray. :o

[twl845]

I think that if anyone wants to install ZA, they should install FDISR first and make a secondary snapshot labeled "ZA eraser". Then they can install ZA worry free and upgrade without fear. Then when the inevitable bad upgrade affects them, all they have to do is boot to the secondary snapshot and copy the secondary to the primary snapshot and poof it's like ZA never was there.;D

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> I think that if anyone wants to install ZA, they should install FDISR first and make a secondary snapshot labeled "ZA eraser". Then they can install ZA worry free and upgrade without fear. Then when the inevitable bad upgrade affects them, all they have to do is boot to the secondary snapshot and copy the secondary to the primary snapshot and poof it's like ZA never was there.;D <-QUOTE}

Hi twl845:

Until the call home is independently proven to be gone and we can deal with the ZA application itself in control monitor and stability is proven, IT will NEVER be on my PC.

So I don't need to worry about bad upgrades. A vendor with bad upgrades? Why use their products at all? There are alternative FW's that don't have these "features". This forum is loaded with information on other FW's.

[JerryM]

I have been pleased with both LooknStop, and Kerio 2.1 5. I never had a problem with either, and they were not overly intrusive.
Currently I am using KIS 7 on both of my computers so do not have another firewall.

If I were to go back to KAV or any stand alone AV I would first trial Online Armor. If I did not like it I would go back to LnS or Kerio. Kerio is free, and LnS is a one time cost.

Regards,
Jerry

[twl845]

{QUOTE-> Hi twl845:

Until the call home is independently proven to be gone and we can deal with the ZA application itself in control monitor and stability is proven, IT will NEVER be on my PC.

So I don't need to worry about bad upgrades. A vendor with bad upgrades? Why use their products at all? There are alternative FW's that don't have these "features". This forum is loaded with information on other FW's. <-QUOTE}
Hi Escalader, I think you know I will never use ZA again. My post was tongue in cheek for those who will need to deal with the clean uninstall. How are you liking CFP? I think it's great and I am patiently waiting for Ver.3. :)

[dave88]

{QUOTE-> I third Sygate - the best thing to hit Windows... in the firewall dept...
Mrk <-QUOTE}

I fourth Sygate - IMO simply the best if you have massive connections due to filesharing, and the price is right. As for the outbound leaktests, you can always use other programs for hips, it is only recently that these functions are being built into firewalls.

Get Sygate:
http://www.savefile.com/projects/1045215
Archived by red_jack former moderator of sygate forums

Your best bet is probably 5.5.2710 if you want xp security center to recognize it use 5.6.3408.Debug This was the final build made public. On the Sygate forums it was recommended over 5.6.2808 and 5.6.2818

[wat0114]

To say the least, there is no shortage of these "What is the best firewall?" threads. Take a look at: this (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=179845&highlight=recommend+firewall),

this (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=180178&highlight=recommend+firewall), this (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=175822&highlight=recommend+firewall), this (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=173071&highlight=recommend+firewall), or this (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=159763&highlight=recommend+firewall).

I am only scraping the tip of the iceberg ::)

[Multi Talented]

{QUOTE-> ZA can screw up any computer. Have a look at the survey ZA Forum is running to gather up all their issues, there are 100's if not more posts on ZA issues there and here.;D

You are dead right about not properly uninstalling their product, but why would the poor user be subjected by CP to such complex steps to delete? They assume programmer level skills exist in their user base!:( <-QUOTE}

It's very obvious you don't understand how to follow easy instructions how to uninstall Zone Alarm, because in your words, "CP to such complex steps to delete"

Here are the steps to uninstall Zone Alarm.

I suggest a 'clean' uninstall of your Zone Alarm firewall followed by a fresh install. Here's how you do a clean uninstall. Go into the start menu locate the zonelabs entry and right click on the uninstaller and select properties. Now in the target box you must add a space and then /clean to the end so that it looks something like this "C:\Program Files\Zone Labs\ZoneAlarm\zauninst.exe" /clean click apply and then OK. Next open ZA and turn off the load on boot option, then reboot and then run the uninstaller.This should get rid of all of ZoneAlarm. Now go to your windows temp folder and delete everything. Find the folder named Internet logs and delete it then empty your recycle bin. For Windows XP: clean your C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder. Clean the history in Internet Explorer or your current browser, clean the cookies. Then empty your recycle bin. ZoneAlarm should be gone. Now download and install a fresh copy of Zone Alarm.

What is so hard about these instructions?

[oldshep]

{QUOTE-> ... Then empty your recycle bin. ZoneAlarm should be gone. Now download and install a fresh copy of Zone Alarm.

What is so hard about these instructions? <-QUOTE}

Although I believe this uninstall procedure is usually ok for a ZA re-install, you will likely find additional hidden files and folders, and registry entries remain after performing it.

The procedure I have been forced to use in the past includes searching through hidden files and folders along with some registry edits to remove remaining entries. These additional steps can be daunting to computer novices. For complete details see:

http://forums.zonealarm.com/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=AllowAccess&message.id=103

Your mileage may vary of course.

[spydikers]

I just paid for Online Armor after running the trial for the past 27+ days.
I also renewed my NOD32 with the Blackspear settings. Everything is running very fast and smooth as silk.

This is an excellent forum with many great members. In just a few short weeks of "lurking" I have learned a lot and have a lot more to learn.

My vote for a firewall companion to NOD32 would be Online Armor....
Give the free trial a spin a decide for yourself....

[Badcompany]

I have just changed from Comodo FW to OA Personal firewall with hips,its running very lite on my system and with my AV DR.Web.Very easy to install and configure.Any pop-up you receive is in plain English, very easy to make a decision. Allow or Block.Super program.
Badcompany. :thumb:

Ps. Excellent Support.

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> It's very obvious you don't understand how to follow easy instructions how to uninstall Zone Alarm, because in your words, "CP to such complex steps to delete"

Here are the steps to uninstall Zone Alarm.

I suggest a 'clean' uninstall of your Zone Alarm firewall followed by a fresh install. Here's how you do a clean uninstall. Go into the start menu locate the zonelabs entry and right click on the uninstaller and select properties. Now in the target box you must add a space and then /clean to the end so that it looks something like this "C:\Program Files\Zone Labs\ZoneAlarm\zauninst.exe" /clean click apply and then OK. Next open ZA and turn off the load on boot option, then reboot and then run the uninstaller.This should get rid of all of ZoneAlarm. Now go to your windows temp folder and delete everything. Find the folder named Internet logs and delete it then empty your recycle bin. For Windows XP: clean your C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder. Clean the history in Internet Explorer or your current browser, clean the cookies. Then empty your recycle bin. ZoneAlarm should be gone. Now download and install a fresh copy of Zone Alarm.

What is so hard about these instructions? <-QUOTE}


One click is all any user should be asked to do.
The steps you listed make the point for me. TY

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> Although I believe this uninstall procedure is usually ok for a ZA re-install, you will likely find additional hidden files and folders, and registry entries remain after performing it.

The procedure I have been forced to use in the past includes searching through hidden files and folders along with some registry edits to remove remaining entries. These additional steps can be daunting to computer novices. For complete details see:

http://forums.zonealarm.com/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=AllowAccess&message.id=103

Your mileage may vary of course. <-QUOTE}

Thanks shep, the matter is closed, it should be easy for all, one click no registry entry work! Take it easy.

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> Hi Escalader, I think you know I will never use ZA again. My post was tongue in cheek for those who will need to deal with the clean uninstall. How are you liking CFP? I think it's great and I am patiently waiting for Ver.3. :) <-QUOTE}

Yes, I knew8) Just rode in on your post!

[angus49]

IMHO, OA2+AV is the greatest. The firewall in advanced mode is very customizable, yet still very efficient in default mode. The AV is compatable to run alongside NOD32 and adds another layer of protection. I uninstalled ZA Internet Security Suite after using it for years. As with ANY layered software approach, your surfing habits will greatly dictate how safe you are. Virtual machines or sandboxes can also help.

[mercurie]

Multi Talented,
Those would be the step by step instructions for getting rid of ZA.

As to your comment about the complexity of those instructions....:-[ you are joking right....:(

What software maker would put a user through all of that version after version after version without an improvment (I do assume it is still that way as I have not used ZA for years and gave my key and download to vintage last 4.5 Pro version away to a family member after getting it up and running for her. She needed something simple effective and free and makes no changes as long as everything runs smooth. And even then would call me.)

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> Hi Escalader, I think you know I will never use ZA again. My post was tongue in cheek for those who will need to deal with the clean uninstall. How are you liking CFP? I think it's great and I am patiently waiting for Ver.3. :) <-QUOTE}


Hi again twl845:

Sorry, I missed your question on how I like cfp!

Take a look at my last few posts in the CFW 2.4 learning thread when you have time.

But my answer is I liked it, with a big BUT I removed it since it kept scrambling my rules and I wasn't interested in scripts for backing up and then restoring getting a scramble and then backing the scramble up etc etc.

I probably mess more with rules than other posters and if I didn't care about rules and controlling outbound packets to bad sites so much I would just have left it there and waited for V3 like you.

I will revisit when V3 is released to the masses.8)

[Xenophobe]

I'd have to recommend Outpost.
Though it costs, I'm sure you'll be satisfied with your purchase.

From my experience... it has a Clean interface, it's "light-weight", and it's user-friendly. As well it passes all leak-tests as far as I know.

I've been using it for 4 weeks so far (I was testing between firewalls for quite a while, back then.) and haven't looked back to any other.

I was a Comodo user before, and I'm still interested in seeing the final v3 however. 8)

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> Multi Talented,
Those would be the step by step instructions for getting rid of ZA.

As to your comment about the complexity of those instructions....:-[ you are joking right....:(

What software maker would put a user through all of that version after version after version without an improvment (I do assume it is still that way as I have not used ZA for years and gave my key and download to vintage last 4.5 Pro version away to a family member after getting it up and running for her. She needed something simple effective and free and makes no changes as long as everything runs smooth. And even then would call me.) <-QUOTE}

In another thread, the Comodo uninstall process also did not work cleanly. so is there a real difference between the two?

{QUOTE-> 4. Comodo's uninstaller is crappy
Although I have not got rid of Comodo yet. I am increasingly concerned with the official uninstaller. The official forum reports that users are having hell of difficult time to decipher which registry keys to get rid of in order to complete remove Comodo. BTW if anyone has the complete list of registry search keywords to use while running Regedit.exe, please advise by all means. I'd much appreciate it! <-QUOTE}

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> In another thread, the Comodo uninstall process also did not work cleanly. so is there a real difference between the two? <-QUOTE}

Well, when I uninstalled CFW there was no trouble. It Left only one empty folder. I ran CCleaner and Registry Mechanic and the registry is clean.

The poster you quoted hasn't actually done it, just reading posts elsewhere.

I've done the work and can confirm CFW 2.4 is easy to uninstall.

[mercurie]

I had no trouble uninstalling CFW. I do not use it currently so I am unsure and don't remember much except the mentioned CCleaner and my registry cleaner finished off any left overs. I think I had to manually delete a "dead file".

ZA on the other hand leftovers have a history of causing problems. If you don't follow those steps you are going to have problems more then likely so don't skip one or.... you could be sorry. :blink:

[twl845]

{QUOTE->

ZA on the other hand leftovers have a history of causing problems. If you don't follow those steps you are going to have problems more then likely so don't skip one or.... your could be sorry. :blink: <-QUOTE}
Amen to that. I was a nervous wreck by the time I finished the special clean uninstall instructions. ;D

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> I'd have to recommend Outpost.
Though it costs, I'm sure you'll be satisfied with your purchase.

From my experience... it has a Clean interface, it's "light-weight", and it's user-friendly. As well it passes all leak-tests as far as I know.

I've been using it for 4 weeks so far (I was testing between firewalls for quite a while, back then.) and haven't looked back to any other.

I was a Comodo user before, and I'm still interested in seeing the final v3 however. 8) <-QUOTE}

Hi Xene:

Your setup interests me!

Which of your SW tools are real time or active all the time and which do you use as only on demand.

Do you use SS (what version?) in real time with NOD32?

See you!

[ccsito]

{QUOTE->
Your best bet is probably 5.5.2710 if you want xp security center to recognize it use 5.6.3408.Debug This was the final build made public. On the Sygate forums it was recommended over 5.6.2808 and 5.6.2818 <-QUOTE}

Was the 5.6.3408 version offered for the free and/or Pro version or both?

[Kerodo]

I believe 3408 was produced for both free and pro versions...

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> I believe 3408 was produced for both free and pro versions... <-QUOTE}

Thanks for the reply.

[dave88]

{QUOTE-> I believe 3408 was produced for both free and pro versions... <-QUOTE}

yes indeed, they are both available at the link I provided above

[YeOldeStonecat]

{QUOTE-> ZA can screw up any computer. Have a look at the survey ZA Forum is running to gather up all their issues, there are 100's if not more posts on ZA issues there and here.;D <-QUOTE}

I agree. From the job....I've seen sooo many computers with screwed up TCP stacks and issues stemming solely from ZA installs. There is more damage and remnants left behind even after following ZA's removal steps...requiring a lot of extra work by the tech attempting to fix the damage.

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> yes indeed, they are both available at the link I provided above <-QUOTE}

Thanks for the link. I am going to try it out on a PC that is currently only using the XP firewall and see how it works. Is there any uninstall issues? Can I easily jump between versions if one should not work properly?

[dave88]

I'm sure you'll like it, it's an great firewall with excellent logging features.

Like with many firewalls there are some issues, I think mainly related to going back to a earlier version than the one installed. If you have any problems here is a complete uninstall procedure.

http://www.hackfix.org/software/uninstall/sygate.html

[alant]

I used ZA a long time ago, but seem to recall it being bloated. Panda slowed me down to a crawl. I was using Commodo Firewall Pro for a while and really liked it, but when I wiped my hard disk and tried to re-install it, it said it couldn't because it is already there. I may have brought some files back with me when I move back some application data that I moved back from another drive. I'm not sure. I removed all references I could find,but still couldn't re-install. Their support gave me instructions to edit the registry, but I'm affraid of that. I currently have F-Secure Security Shield 2007. Since, installing, I have read that this is a "not so good" product and may have it's own spyware or something. Anyway, I was thinking of giving PC-CILLIN Internet Security 2007 a try. Has anyone tried that firewall?

[Long View]

Alant - have you tried a hardware firewall and limited user account ? A lot less trouble.

[alant]

The only hardware firewall I ever used was with XP. I use a password protected administrator account. I understand that the windows firewall doesn't provide outbound protection. What are any other kinds of hardware firewalls?
thanks

[Long View]

I'm sure that any inexpensive firewall/modem/router would be fine.
I have only ever had one - NetgearDG834 - there is probably a cheaper and more up to date version available - much better than the cheap modems that ISPs tend to give away "free"

Using this I don't run any software firewall, nor online anti-virus, nor on line anti-spyware, no Hips, no nothing.

Firefox helps. running as a limited user rather than administrator I am told would stop lots of bad things running. I use Returnil to freeze C: so anything that did get on would be gone at reboot.

In summary I guess I'm just questioning whether a software firewall is really needed by most users ?

Having seen one client run Kerio with allow all and another deny herself access to the Internet I have my doubts.

[alant]

Has anyone else ever used hardware firewalls? What are your thoughts? What are some other names of hardware firewalls? Do they update the same way software firewalls do?

[Long View]

I did a firmware upgrade 3 or 4 years ago and that was the last time I made any change. It just sits there 24/7 doing what it is supposed to do - no further action required on my part.

[TVH]

This is my current setup.

Antivirus: Nod32 (real-time protection), Kaspersky (weekly scans)
Firewall: Router (hardware) and Outpost Firewall Pro (software)
Antispyware: Spybot S&D, Spyware Blaster

I reckon that this combined provides the best security possible. What does everyone else think?

[Bilou]

Been running Comodo (the old version. on server 2003 (used as a souped up XP workstation). It runs fine with no slowdown even when I (experimentally) installed it on an old 1 GHz Celeron with Windows 2000.

Also run Emule and Utorrent with high ID and no port problems.

It has two "drawbacks" which are in fact features, but are poorly explained even by the enthusiastic support crowd.
1.Learning how to set up the rules is unnecessarily difficult. The real answers are simple. I'll write a new FAQ one day I swear!

2.It flags every incidence of one application launching another as a new potential rule and then tags the launched application as a potential risk. (for example if your email client launches your browser, then anything the browser launches will be queried . There are better ways to do that but most firewalls ignore it or silently put rules in palace that you never see and can't change.

The Strongest competition I found for Comodo (and I'm picky) was Outpost. But the support during the trial period was minimal and I experienced BSODS too often for me to tolerate.

I also tried the latest Zone Alarm, but it was a bloated dog. You needed one PC to run ZA and one to run the rest of your apps.

Black Ice got thrown out for no outbound protection.

I like applications which are light on the CPU, don't BSOD, that I can control. Comodo is my vote.

I aslo use their Boclean and AVG. No conflicts at all ;D

My biggest security complaint at the moment is still svchost. Not a firewall problem, and MS problem - anything can hide in there! .

[alant]

I used Comodo for a while and was happy with it. A couple of weeks ago, I re-formatted my hard drive completely. When I was done, I moved alot of stuff back to my hard drive (maybe too much). When I went to re-install Comodo, it said it already exists. It is not located in any program files or application files that I can find anywhere. Comodo tech support told me what registry files needed to be removed. Still couldn't re-install. Finally, I gave up and am using 3 months of free updates to Trend Micro's PC-cillin Internet Security 2007. I tried a couple leak tests last night and it seemed to catch stuff. Can leak tests really be trusted? Could there be any malware on these kinds of sites? What does anyone think of this security suite?
Thanks

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Use your built in Windows firewall. I use the firewall in XP Pro. I have used computers since 1969, have owned computer companies, and I have never had a virus or a hacker get inside my system.

I have argued previously in this forum that outgoing "protection" is fallacious and the fear of not having same is a chimera. Look, once they are in, it is 99% likely they can disable your firewall and get data out. I know some will contend that it adds another layer of protection, but any alleged protection is marginal at best. Windows firewall works great and is light along with Eset or Avira as your best choice for an AV. You don't need anything else.

[Big Apple]

{QUOTE-> Use your built in Windows firewall. I use the firewall in XP Pro. I have used computers since 1969, have owned computer companies, and I have never had a virus or a hacker get inside my system.

I have argued previously in this forum that outgoing "protection" is fallacious and the fear of not having same is a chimera. Look, once they are in, it is 99% likely they can disable your firewall and get data out. I know some will contend that it adds another layer of protection, but any alleged protection is marginal at best. Windows firewall works great and is light along with Eset or Avira as your best choice for an AV. You don't need anything else. <-QUOTE}

Thanks for your clear vision and I'll second that! ;)

[Get]

{QUOTE-> outgoing "protection" is fallacious <-QUOTE}

But the "control" is handy to minimize the outbound adventures of your software and that together with the maybe marginal protection makes it added value.

[toasale]

To "Bunkhouse Bunk" >>>>

To state you've never had a threat makes me wonder:

1) Do you ever turn your unit on?

or

2) Do you expect me to believe you, if so might I share some of your wine?

>:( ??? :P

[Seer]

@ Bunkhouse Buck as well... ;D

{QUOTE-> Look, once they are in, it is 99% likely they can disable your firewall and get data out. <-QUOTE}

This is very good reasoning, but you also have to consider this:
It is not just the matter of malicious programs calling out. It is also about the control of your "trusted" benign applications, updates for security software (AV, AS), email, browsing... Anything that wants to go out of your system could be controlled and fine tuned with a good outbound protection. Actually, the better term would be "outbound control".
I agree with you on Windows firewall for inbound protection, but application control have it's place. It should not be disregarded.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

toasale, why not believe the man?

bunk, I, too, believe is mainly for controlling your "trusted" apps, not malware. I agree that once you get hit by the cacky, it's game over. However, regarding benign apps, I do not want certain games to connect or certain beta apps, or I wish to monitor network traffic etc.

Mrk

[Long View]

{QUOTE-> To "Bunkhouse Bunk" >>>>

To state you've never had a threat makes me wonder:

<-QUOTE}

The claim was "I have never had a virus or a hacker get inside my system"
Not exactly unreasonable. A claim many could make I would have thought.
Although I can go back as far as 1968 ( Olivetti 101) I have only been on line since 1996 and have yet to see a live virus or suffer from any malware. Like most I went thru a phase of loading up with every new anti, anti but all I got was a collection of false positives.

Do I ever turn my unit on ? Currently have 7 units - 3 or more on at any time for 15 hours a day.

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> Look, once they are in, it is 99% likely they can disable your firewall and get data out. <-QUOTE}

Maybe in an XP admin account.

But running as a limited user would prevent malware (such as Rustock.B and Srizbi) from modifying network drivers (tcpip.sys, ndis.sys, etc.) to get around outbound firewalls, as no software, including malware, has the access needed to modify these system files from within a limited account.

Password protecting the firewall should prevent any changes to it (by malware) from within a limited user account.

[dave88]

IMO, In this day and age, outbound protection is a must as well as some form of execution control. I guess it depends on what you use your pc for, what you have on it, and your browsing, downloading habits.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

Amazing the responses. Precisely what I expected. The hacks and shills for firewall software companies likely disagreed with my comments, while the people with no conflict of interest thought the Windows XP firewall was sufficient as I argued.

As to my surfing habits, I am on the internet 16 hours a day, am a high risk user both with my computer and dozens of others in my office. I (we) have never had a virus or a hacker since the dawn of man (1967).

If you want to monitor what is going out fine, but that is a different argument than what I contended-and that was to keep the bad guys out, the XP firewall was sufficient.

If they get in, Comodo or any top rated leak test software program is not going to stop them. The trick is not letting them in your system in the first place.

Btw, I use NOD32, WinPatrol Plus, and Windows XP firewall and run as administrator.

If you are having continual problems with hackers and viruses, you might want to take a long hard look in the mirror.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> If you want to monitor what is going out fine, but that is a different argument than what I contended-and that was to keep the bad guys out, the XP firewall was sufficient. <-QUOTE}At least for my own usage, that's the only function I use a firewall for - controlling outbound communications of completely valid programs.
{QUOTE-> If you are having continual problems with hackers and viruses, you might want to take a long hard look in the mirror. <-QUOTE}Exactly, although one should also verify that these "hacking" event are, in fact, real and not an artifact of either program conflict or misinterpreted information.

Given what one could implement using intrinsic OS functionality and completely free options, I'd have to agree. While the one-off wake-up call infection is conceivably understandable, once that message has been given, the steps to a reasonable level of protection are quite minor and don't involve a complex assembly of measures. Configurations such as a general antimalware application/suite, a backup measure if desired, Windows firewall and/or SOHO router are quite sufficient. Can one weave a scenario in which this won't work? Sure. Of course, you can also do that for any other configuration one way wish to propose. It's only a question of how elaborate that scenario becomes and the point at which one transitions from the sublime to the ridiculous. At least from my personal experience, that transition to the ridiculous occurs quite early - which is why the simple measures mentioned by Bunkhouse Buck work perfectly fine for most of the inhabitants of this planet.

Blue

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

A common misconception that many people develop is this:

1. They download a file.
2. They execute a file.
3. It turns out to eat their firewall and more along the way.
4. They complain about being "hacked."

When in fact, they brought the doom upon themselves.

Mrk

[19monty64]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

A common misconception that many people develop is this:

1. They download a file.
2. They execute a file.
3. It turns out to eat their firewall and more along the way.
4. They complain about being "hacked."

When in fact, they brought the doom upon themselves.

Mrk <-QUOTE}
Through trial and lots of error, I have discovered 4 trojans in my system in the past. All came from downloaded files. I need s/w to protect Windows from me lol.

[rhuds13]

So if I just use Avast Home and SUPERAntiSpyware Pro with XP fw and make sure to scan all downloads before opening I should be safe? Or should I still use a software firewall to be extra sure? I have been thinking about this very thing for a while.

[QuestionX]

I've always had good luck with software..been using Zone alarm for years..it protects incoming, outgoing, email, files,etc... it grabs a virus on the web before it can do any damage.. i goto to thoes places where the bad stuff is just to test and it does a great job...even email I suspect I open anyway and Zone Alarm is there to stop the virus ( mostly trojans)..but you also have to use your own head...practice makes better ( not perfect)..

[19monty64]

{QUOTE-> So if I just use Avast Home and SUPERAntiSpyware Pro with XP fw and make sure to scan all downloads before opening I should be safe? <-QUOTE}
This, a safe browser and a router and you should be good-to-go

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> If they get in, Comodo or any top rated leak test software program is not going to stop them. <-QUOTE}
Do you a mean an outbound firewall won't stop malware from causing havoc on your system, or an outbound firewall won't stop malware from sending out information?

Also, some specifics would be helpful to verify what you're claiming.

[dave88]

{QUOTE->
If you want to monitor what is going out fine, but that is a different argument than what I contended-and that was to keep the bad guys out, the XP firewall was sufficient. <-QUOTE}

Of course XP firewall is sufficient to stop direct attacks (it has been tested pretty extensively), but it does not stop the most prolific problems that plague users today, namely "drive by" infections using an insecure browser, and running infected downloads.

Just because you have not got an infection since way way back in 1967 :) does not really mean that much. Except that maybe you know what you are doing, many people don't, and or engage in very high risk browsing, and downloading.

[wat0114]

{QUOTE->
If they get in, Comodo or any top rated leak test software program is not going to stop them. <-QUOTE}

I would like to see evidence of this. Sometime when I'm bored I'm going to seek out some of that firewall-crippling malware and try it out on my test machine.

[InMyOpinion]

{QUOTE-> Hello,
Just got NOD32 and I love it! I have read that it is best used with a firewall to completely safeguard your computer system, correct? Could anyone recommend a decent firewall? I heard the windows firewall that comes with XP has its limitations, and that is doesn't provide enough protection, is this true? Just looking for something I can install to give me a little bit more peace of mind knowing my computer is protected. I have seen a few free firewalls as well as some that need to be purchased. Do you really get more protection from the ones you purchase, or are some of the free ones ok? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, Thanks!! <-QUOTE}

emuleman,

Since 2005, I have used TINY Firewall with NOD32 and both compliment each other extremely well. Now, I have added Dynamic Security Agent and I am very pleased with the results.

I hope this helps.

[Mrkvonic]

{QUOTE-> Do you a mean an outbound firewall won't stop malware from causing havoc on your system, or an outbound firewall won't stop malware from sending out information?

Also, some specifics would be helpful to verify what you're claiming. <-QUOTE}

Hello,

I can add my 5 zloti to the story.

In Windows, as admin, you have 100% control of kernel when installing a program. Therefore, the program can do ANYTHING. Given the sufficient skill of the programmer, a malicious piece of code can disable anything already working in that same Windows, if it grabs a more comfortable piece of kernel and owns it.

Therefore, once you get infected, your firewall or any other software MIGHT stop malware, but it also might not.

The whole idea is not to get infected, not to mitigate infections.

Mrk

[wat0114]

{QUOTE->

The whole idea is not to get infected, not to mitigate infections.

Mrk <-QUOTE}

I'm a huge proponent of outbound controling firewalls, but that is well said :thumb:

[Long View]

I have 2 concerns about outbound controlling firewalls:

(1) If nothing bad gets in then from a security point of view do they serve any real purpose ?
(2) what do many users do when kerio or whatever pops up with a question ?
most of the time the desire to continue doing what they were doing means the user will click yes to the "allow mayhem and pillage ? Question.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

1. Nothing bad gets in - that's the purpose of the firewall. Outbound - to control programs you trust, been said before
(see above).

2. When a question pops up, you take your time to read and understand. BTW, once configured, firewall alerts are rare - when you install new software, once you update existing software, here and there a few alerts on the incoming, all in all no more than 4-5 events a week.

Mrk

[wat0114]

{QUOTE->
(1) If nothing bad gets in then from a security point of view do they serve any real purpose ?
<-QUOTE}

Two reasons I like outbound control:

1. Keeping an eye on M$ processes as well as, possibly, a few others.

2. IF for some reason my machine gets whacked by malware, it can feel free to blow away my harddrive. I have backups. But I just want a fighting chance to keep my personal data in rather then couriered out by a bot to some remote scumbag. If my firewall can survive the onslaught, then I have a fighting chance.

Obviously Mrk's point of keeping the bugs out is still by far the most important of all, but we're only human so there is some room for screwing up.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
No problem is screwing up - although there's no reason why is should happen in the PC world. And if you do screw up, have a nice restore formula ready - imaging, backup etc - and undo the damage quickly and painlessly. if anything, computers are time-independent. Time has no meaning. It's one of the few privileges in life, where you can actually undo your mistakes.
Mrk

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> In Windows, as admin, you have 100% control of kernel when installing a program. Therefore, the program can do ANYTHING. Given the sufficient skill of the programmer, a malicious piece of code can disable anything already working in that same Windows, if it grabs a more comfortable piece of kernel and owns it.

Therefore, once you get infected, your firewall or any other software MIGHT stop malware, but it also might not. <-QUOTE}
Wouldn't running as a limited user prevent this from happening?

{QUOTE-> But I just want a fighting chance to keep my personal data in rather then couriered out.... If my firewall can survive the onslaught, then I have a fighting chance. <-QUOTE}
Having a "plan B" (just in case) makes sense. How could it not?

[wat0114]

{QUOTE-> Wouldn't running as a limited user prevent this from happening? <-QUOTE}

Can you install your program under a limited account? Probably not. Either it's installed under an administative account or in the case of XP under limited using the "Run as" option, so if your new "software" turns out to be infected, it's game over.

BTW, does anyone know if installing with "Run as" under a limited account affords the same kernel level priviliges as installing under the administrative account?

[Mr. Malware]

{QUOTE->

If they get in, Comodo or any top rated leak test software program is not going to stop them. The trick is not letting them in your system in the first place.
<-QUOTE}

Comodo is NOT a top ranked leak test software program, they just want you to think that!!!

"The only firewall that doesn't leak" Yeah right!!!

Go to firewall leaktester.com and see how many leaks it has.
And the comodo knows about it.

http://www.firewallleaktester.com/

Comodo needs to start practising truth in advertising.

How cares if its free I will never use it.

[Pedro]

{QUOTE-> Comodo is NOT a top ranked leak test software program, they just want you to think that!!!

"The only firewall that doesn't leak" Yeah right!!!

Go to firewall leaktester.com and see how many leaks it has.
And the comodo knows about it.

http://www.firewallleaktester.com/

Comodo needs to start practising truth in advertising.

How cares if its free I will never use it. <-QUOTE}
The version tested there is 1.1.005.... Last final version was 2.4...

[19monty64]

I do not use Comodo's firewall currently, but they have been quick to "patch" any leaks. Version 3 should be interesting when it comes out of beta. CPF has been the 2nd easiest to config for home-networks too, for me anyway...

[Mr. Malware]

{QUOTE-> The version tested there is 1.1.005.... Last final version was 2.4... <-QUOTE}

Doesn't matter what version they tested. If you run all those tests with version 2.4 of Comodo it leaks.

{QUOTE-> I do not use Comodo's firewall currently, but they have been quick to "patch" any leaks. Version 3 should be interesting when it comes out of beta. CPF has been the 2nd easiest to config for home-networks too, for me anyway... <-QUOTE}

If you can get it to remember your configuration (rules).

[Pedro]

{QUOTE-> Doesn't matter what version they tested.
<-QUOTE}
That pretty much ends the discussion...
{QUOTE-> If you run all those tests with version 2.4 of Comodo it leaks. <-QUOTE}
Matousec (http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php)
I'm not sure where i stand with leaktests these days, but i prefer this source.

[Mr. Malware]

{QUOTE-> That pretty much ends the discussion...

Matousec (http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php)
I'm not sure where i stand with leaktests these days, but i prefer this source. <-QUOTE}

I tested Comodo version 2.4 myself and it leaks other people also agree.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=176513&page=2 Starting at post 27

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> Can you install your program under a limited account? Probably not. Either it's installed under an administative account or in the case of XP under limited using the "Run as" option, so if your new "software" turns out to be infected, it's game over. <-QUOTE}

So no security software will protect you from yourself if you insist on downloading malware infected programs and installing them. In that case, why should anyone use security software at all?

[19monty64]

{QUOTE->
If you can get it to remember your configuration (rules). <-QUOTE}
That's why I'm waiting for version 3, and not using 2.?

[Tunerz]

{QUOTE-> I tested Comodo version 2.4 myself and it leaks other people also agree. <-QUOTE}

From Matousec
{QUOTE-> Whilst Comodo is the best on its highest security settings <-QUOTE}

Read again:wacko:

Cranking up the settings as if it's the first time it met an application might do the trick

[Mrkvonic]

{QUOTE-> So no security software will protect you from yourself if you insist on downloading malware infected programs and installing them. In that case, why should anyone use security software at all? <-QUOTE}

Hello,
That's a very good question, mate!
You're on the roll!
Mrk

[Mr. Malware]

{QUOTE-> Whilst Comodo is the best on its highest security settings <-QUOTE}

I did test it on highest security setting and it still leaks. Go figure!!!!!

[Pedro]

Well, your results are different from Matousec. And we can read those.

I've also noticed that you only post concerning Comodo, and always against them.
I mean, not one post on any other subject. Sorry, i'm not getting good vibes here.

[wat0114]

{QUOTE-> So no security software will protect you from yourself if you insist on downloading malware infected programs and installing them. In that case, why should anyone use security software at all? <-QUOTE}

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who insists on downloading malware and installing it, except those who deliberately do so for experimental and and testing purposes.

Though I have no evidence to back up my theory, I believe those who unknowingly download malware and install it on a routine basis are mostly those who are looking for a something for nothing; cracked software, keygens, movies, pictures and songs, obtained mostly from filesharing sources, as well as those who love to view p0rn. They are actually in far greater need of security software, especially security software that can virtually make the decisions for them, than those of us who surf legitimate sites, download from legitimate sources and expend a great deal of time and energy learning about safe computing strategies.

To answer your question: anyone surfing the 'net using a Windoze O/S, or even a Mac or Linux, should use security software or at the very least a hardware firewall. What, exactly, to use and how much depends on the individual; the more knowledge and common sense you have, the less you probably need.

[Mr. Malware]

{QUOTE-> Well, your results are different from Matousec. And we can read those.

I've also noticed that you only post concerning Comodo, and always against them.
I mean, not one post on any other subject. Sorry, i'm not getting good vibes here. <-QUOTE}

Believe what you want. I am the the grim reaper of the comodo firewall. After testing it and see how fataly flawed and buggy it is, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

{QUOTE-> To answer your question: anyone surfing the 'net using a Windoze O/S, or even a Mac or Linux, should use security software or at the very least a hardware firewall. <-QUOTE}

That's why I moved to Linux I don't have to babysit a bunch of security software, all I have is a software firewall, there is no need for a AV with Linux.

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who insists on downloading malware and installing it, except those who deliberately do so for experimental and and testing purposes. <-QUOTE}
I didn't make myself clear, that was my fault. I should have used different language, as I meant that those who unknowingly download malware from the sources you mention (and others) are in a way 'insisting' on doing what they know can easily infect them.

I was reacting to the comments some folks have made here about the futility of people using security software that their habits (as you point out) make self-defeating - as opposed to the belief that the more dangerous you surf, the more security you need.

In other words, what's the point of using any security software if it will probably be broken anyway by that person's own actions? And in reverse, why use any security software, if your 'good' habits will keep you from needing it in the first place?

Why use any security software at all? (Is it that simple, or?)

Probably OT, sorry.

[wat0114]

{QUOTE-> I didn't make myself clear, that was my fault. I should have used different language, as I meant that those who unknowingly download malware from the sources you mention (and others) are in a way 'insisting' on doing what they know can easily infect them. <-QUOTE}

No, I kind of knew what you meant. I was just being a PITA ;)

{QUOTE-> In other words, what's the point of using any security software if it will probably be broken anyway by that person's own actions? And in reverse, why use any security software, if your 'good' habits will keep you from needing it in the first place?

Why use any security software at all? (Is it that simple, or?) <-QUOTE}

There you go, we don't know for, do we? It could probably be broken by careless actions, but maybe not. Or, good habits may prevent malware infections, but maybe not. No one knows for sure.

Investing in security software no matter the level of one's prudence is advised. No matter how careful you are, you don't want to be connecting to the internet without any kind of security software or hardware.

There is no point, however, in discussing what to use or how much, as this would only open up a huge debate that could go on forever.

[twl845]

{QUOTE-> No, I kind of knew what you meant. I was just being a PITA ;)



There you go, we don't know for, do we? It could probably be broken by careless actions, but maybe not. Or, good habits may prevent malware infections, but maybe not. No one knows for sure.

Investing in security software no matter the level of one's prudence is advised. No matter how careful you are, you don't want to be connecting to the internet without any kind of security software or hardware.

There is no point, however, in discussing what to use or how much, as this would only open up a huge debate that could go on forever. <-QUOTE}
Right. We all have auto insurance, but we don't think we'll have an accident if we drive safely.:)

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> No matter how careful you are, you don't want to be connecting to the internet without any kind of security software or hardware. <-QUOTE}

It seems the one thing that almost everyone agrees upon is the recommendation for some kind of incoming router/firewall protection at minimum.

{QUOTE-> There is no point, however, in discussing what to use or how much, as this would only open up a huge debate that could go on forever. <-QUOTE}

Doesn't this define what Wilders is? ;)

[Pedro]

{QUOTE-> Right. We all have auto insurance, but we don't think we'll have an accident if we drive safely.:) <-QUOTE}
I could go of topic and express my feeling on insurances ::)
It's almost like that, but you're not forced to use security software, yet!

[wat0114]

{QUOTE->
Doesn't this define what Wilders is? ;) <-QUOTE}

Sure, but the topic has been discussed repeatedly in this forum. It would be like beating a dead horse to discuss it any further.