PC Tools Firewall 6 beats Comodo at Matousec

[aegreen]

See latest results here: www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php

[Wildest]

-{ Quote: "See latest results here: www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php" }-
O ho!
First it was OA Free, then Outpost Free... now PC Tools??!

Poor CIS, no longer the poster boy for free security... :'(

[zopzop]

Hmm interesting.

I wonder why he didn't test the latest version of Online Armor (v3.5.0.32). I think I recall reading somewhere on these forums that the free version now included full keylogger protection (same as paid). It should get around 99% too if I'm not mistaken.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "O ho!
First it was OA Free, then Outpost Free... now PC Tools??!

Poor CIS, no longer the poster boy for free security... :'(" }-

LOL.

This test is always good for that at least. :blink:

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "O ho!
First it was OA Free, then Outpost Free... now PC Tools??!

Poor CIS, no longer the poster boy for free security... :'(" }-

To me CIS is a feature rich application and CIS provides me two features that I considered the heart of my computer security. 1) The ability to run my browsers isolated and 2) The ability to directly protect processes of security software like Avira on a Windows 64 bit computer.

Most people are not aware that Avira free does not provide any self protection on Windows 64 bit computers. Consequently, you can protect Avira processes or any other security software processes for that matter without getting any D+ prompt.

With D+ you could, for example, prevent svchost from executing non Windows executables without any prompt and the list goes on. I'm very happy with CIS and I will not trade it for anything.

From another perspective have you realised that PCTools firewall is stronger that Symantec own firewall and this is also true for the person who created this thread, have you realized that also. Symantec owns PCTools why is that? :argh:.

[aigle]

Because I assume that symantec one is user friendly and that from PC Tools is not.

[Wildest]

-{ Quote: "From another perspective have you realised that PCTools firewall is stronger that Symantec own firewall and this is also true for the person who created this thread, have you realized that also. Symantec owns PCTools why is that? :argh:." }-
Frankly, I don't care who owns PCTools.
Competition may not be kind to commercial interests, but it is the end-user's best friend.

Symantec became too comfortable, and then there was Kaspersky... and Symantec was forced to respond with NIS 2009.
CIS forced an Online Armor Free, and then came Outpost Free...
Now there is PCTools; what does it matter who is behind it?

Nothing hurts a coder more than hearing that his/her code sucks.

If there is enough noise, no matter how irrational, Comodo will be forced to respond, in turn forcing other commercial concerns to respond, and the cycle repeats itself.

In conclusion, the greatest beneficiary of competition is the end-user.

W.

[firzen771]

wow PC Tools, for such an easy to use, low alert FW, im amazed it did so good, good job guys at PC Tools :thumb:

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "Because I assume that symantec one is user friendly and that from PC Tools is not." }-

To me the bottom line is the engine. Some are mocking CIS because PCTools placed higher on the latest matousec test. While most did not even care to state that PCtools also beat Symantec, a company that Symantec owns. ;D :argh:

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "Frankly, I don't care who owns PCTools.
Competition may not be kind to commercial interests, but it is the end-user's best friend.

Symantec became too comfortable, and then there was Kaspersky... and Symantec was forced to respond with NIS 2009.
CIS forced an Online Armor Free, and then came Outpost Free...
Now there is PCTools; what does it matter who is behind it?

Nothing hurts a coder more than hearing that his/her code sucks.

If there is enough noise, no matter how irrational, Comodo will be forced to respond, in turn forcing other commercial concerns to respond, and the cycle repeats itself.

In conclusion, the greatest beneficiary of competition is the end-user.

W." }-

You are too subjective. You were mocking a product against the other. A better response would have been to encourage a company to improve its product. In the end we are all against malware. Mocking a product is quite childish, with all due respect.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "To me the bottom line is the engine. Some are mocking CIS because PCTools placed higher on the latest matousec test. While most did not even care to state that PCtools also beat Symantec, a company that Symantec owns. ;D :argh:" }-

they may own it, but i believe they kept the same setup over at pc tools and is just the parent company, but didnt really change the devs. so i guess with the diff devs at pc tools is why.

[Wildest]

-{ Quote: "You are too subjective. You were mocking a product against the other. A better response would have been to encourage a company to improve its product. In the end we are all against malware. Mocking a product is quite childish, with all due respect." }-
I am sorry, but your characterization of my post as being "childish", is itself subjective commentary.

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "they may own it, but i believe they kept the same setup over at pc tools and is just the parent company, but didnt really change the devs. so i guess with the diff devs at pc tools is why." }-

My point was not to figure out where PCTool fits within Symantec corporate structure. My point was about objectivity. If one is mocking CIS because PCTools placed higher than it. Well then the same mockery should be applied to Symantec as well, if not even more; since PCtools left Symantec in the dust ;D . Please be objective people. :).

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "I am sorry, but your characterization of my post as being "childish", is itself subjective commentary." }-

Thanks for your understanding. :)

[tipstir]

Who's doing these testing. Is this person here or what? PC Tools has always been my favorite but 4,& 5 versions were awful on the system and applications would crashed or just plain and simple won't run or launch! So I would have to test out 6 and see if that bug is still around still? With 3.14 it was robust with code injection. Digital Signatures feature was a disaster for me.

CIS firewall is better than RIS (firewall) but not with it's HIPS nor AV. CIS defense plus has been giving me issues so I disabled it and use of all programs Spyware Terminator has HIPs seems to do the same thing that CIS did but, in a better way. Anyway that's my two cents if version 6 doesn't hang applications then cool!

[clocks]

Comodo still kills this FW in terms of memory usage. PCT-FW is using about 23meg on my machine. Comodo, with AV & HIPs only uses about 7-8 meg.

[SammyJack]

I do not understand how saying PC Tools beat Comodo in Matousec tests,
is some how "mocking" Comodo.

Comodo and Online Armour are normally in the top two positions.

Several jockey for place three.

When PC Tools moved into second place,who would you say it beat?

To fail to note PC Tools also beat the Symantec Firewall, is no more relevant than to say it beat FortKnox Personal Firewall.
Neither of these two are normally in the top three.

[clocks]

-{ Quote: "I do not understand how saying PC Tools beat Comodo in Matousec tests,
is some how "mocking" Comodo.

Comodo and Online Armour are normally in the top two positions.
" }-

I agree. Give Comodo and OA time, and there next versions will be back on top.

[dallas7]

-{ Quote: "I wonder why he didn't test the latest version of Online Armor (v3.5.0.32)." }-
I wonder the same about Outpost Free and Pro at 6.7.2957.446.0711 and 6.5.1.22725.381.0687 respectively, Avira 9.0.0.408 among others - too many others. As a result, all the Look Who's On Top! chatter amounts to merely one big ~Snip~ contest. ::)

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "Wow, where did PC Tools come from? I'm going to test it in my VM right now. It's got a classical HIPS? To get 99%, it must have some sort of HIPS.

EDIT: nope, no HIPS. See you later!" }-

Won't bail out CIS Firewall, but Spyware Terminator HIPs seems better then CIS Defense. Still RIS has better HIPs firewall is weaker than CIS. I think to much stuff running it too much of a good thing.

[pegr]

-{ Quote: "To get 99%, it must have some sort of HIPS." }-
You are correct. The HIPS component in PC Tools is called ESV (Enhanced Security Verification).

Comparing Comodo and PC Tools firewalls (not an A vs B post or anything like that, just some observations from my own experience of using both firewalls at different times), the first thing I want to say is that both are fine firewalls. On systems for which both are compatible, the choice between them is largely a question of how each performs, and user preference in terms of features and usability.

Now on to my own experiences: -

I found Comodo v3 to be very buggy when it was first released and it drove me nuts with alerts, so I switched to PC Tools v4. (Before that I was using Comodo v2 but didn't want to revert to an end-of-life application.) I have been using PC Tools right up to v5, with ESV enabled, and have found it to be very stable on my system, with an acceptable (to me that is) level of alerts.

I have tried PC Tools v6 but it seems very buggy and doesn't work properly on my 32-bit XP Pro system. Of course, it's not uncommon for there to be teething problems with new software versions and I expect that PC Tools will do some bug fixing in due course.

Instead of reverting back to PC Tools v5, I was curious to see how Comodo has progressed since I last tried it, so I installed just the firewall (not the antivirus). I am very pleased to say that Comodo is now running very smoothly on my system. The number of alerts has reduced substantially, even though I am using the Proactive Security profile with the Firewall and Defense+ both enabled in Safe mode.

Some direct comparisons: -

1. Both programs are FREE! (Amazing really given the amount of development effort that must have gone into producing two programs of such high quality - as reflected by their scores at Matousec.)

2. PC Tools is still a little quieter than Comodo with the HIPS component in each firewall enabled.

3. Comodo's Defense+ is more configurable than PC Tools' ESV and allows for a finer level of granular control. For anybody wanting a full-featured classical HIPS, Defense+ is a good choice.

4. Comodo with Defense+ enabled has a higher learning curve than PC Tools with ESV enabled. IMHO, Defense+ is not beyond the capability of anybody who is prepared to take the time to read the help file to understand it and learn how to use it effectively, but not everybody wants to have to do this. For experienced users who prefer a fit-and-forget solution and for novice users, PC Tools may be more suitable (unless Defense+ is disabled of course but then the outbound protective capability of the Comodo firewall will be somewhat weakened).

5. Comodo uses less memory than PC Tools. The total memory usage of PC Tools v6 on my system was up a little (around 4Mb) from v5. On my system, both PC Tools v6 and Comodo use the same amount of memory as user "clocks" has reported.

6. ESV, the HIPS component in PC Tools, has been reported as troublesome on some systems. I have never experienced this personally, but it's something to be aware of. Of course, the instability problems that some people have experienced in v5 with ESV enabled may now be fixed in the latest version. Only time will tell.

7. Both programs seem equally light in terms of firewall performance (at least on my system) in the sense that I haven't noticed any slowdown when using the Internet.

[SammyJack]

Pegr:

Thank you,that was a most beneficial post.
I know more about PC Tools Firewall now.

[blacknight]

Folks, we all know well that no one single software can warrant the security. I like CIS but OA too, and OSSS beta, but I go on using a multi layer security system, not one-program based.:)

[Manide]

-{ Quote: "Hmm interesting.

I wonder why he didn't test the latest version of Online Armor (v3.5.0.32).[...]" }-

Go here (http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/), scroll down and read Methodology and rules#Product's selection and vendors rights

-{ Quote: "Every vendor has a right for its product to be tested in Proactive Security Challenge for free two times in a six months period...

" }-

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "I do not understand how saying PC Tools beat Comodo in Matousec tests,
is some how "mocking" Comodo.

Comodo and Online Armour are normally in the top two positions.

Several jockey for place three.

When PC Tools moved into second place,who would you say it beat?

To fail to note PC Tools also beat the Symantec Firewall, is no more relevant than to say it beat FortKnox Personal Firewall.
Neither of these two are normally in the top three." }-

Well then PCTools beat a lot of security software and yet only Comodo got mentioned why is that? PCTools beats also Symantec. Why is it that I could not find a thread that said: HEY PCTOOLS BEATS SYMANTEC THE COMPANY WHICH OWNS THEM, ISN'T THAT BITING THE HANDS THAT FEED YOU. :argh: ".

That's where the mocking is. To me this thread was created only with the purpose to bemean Comodo. Like I said before we are all against malware so to single out a company and beat it to death in the end only the malware makers win. Let us all stop and encourage other companies who placed lower to do better by making constructive suggestions with respect to our security needs and consequently be better protected against malware.

[pegr]

-{ Quote: "Thank you,that was a most beneficial post.
I know more about PC Tools Firewall now." }-
Glad you found it useful.

Regards

[simisg]

this title thread must rename to pctools firewall beets all other firewalls
but comodo its famous free security thats why i think the title is like that....
but comodo its a strong complete security for free! the first one so respect this company

[Wildest]

-{ Quote: "Well then PCTools beat a lot of security software and yet only Comodo got mentioned why is that? PCTools beat also Symantec. Why is it that I could not find a thread that said: HEY PCTOOLS BEAT SYMANTEC THE COMPANY WHICH OWNS THEM, ISN'T THAT BITING THE HANDS THAT FEEDS YOU. :argh: ".

That's where the mocking is. To me this thread was created only with the purpose to bemean Comodo. Like I said before we all against malware so to single out a company and beat it to death in the end only the malware makers win. Let us all stop and encourage other companies who placed lower to do better by making constructive suggestions with respect to our security needs and consequently be better protected against malware." }-
I see.

When CIS was on top, Comodo went to great lengths to promote this fact, and it was ok to shower Comodo with praise and adulation and demonise the commercial software vendor because "their only priority is profit".

Now that they are clearly slipping further and further down the ladder, we should "encourage other companies who placed lower to do better by making constructive suggestions with respect to our security needs and consequently be better protected against malware."

Nice.

[CogitoTesting]

-{ Quote: "I see.

When CIS was on top, Comodo went to great lengths to promote this fact, and it was ok to shower Comodo with praise and adulation and demonise the commercial software vendor because "their only priority is profit".

Now that they are clearly slipping further and further down the ladder, we should "encourage other companies who placed lower to do better by making constructive suggestions with respect to our security needs and consequently be better protected against malware."

Nice." }-

Look my goal isn't to bash a product against another one. My goal is to actually fight malware by helping security products improve. Saying Comodo this Comodo that, Eset this Eset that or Avira this or Avira that will not help fighting mawalre a bit. There are people who can only bash and criticize, their goal is to bring down, NOT to construct. When one does put such a fact into perspective it's pretty sad, really.

[clocks]

-{ Quote: "

Now that they are clearly slipping further and further down the ladder,"
" }-

Yeah. 97% is a huge drop. They are really falling to pieces. lol ???

[Wildest]

-{ Quote: "Yeah. 97% is a huge drop. They are really falling to pieces. lol ???" }-
A ha.
So "slipping further and further" is equivalent to "huge drop"... ::)

Got it. ;)

[Keyboard_Commando]

Title of this post is provocative. Don't get tricked into the troll. hah.

Although the OP didn't add LOL at the end of the title, you can hear it!

[SammyJack]

I cant read the OP's mind,and have no idea what his intension was.

I cant seem to find the older tests,but i am pretty sure the last one was
1.Online Armour.
2.Comodo
3.PC Tools.

PC Tools and Comodo simply switched places.
First place did not change.
Maybe the right way to title the thread would be "Online Armor Retains First
Place"
Perhaps even better would be : "Latest Matousec Test Results Are Out."
In any event,they all beat my horse,Kerio 2.1.5.

I always thought the majority of folks put these test into a proper perspective.
If something as inane as thread titles cause cries of "Foul!!",I am not sure.

[Fajo]

Its bad when we have nothing better to then debate a test that comes from somewhere like Matousec.

But meh we are all board I guess. ;)


WTB a test that does not scream GET IT NOW!~. ::) Or god forbid Test an actual firewall ;)

[SammyJack]

-{ Quote: "I
WTB a test that does not scream GET IT NOW!~. ::) Or god forbid Test an actual firewall ;)" }-

Yes,but I like to see how my favorite "firewall", Threatfire,is coming along.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Yes,but I like to see how my favorite "firewall", Threatfire,is coming along." }-

Who knows about the "Firewall" but if you want to know about HIP's then be my guest. :blink:

[cqpreson]

Don't care about that test.It belongs to HIPS instead of Firewall:dry: .

[zip]

I guess I'm the only one that has noticed Matousec only updated PC Tools Firewall in it's ratings.

The newest version of OA is v3.5.0.32.

[simisg]

everything is updated.... and there is no better than 99 % only 100 %
all the recommended suites from matousec are very strong there is no malware bypassed and if exists you must hard work to find it.....

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "everything is updated.... and there is no better than 99 % only 100 %
all the recommended suites from matousec are very strong there is no malware bypassed and if exists you must hard work to find it....." }-

Nope. Some versions of the software are not even close to the release versions available say today. So unless he did this test like 2 months ago then waited push the results.

They are simply not updated. ::)

SHHHHH. You pay extra to have your newest version tested. :dry:

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "Comodo still kills this FW in terms of memory usage. PCT-FW is using about 23meg on my machine. Comodo, with AV & HIPs only uses about 7-8 meg." }-

Memory, is that still an issue? CPU cycle peak time and disk I/O are much more relevant to crispiness of your system.

Still Comodo scores well on total CPU time and disk I/O, allthough on one of our older XP machines it noticeably slows down opening a folder with thumbnails/lots of icons in it.

To compare PCTools FW performance with Comodo, you should go to Comodo'd FW and make sure all protocols are analysed (selecting two options somewhere in FW intrusion tab). PCTools is known to be buggy with P2P, but overall a bit faster than Comodo on pure FW aspect. So I am wondering have any of you running V6 with a P2P program? In V5 you could PCT working with P2P programs like LimeWire when you edditted the rules manually before starting LimeWire for the first time.

[clocks]

-{ Quote: "Memory, is that still an issue? " }-

Yes it is for me. Regardless of how much I have, I dont want it wasted on security apps. I would rather it be free for games, and other applications. Why allow sloppy programming just because my PC has more ram than it did years ago?

[aegreen]

-{ Quote: "Well then PCTools beat a lot of security software and yet only Comodo got mentioned why is that? PCTools beats also Symantec. Why is it that I could not find a thread that said: HEY PCTOOLS BEATS SYMANTEC THE COMPANY WHICH OWNS THEM, ISN'T THAT BITING THE HANDS THAT FEED YOU. :argh: ".

That's where the mocking is. To me this thread was created only with the purpose to bemean Comodo. Like I said before we are all against malware so to single out a company and beat it to death in the end only the malware makers win. Let us all stop and encourage other companies who placed lower to do better by making constructive suggestions with respect to our security needs and consequently be better protected against malware." }-

I'm not trying to bash Comodo far from it. I just thought it was interesting how far PC Tools has come and Comodo tends to be used as a bench mark alongside Online Armor perhaps.

Comodo has it's strengths but also its weakness like many other programs. Classical hips is too technical for the average user and they get highly confused by popups.I know because I installed one on my mothers machine but it didn't last long ;) I'm currently using Geswall free and like it's quietness combined with power so I'm not a PC Tools evangelist.

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "Yes it is for me. Regardless of how much I have, I dont want it wasted on security apps. I would rather it be free for games, and other applications. Why allow sloppy programming just because my PC has more ram than it did years ago?" }-

Simple with more RAM you do not need to program (modules) in overlays which enhances transparency, reduces the need of the programmer for smart logic (always understood by the guy who wrote it, but a pain in the ass for others to adapt or maintain), simple sequence, iteration and choice case, should be the only logic forms used. In general using only a subset of a program language command set, tends to enhance quality.

Making a program work (assuming you use C++ or C #) with less memory, increases memory paging/swopping and disk access and complexibility.

Also because the CPU is only faced with a limited set of commands and all the code is in memory, makes it easier for the command pipe line interpretor of a CPU to predict program branches, ergo enhancing the effectiveness of the CPU cache memory (1st, 2nd, 3rd level caches), so the effective CPU performance is also likely to be higher (than with overlays).

So the increased availability of RAM has led to (in general)
a) better quality
b) higher maintainability
c) less paging / less memory swapping
d) less physical disk I/O (programmers option to use memory tables in stead of stored data tables, plus direct effect of less virtual memory swapping)
e) higher effectiveness (executing commands per time unit) of your CPU predictve command queiing/pipe line and effectiveness of 1st, 2nd, 3rd level cache (when the correct/predicted commands are in the cache to execute, no need to take a break and fetch the correct program commands from RAM memory)

When this does not convince you, I rest my Kees ;D

Cheers

Kees (is pronounced as CASE in Dutch, not KEYS like all my UK collegues allways made of it)

[tipstir]

Are we all ready for software hardware that can use logic to determine what to allow and what to block, thus no need for pop-ups that prompt you to allow or block.

No need to for user knowledge to say should I or would I anymore.

Being a programmer myself and a few other talents I can say whatever you code and direct will do what you program it to do. But can it think on it's own? That's where a lot of these software firewall go south.

PC Tools is a complex firewall and Comodo IS is really something else but it can go north and mess-up the system. Well this laptop was going in that direction. I can't see myself going back to PC Tools firewall.

[acr1965]

So is this PC Tools firewall with Threatfire also installed or no?

[deanmartin]

-{ Quote: "So is this PC Tools firewall with Threatfire also installed or no?" }-
No Threatfire, but it does have the google toolbar option offer.

[dave88]

-{ Quote: "No Threatfire, but it does have the google toolbar option offer." }-

Are you sure? I don't believe my install of v6 had options for either Threatfire, or Google toolbar.

[cqpreson]

-{ Quote: "Are we all ready for software hardware that can use logic to determine what to allow and what to block, thus no need for pop-ups that prompt you to allow or block.

No need to for user knowledge to say should I or would I anymore.

Being a programmer myself and a few other talents I can say whatever you code and direct will do what you program it to do. But can it think on it's own? That's where a lot of these software firewall go south.

PC Tools is a complex firewall and Comodo IS is really something else but it can go north and mess-up the system. Well this laptop was going in that direction. I can't see myself going back to PC Tools firewall." }-

Thinking on its own.It is so difficult to firewall.So many softwares released everyday,they are different and unexpectable.

Pctools with its default rule is so strong.If configuring rules,it is just a little bit difficult.But in general,we needn't modify the default rule.

[deanmartin]

-{ Quote: "Are you sure? I don't believe my install of v6 had options for either Threatfire, or Google toolbar." }-
I think it was PCTools firewall 6 that had the google toolbar option install /dont install, But it may have been my Auslogics defrag update. Cant remember only had PCTools firewall for a two day test ride.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "Thinking on its own.It is so difficult to firewall.So many softwares released everyday,they are different and unexpectable.

Pctools with its default rule is so strong.If configuring rules,it is just a little bit difficult.But in general,we needn't modify the default rule." }-

I do agree pc TOOLS firewall plus rules are strong.

[Joliet Jake]

I think people should head over to the Other Anti Virus Software section and read the thread started by Blue Zannetti -
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=253123
Take your time and take it all in, then come back and think about Matousec's results. Should we put too much importance in a single test or is it more important to view a Firewalls performances over months and years?

Surely the firewall, any firewall, that stays in the top over a long period is a safe bet. One that pop's into the top of the rankings overnight shows they have gone all out to pass the tests but the important question is, can they maintain this?
Any firewall that has demonstrated over months and years that it can stay in the top tier shows they have the coders, skill, will and experience that should make users feel secure in the long term.

Personally I'm not the type of person that jumps on the latest bandwagon, if something serves me well I stick by it so Matousec and AV Comparatives, while performing an important function, don't influence me or my decision making on a three monthly basis if that makes sense!

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I think people should head over to the Other Anti Virus Software section and read the thread started by Blue Zannetti -
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=253123
Take your time and take it all in, then come back and think about Matousec's results. Should we put too much importance in a single test or is it more important to view a Firewalls performances over months and years?

Surely the firewall, any firewall, that stays in the top over a long period is a safe bet. One that pop's into the top of the rankings overnight shows they have gone all out to pass the tests but the important question is, can they maintain this?
Any firewall that has demonstrated over months and years that it can stay in the top tier shows they have the coders, skill, will and experience that should make users feel secure in the long term.

Personally I'm not the type of person that jumps on the latest bandwagon, if something serves me well I stick by it so Matousec and AV Comparatives, while performing an important function, don't influence me or my decision making on a three monthly basis if that makes sense!" }-


This can be flawed also. It also depends on the test and how the test works. Like this one, It does not even test "Firewalls" it test hips.

Blues post is a great post but mainly Apply's to those tests and how detection works. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges here.

[tipstir]

Without these software's someone could take over your system. Thus the need for such software. We can go at it all day how to test this one and all the others out there they all do one thing PROTECT! Some protect more than others some don't protect some fail some don't fail. Etc.

Most features are

Stealth Ports
Closed Ports
Open Ports

I/O blocks
I/O allow

HIPS, HTTP (Web Guard) (Cookie Guard) Bad Sites Guard with today's firewalls. Some do so much more..

[HKEY1952]

-{ Quote: "Without these software's someone could take over your system. Thus the need for such software. We can go at it all day how to test this one and all the others out there they all do one thing PROTECT! Some protect more than others some don't protect some fail some don't fail. Etc.

Most features are

Stealth Ports
Closed Ports
Open Ports

I/O blocks
I/O allow

HIPS, HTTP (Web Guard) (Cookie Guard) Bad Sites Guard with today's firewalls. Some do so much more.." }-

An high quality, reliable hardware firewall router is all that is needed, optionally, along with Microsoft Windows Firewall at most.


HKEY1952

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "An high quality, reliable hardware firewall router is all that is needed, optionally, along with Microsoft Windows Firewall at most.


HKEY1952" }-

See I can understand where you're coming from with that answer, but frankly I got to disagree with your statement. With what I've seen online if you go into the deeper end of it then you need some beef-up software firewall. If you're going to play it safe and just visit forums and check your web mail and don't pay your bills online then you could get away with your NAT/SPI WAN ping attacks router firewall and windows embedded firewall. Still the old Sygate Personal Firewall was why most of us regulars on the net started going in that direction.

[HKEY1952]

-{ Quote: "See I can understand where you're coming from with that answer, but frankly I got to disagree with your statement. With what I've seen online if you go into the deeper end of it then you need some beef-up software firewall. If you're going to play it safe and just visit forums and check your web mail and don't pay your bills online then you could get away with your NAT/SPI WAN ping attacks router firewall and windows embedded firewall. Still the old Sygate Personal Firewall was why most of us regulars on the net started going in that direction." }-

Yes, I agree with the latter part of your statement, and perhaps I should have emphasized more.....one would have to navigate very deep into the basement of the Internet before an beefed-up security policy would be required, and I am referring to beyond porno. Also, yes, paying bills online would also require an little more of an beefed-up security policy.


HKEY1952

[dave88]

-{ Quote: "one would have to navigate very deep into the basement of the Internet before an beefed-up security policy would be required, and I am referring to beyond porno." }-

I disagree, you can run into nasties pretty easily these days just straying from the major sites.

What's beyond porno? :) facebook? myspace?

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "Yes, I agree with the latter part of your statement, and perhaps I should have emphasized more.....one would have to navigate very deep into the basement of the Internet before an beefed-up security policy would be required, and I am referring to beyond porno. Also, yes, paying bills online would also require an little more of an beefed-up security policy.


HKEY1952" }-

Funny! I am not talking about the naughty sites when I was talking going deeper into the internet. There are other areas of the net that are dangerous to visit. I am not talking about going there everyday also. I just like to play it safe. Once you get hit or attack it's not a pretty sight too deal with. I am sure you feel your okay with what you got.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "I disagree, you can run into nasties pretty easily these days just straying from the major sites.

What's beyond porno? :) facebook? myspace?" }-


Twitter, Facebook, Myspace those are block by the router or if I use RIS then it can be block by IP on systems directly.

Webguard protection on sites deem bad or unknown are many than 10 years ago. Where this problem wasn't so widespread.

[HKEY1952]

-{ Quote: "I disagree, you can run into nasties pretty easily these days just straying from the major sites.

What's beyond porno? facebook? myspace?" }-

-{ Quote: "Twitter, Facebook, Myspace those are block by the router or if I use RIS then it can be block by IP on systems directly.

Webguard protection on sites deem bad or unknown are many than 10 years ago. Where this problem wasn't so widespread." }-

There is no doubt bad code everywhere on the Internet, and the deeper one navigates into the Internet, the more the odds increase for infection.
Now, what do we refer to as major sites? I would refer to major sites as: Reputable security, software, news, magazine, review, shopping, banking, and hobby sites, to mention an few.
Social Web Sites like: Twitter, FaceBook, and MySpace are also major sites, however, I consider those particular major sites as risky because there is too much interaction between the members and
these major sites are also blocked by my router. Crack sites, some coding sites, some anonymity sites, some dating and porno sites are also major sites, however these particular major sites
practice their activity in an underground like behavior. So straying from major sites is the improper terminology, lets say straying from reputable Worldwide renowned sites can increase the chance of infection.

Now, about getting infected on the Internet as an whole. People all over the World bank and shop online everyday. If the chances of getting infected on the Internet were as contagious as security vendors, marketers,
magazines, and paranoid people magnify it to be, then people simply would not bank and shop online.....well, that is not going to happen, because banks and businesses would loose profit.
All of the Internets infections that are out there in reality are controlled, regulated, and governed by higher authorities and powers. This International dictation filters the Internets infections to only allow
an certain degree of bad code to roam the Internet, this in turn generates revenue. We buy the security software, the security venders pay taxes, the taxes better our World.


HKEY1952

[SammyJack]

The Dang Ole' Illuminati are our friends!!

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "There is no doubt bad code everywhere on the Internet, and the deeper one navigates into the Internet, the more the odds increase for infection.
Now, what do we refer to as major sites? I would refer to major sites as: Reputable security, software, news, magazine, review, shopping, banking, and hobby sites, to mention an few.
Social Web Sites like: Twitter, FaceBook, and MySpace are also major sites, however, I consider those particular major sites as risky because there is too much interaction between the members and
these major sites are also blocked by my router. Crack sites, some coding sites, some anonymity sites, some dating and porno sites are also major sites, however these particular major sites
practice their activity in an underground like behavior. So straying from major sites is the improper terminology, lets say straying from reputable Worldwide renowned sites can increase the chance of infection.

Now, about getting infected on the Internet as an whole. People all over the World bank and shop online everyday. If the chances of getting infected on the Internet were as contagious as security vendors, marketers,
magazines, and paranoid people magnify it to be, then people simply would not bank and shop online.....well, that is not going to happen, because banks and businesses would loose profit.
All of the Internets infections that are out there in reality are controlled, regulated, and governed by higher authorities and powers. This International dictation filters the Internets infections to only allow
an certain degree of bad code to roam the Internet, this in turn generates revenue. We buy the security software, the security venders pay taxes, the taxes better our World.


HKEY1952" }-

Let's put it this way in 1995 there wasn't so much of a threat. You seem to forget all those who break into these online services we all use daily. Still let's say you don't have a router and you don't use a software firewall nor anti-anything what would then happen if you starting surfing the internet. You might feel nothing, but in fact the browser cache is the hole in the middle of this debate. I just say you don't have to go over board to protect the system from threats. The threat can be anything today, not just all these pest. All these re-direct when you click on a link or use one of the many search engines today to find the items you seek.

You need protection for these even though those sites should have extra security.

Online Banking
Paying Bills
Buying items

These don't need so much protection since they just report what's going on.
News
Sports
Mags
New/Used Cars

[0strodamus]

For whatever it's worth, I just installed PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 on my VM and ran Comodo Firewall Test Suite. It only scored 180/340. Not too hot IMHO.

[HKEY1952]

-{ Quote: "Let's put it this way in 1995 there wasn't so much of a threat. You seem to forget all those who break into these online services we all use daily." }-

No, let's put it the way it is, we are are not going back in time, we are going forward in time. From the current year 2009 onward, Internet infections, threats, crime, and
advertising schemes and threats, as we know them today, will start to be phased out of existence and effectiveness within an decade. There will always be active counteracting
Internet activity, it is human nature, however, instead of counteracting Internet activity in effective quantity, there will only exist an few with quality.

The Internet and computer age has taken off the ground now and is airborne, there is no turning back now. Everything we do in everyday life involves computers and Internet activity.
The world's leaders, backed up by and supported by "We the People of Planet Earth" will no longer tolerate the existing architecture of the computing and Internet infrastructure.
Citizens of Planet Earth must feel secure, and in reality, have that security when performing everyday activity on the global transporter we call The Internet.

Google has lifted the fog that was obscuring the horizon to safe and secure computing on the Internet with its introduction of the Google Chrome Operating System.
The Google Chrome Operating System, currently, when released, will only support Netbooks. The only installation on the Netbook will be the Google Chrome Operating System.
The Netbook will boot in seconds, is impervious to infections, and is designed to run Web-based applications very well. The final version is estimated for the second half of 2010.

Also soon to be available on the now visible horizon, is Microsoft Office 2010, an Web-based application. Microsoft Office 2010 will add: Office Web Applications, slimmer versions of
Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and OneNote. Final version estimated for the first half of 2010.

Cloud-based technology and computing is the wave of the future, it promises ease of use, and provides the needed security to be "Safe Online". Cloud Technology is in its infancy, and
will not be safe and secure as needed under the current infrastructure of the Internet and computer architecture. This needed change will evolve to maturity within an decade.
Yes, 1995 was an good Year, but 2095 will be much better.


HKEY1952

[Gullible Jones]

-{ Quote: "For whatever it's worth, I just installed PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 on my VM and ran Comodo Firewall Test Suite. It only scored 180/340. Not too hot IMHO." }-

Hmm I wonder why. ;)

(Yes, maybe I'm paranoid. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if any company optimized a test suite to work well with their product.)

[0strodamus]

-{ Quote: "
(But it wouldn't surprise me at all if any company optimized a test suite to work well with their product.)" }-

That wouldn't surprise me either. You have to display your product in a positive light. However, I don't think this particular test suite is optimized to perform better with Comodo products. You can download all of the tests that are included in the suite individually. They are written by various programmers. All that Comodo did was aggregate the tests into an easy to manage and execute program. The Comodo test suite tested with Malware Defender on my VM yields 320/340 and with Jetico 240/320. MD would get a 330/340, but the test suite detects direct disk read access and MD only alerts on write attempts.

[Joliet Jake]

-{ Quote: "This can be flawed also. It also depends on the test and how the test works. Like this one, It does not even test "Firewalls" it test hips.

Blues post is a great post but mainly Apply's to those tests and how detection works. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges here." }-


It could but then why are people putting any stock into a single Matousec test if we shouldn't put any into looking at the long term statistics of Firewalls in Matousec tests.

Like Blue said, is there really much of a difference between 95% and 99%? Yes there will be a difference between 40% and 99% but at the top it is so close. It's better surely to look at which firewalls maintain themselves right in the top two or three over the course of months and years than to select one test and read too much into it. That's the gist I was getting from his post.

[Carver]

After I installed PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 I checked how much memory PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 was using the reading was quite low. After two hours I started the computer cleanup with Ccleaner, I had files from the comodo firewall un instillation in the recycle bin to erase. I clicked on the recycle Bin and the computer froze, I then tried clicking on the desktop the computer froze. I ended-up going to safe mode to un install PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69.

[cqpreson]

-{ Quote: "After I installed PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 I checked how much memory PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69 was using the reading was quite low. After two hours I started the computer cleanup with Ccleaner, I had files from the comodo firewall un instillation in the recycle bin to erase. I clicked on the recycle Bin and the computer froze, I then tried clicking on the desktop the computer froze. I ended-up going to safe mode to un install PC Tools Firewall Plus v6.0.0.69." }-

Maybe there was some comodo's vestigital in your computer before you installed PCT.So after installed PCT,they were conflict.

[Anonymous696]

-{ Quote: "
I cant seem to find the older tests,but i am pretty sure the last one was
1.Online Armour.
2.Comodo
3.PC Tools.

PC Tools and Comodo simply switched places.
First place did not change.
Maybe the right way to title the thread would be "Online Armor Retains First
Place"
" }-
Just to point out, one shouldn't really be going by the results' order, but rather go by the actual scores.

Matousec's ('Protection level' of "Excellent") ordering seems to be biased; when there's a tie in scores, the paid-for program triumphs. One could speculate that PC Tools came after OA(Online Armor) because of standard alpha ordering. But as you can see from a previous post of mine about a previous test of Matousec's, that isn't the case:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1497342&postcount=71

The title of, "Online Armor Retains First", wouldn't really be correct, as PC Tools (Firewall Plus 6.0.0.69) tied with OA; receiving the same scores of 99%. A better title may be (along the lines of): "PC Tools ties for first".

[SammyJack]

I supose my point in posting was to say I see no problem
with either the way the OP named his thread,(or the way the results were displayed by the testing entity.)

Agree or disagree with the results is a different matter.
If they carried much weight with me, I would use one of
the top rated programs as my Firewall.

[lws]

Would like an answer regarding PC Tools firewall plus and the Gibson research leak test found at http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm PC Tools firewall shows that it fails this test and yet it passes the PC flank leak test and all the Matousec leak tests. All of the noted firewalls such as OSS, OA, Comodo, Private etc. etc. and even Sygate 5.6 passes the Gibson test. I am not here knocking PC Tools firewall plus as I am using it as of now. Maybe one of the testers such as Kees can give me an answer as he gave a good explanation on setting up Threatfire which is part of PC tools and is there is a way of setting up PC tools firewall to pass that pesky leak test.::) Thanks in advance.

[nhamilton]

-{ Quote: "

Would like an answer regarding PC Tools firewall plus and the Gibson research leak test found at http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm PC Tools firewall shows that it fails this test and yet it passes the PC flank leak test and all the Matousec leak tests. All of the noted firewalls such as OSS, OA, Comodo, Private etc. etc. and even Sygate 5.6 passes the Gibson test. I am not here knocking PC Tools firewall plus as I am using it as of now. Maybe one of the testers such as Kees can give me an answer as he gave a good explanation on setting up Threatfire which is part of PC tools and is there is a way of setting up PC tools firewall to pass that pesky leak test.::) Thanks in advance." }-

Because the test is broken, if it receives a response of any kind it reports failure. PCTools blocks it since it is using port 80, a html page is returned explaining that the page has been block. So the test fails.

[Airflow]

They simply add pctools firewall to their old results, lazy guys.

PCTools Firewall wasn´t a top product since yesterday
why they did not find this top of the notch firewall earlier?

[SammyJack]

I just do not understand where all the suspicion and amazement comes from.
Pc Tools firewall has scored high for the last few of these tests.
It has moved up a notch,this time.
That's all.
A few people here on Wilders have been calling PC tools are nice firewall for awhile.

[SPRINTMAN]

Matousec is a con. Do some research.

[SammyJack]

-{ Quote: "Matousec is a con. Do some research." }-

Gotcha. My Google is broken.
School me,please..
Or is the research that led you to that conclusion really, "gut feeling"?

Or is it so complicated and involved it just cant be explained?

[dcrowe0050]

All of these firewalls CIS Online Armor Outpost Kerio all of these are great firewalls. As far as Matousec tests I dont trust them.

[Carver]

As time goes on I trust Matousec and his tests less and less. http://smokeys.wordpress.com/?s=Matousec

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "All of these firewalls CIS Online Armor Outpost Kerio all of these are great firewalls. As far as Matousec tests I dont trust them." }-

I'll give it try and see how it goes? RIS2010 had crashed one system of mine...

[tipstir]

Okay let the test begin.

[Julian]

How can you say that you wouldn't trust Matousec-tests?
You can download the tests, test how many of those tests your desired product passes and appraise the risk potential of the leak of failed tests.
You just need to decide if the failed tests may be critical, furthermore you can look into the SC if you are an expert programmer.
Matousec doesn't play with "marked cards"!

[tipstir]

I ran a test using
Key-Logger Simulation Test Program

But of course PC Tools Firewall Plus detected this program on launch ask me did I want to allow or block it. Also since I had Keyscrambler for Firefox now I know that program is really doing what it suppose to do scramble the key inputs. Funny I tested this even on the Rising 2010 IS and it didn't alert me again it must of trusted the application.

Anyway the applications that had crashed when I use to use PCT FWP 4, 5 and prior 6 now loads without crashing under this version.

[mimuweb]

Well, my first reply in this forum. Hello, my name is Miguel Angel, from Spain. Sorry for my bad english. I've tested recently PC Tools Firewall in my computer, and finally i ended uninstalling this firewall because crashes my CaptureNX (Nikon). Now, i use Outpost Firewall Pro and i'm very happy.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "Well, my first reply in this forum. Hello, my name is Miguel Angel, from Spain. Sorry for my bad english. I've tested recently PC Tools Firewall in my computer, and finally i ended uninstalling this firewall because crashes my CaptureNX (Nikon). Now, i use Outpost Firewall Pro and i'm very happy." }-


You found it to crash? I found to to block remote desktop to other systems when it first didn't have that issue. I had to add another profile to fix that problem. Now it works! On Server side it blocks all PCs on the trusted network so they can't access the server. Good thing I had image backup to go back to the prior setup as all is well again!

[tipstir]

Those that can get to to work good luck and I started to get started to get CPU spiking causing issues. They fixed a lot at PC tools but application get robbed memory injection then your application don't load at all. There is a fix for that but who wants to do that for all your applications that the firewall deems a threat.

If my Network Drive Manager which is network drive monitor and you can setup shares it tells you the condition of the network share if it drops the connection, how much space is left on in percent an more. But main reason I use it so I know if the file server shares are connecting. It's great tool for wireless laptop users as well as wired. But when I use different firewalls I can tell how good they are if they can connect to all the systems on the network with out issues.

If the Network Drive Manager shows a big red x in the system tray on the network icon then boy there is some issues, but they seem to be with the firewall in question. PC Tools connects and ask you if your on a home, public or work network. It does see the network, but soon after it block all access from network shares.

[oversky]

I use the Comodo leak test to test PC Tools Firewall 6, but the score is only 180/340. Do I have wrong setting?

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "I use the Comodo leak test to test PC Tools Firewall 6, but the score is only 180/340. Do I have wrong setting?" }-

That means nobody at PC Tools ever ran the test to see how well it did? I just ran the test on Outpost Firewall Free and the score wasn't that good.

80/340

Avira PE had warned me that it had detected a threat! Of course that would have killed the session making the program to test not to run.

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "Hmm I wonder why. ;)

(Yes, maybe I'm paranoid. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if any company optimized a test suite to work well with their product.)" }-
I didn't find it optimized at all.

[SteveBlanchard]

-{ Quote: "That means nobody at PC Tools ever ran the test to see how well it did? I just ran the test on Outpost Firewall Free and the score wasn't that good.

80/340

Avira PE had warned me that it had detected a threat! Of course that would have killed the session making the program to test not to run." }-

Couple more test results

Avira did the same as above, but I ran the test 40/340
ESET Smartsuite 40/340
Online Armour free 340/340
I also tried the various options for Comodo and got a low score for the basic setting, a touch higher for the recomended defense setting and full marks for the query everything defence plus.

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "Couple more test results

Avira did the same as above, but I ran the test 40/340
ESET Smartsuite 40/340
Online Armour free 340/340
I also tried the various options for Comodo and got a low score for the basic setting, a touch higher for the recomended defense setting and full marks for the query everything defence plus." }-

Online Armour free scored that high, that means someone did their homework with the comodo leak test. I ran Privacy Firewall it had missed a couple before it had detected the threat. Avira needs to stick with Antivirus and get out of the firewall business. I won't run the prem version ever again. Comodo IS 3.12 very stable I got it on everything I got. I just need to add it to server and ditch RIS2009 for good!

[tipo]

-{ Quote: "See latest results here: www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php" }-
and you belive that??? :)) i say that any test taken between Av, IS, Firewall etc by a company is bull....who gives more money is the winner for this year or the next... wake up you guys...

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "and you belive that??? :)) i say that any test taken between Av, IS, Firewall etc by a company is bull....who gives more money is the winner for this year or the next... wake up you guys..." }-


Again that's only a review of one or more persons reviewing the security packages. Still I rather test what works on my own. I can't speak for everyone here but you're not going to convince them to believe otherwise. We all have favorites you have the Pro version I have the free version so again whatever works you'll use it even if a review doesn't give it high score!

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "That means nobody at PC Tools ever ran the test to see how well it did? I just ran the test on Outpost Firewall Free and the score wasn't that good.

80/340
." }-

Just change the intrusion settings and you will achieve 310/340 or so with outpost free.

[smage]

Hi for those who like to swap products according to the Matousec results, good luck with the PC Tools firewall.
Here is the appropriate section of the forum for you to read about waht PC Tools users think about this outstanding performance.

http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59557

Good luck again and be happy with the numerous PC freezes when ESV is turned on.

Thanks

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "Hi for those who like to swap products according to the Matousec results, good luck with the PC Tools firewall.
Here is the appropriate section of the forum for you to read about waht PC Tools users think about this outstanding performance.

http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59557

Good luck again and be happy with the numerous PC freezes when ESV is turned on.

Thanks" }-

No one would be happy with freezes! Just something that works! This program works only if you go back to 3.0.0.14 otherwise 4, 5, 6 seem to have some memory leak & cpu issues. PC Tools told me there was no need to update the software, so why just stick with 3.0.0.14 well that has a lot of allow/block popups and it's 100% free. I won't use it again though.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "No one would be happy with freezes! Just something that works! This program works only if you go back to 3.0.0.14 otherwise 4, 5, 6 seem to have some memory leak & cpu issues. PC Tools told me there was no need to update the software, so why just stick with 3.0.0.14 well that has a lot of allow/block popups and it's 100% free. I won't use it again though." }-

that seems to be a specific issues to certain systems, i can tell u its not an issue for everyone (like myself)

[smage]

-{ Quote: "that seems to be a specific issues to certain systems, i can tell u its not an issue for everyone (like myself)" }-

I'm glad that it works fine for you, for me it was causing my PC to constantly freeze when I was running it alongside Avira.

[Gullible Jones]

I'm using it now and not experiencing any freezes.

(Actually I have to say I'm quite pleased with it; the expert mode offers all kinds of cool stuff, like showing the contents of blocked packets. As a freebie it's quite impressive.)

[tipo]

-{ Quote: "Again that's only a review of one or more persons reviewing the security packages. Still I rather test what works on my own. I can't speak for everyone here but you're not going to convince them to believe otherwise. We all have favorites you have the Pro version I have the free version so again whatever works you'll use it even if a review doesn't give it high score!" }-
comodo firewall pro is free, dude! Firewall PRO not IS PRO!

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "that seems to be a specific issues to certain systems, i can tell u its not an issue for everyone (like myself)" }-

Well freezes could be with legacy software that's not support anymore. The OS kernel if updated shouldn't be the issue with freezing on certain systems. I just notice thus using the latest PCTFWP its doing the same issue that was in 4 and 5 and not in 3.

Comodo IS after running it again using the latest version 3.12x it's blocking access to media server on server or it just won't load on the network media player UI. It's unable to find available servers. That's not the only issue I also run caller ID server then the clients have the receivers for it that system just won't work with Comodo IS first loaded it works then after a few days no go. I also notice that Remote Desktop works then doesn't work. If I remove Comodo everything works. Loaded Online Armor and everything works! Then Comodo AV shows that msconfig.exe has a trojan where Avira PE and Rising AV reports it clean. I also ran Norman Malware Cleaner and it didn't find that file to be an issue. Rising PC Doctor suppose to find trojans didn't report a threat.

For those who can get Comodo Free IS to run without issue great. Maybe in version 4 it will be more like stable. PC Tools FWP is tighter but still some software freezes still appearing.

[dave88]

I've been running PC Tools firewall about a month now (XP sp3). No freezes, or other issues here. Of all the current gen firewalls I've tried, this latest incarnation of PC tools firewall has the least slowdown on my system. I have not run into any compatibility or stability problems. Though I have with the other current gen firewalls, and earlier versions of PC tools firewall.
It has excellent logging as well.

Two thumbs up :thumb: :thumb:
This is my favorite firewall since Sygate.

[dave88]

-{ Quote: "
Good luck again and be happy with the numerous PC freezes when ESV is turned on." }-

I had problems with earlier versions when ESV (enhanced security verification) was turned on. None at all with this new version.

[JerryM]

For two or three years I have been using suites, but decided to try an AV (Avira Premium) and a firewall. I had a license for LnS and had liked it. However, it causes me to loose my WiFi connection every few minutes. I realize that this can be fixed, but I could not figure out how to do it. The Q&A on the LnS site were not clear enough for me.

So tonight I installed PC Tools Firewall Plus, and so far it is running well with my other applications.
I am glad I saw this thread or I would not have tried PC Tools firewall.

I almost installed kerio 2.1.5, but decided on PC Tools.

I am not knowledgeable in computers or firewalls. I need applications that I can install and forget. So far PCT seems to be such.

Regards,
Jerry

[tipstir]

-{ Quote: "For two or three years I have been using suites, but decided to try an AV (Avira Premium) and a firewall. I had a license for LnS and had liked it. However, it causes me to loose my WiFi connection every few minutes. I realize that this can be fixed, but I could not figure out how to do it. The Q&A on the LnS site were not clear enough for me.

So tonight I installed PC Tools Firewall Plus, and so far it is running well with my other applications.
I am glad I saw this thread or I would not have tried PC Tools firewall.

I almost installed kerio 2.1.5, but decided on PC Tools.

I am not knowledgeable in computers or firewalls. I need applications that I can install and forget. So far PCT seems to be such.

Regards,
Jerry" }-

What FW/SRP integrated in the OS is better, still if you have to have extra FW that's up to you.

[Brummelchen]

Wind of Change
http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php

[SammyJack]

Right,number one in the same test the Comodo Faithful dismissed as meaningless when they were not on top.

[Fajo]

I really cant believe how many people live and die by this test. :dry: It just amazes me.

[smage]

-{ Quote: "I really cant believe how many people live and die by this test. :dry: It just amazes me." }-

Me too. Some even change products each time the results are out.
Good work by Comodo though.

[lws]

-{ Quote: "Me too. Some even change products each time the results are out.
Good work by Comodo though." }-

Yeah, am currently in PC tools firewall plus....looks like I have to switch back to Comodo now;D :argh: Just kidding.

[tipstir]

Neither for me .. Testing is fun but not when it leads to issues..

[Brummelchen]

from my view - matousec offers some hints which firewall can be good
and have more complete security - if some know what the specific fw offers.
at least i tried several - from Kaspersky, LnS, Comodo, Online Armor, Outpost,
Jetico2, Avira, Eset (ESS), Mamutu (which is not really a Firewall), ThreatFire (same),
DefenseWallHIPS.

After Outpost 3.5 i worked a longer time with OA, now its Outpost latest (not Suite)
Comodo was my first choice, then DefenseWallHIPS with Outpost again.
(in bost cases several issues with the HIPS component here).
The OA, which works really fine at least, then the update made something worst.
So i work on Outpost latest now with less trouble then the named before.
Eset SS was trial last year - v3 was pretty annoying crap. Mamutu and
ThreatFire - not really needed - last made my system slow.
LookNstop (LnS) ist really sweet and small - tiny Firewall - not more.

It depends on your needs which firewall meets that best (in any way, also handling).
If OA has not this special handicap i would use it, so its Outpost again and
it may stay for longer now cause im in change to win7 and OA is not available yet.

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "For two or three years I have been using suites, but decided to try an AV (Avira Premium) and a firewall. I had a license for LnS and had liked it. However, it causes me to loose my WiFi connection every few minutes. I realize that this can be fixed, but I could not figure out how to do it. The Q&A on the LnS site were not clear enough for me.

So tonight I installed PC Tools Firewall Plus, and so far it is running well with my other applications.
I am glad I saw this thread or I would not have tried PC Tools firewall.

I almost installed kerio 2.1.5, but decided on PC Tools.

I am not knowledgeable in computers or firewalls. I need applications that I can install and forget. So far PCT seems to be such.

Regards,
Jerry" }-

I believe PC Tools fw is based off one of the LnS builds. At least that was the word when PCT released their fw a few years back- can't believe it's been that long ago.

[JRViejo]

Removed several off-topic posts from this thread. May I remind all Wilders members to keep on topic, otherwise this thread will end up closed.

JR