SterJo , free and maybe the first portable firewall

[mantra]

hi

browsing the net , i found this firewall

-http://www.sterjosoft.com/portable-firewall.html

there is a portable version too , i have not still used it

but seems cool to have in a usb stick

there is a free version and paid version

hope it could be useful for someone...

chees

[Ranget]

does it include hips ??

anyway time for some testing



edit :

if you saw the description for the free version LOOk like rubbish

so the free version won't be Displaying all applications status on your computer.

~Possibly offensive phrase removed.~

[mantra]

Originally Posted by Ranget

does it include hips ??

anyway time for some testing



edit :

if you saw the description for the free version LOOk like rubbish

so the free version won't be Displaying all applications status on your computer.

~Possibly offensive phrase removed~

yes i know , it sucks

but i guess it's the only portable firewall that works for example under xp too

but how many portable firewall do you know ?

[Brummelchen]

Windows 7 Firewall Control (Portable) was earlier

[mantra]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

Windows 7 Firewall Control (Portable) was earlier

yes ok
but w7 and vista have a good firewall built in but xp ?

[kerykeion]

I just hope somebody reviews this for XP. I'm interested with RAM usage and system impact (like responsiveness).

[fblais]

Originally Posted by kerykeion

I just hope somebody reviews this for XP. I'm interested with RAM usage and system impact (like responsiveness).

Very light but I don't see any use for this as the rules are for ports only.
If you allow port 80, for instance, and there are great chances you do, malware will be able to use it. (or any other port you'll allow)

[Brummelchen]

but w7 and vista have a good firewall built in

read again and get the differences:

Windows 7 Firewall Control

http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/

My opinion: using a firewall based on windows XP filtering service and
Framework is worth nuts. it was built in afterwards and has not the
same power as the vista/win7 "basic filtering service".
on xp i have meanwhile no firewall - in dont no why i should have one.
no active workstation no any other sensible data.

for vista and win7 i like those small ones instead outpost or other similar.
to much bloated and too much features to control legal actions.
W7FC pro/paid (see above) is pretty comfortable here in its usage, it offers
a simple interface but i can refine rules, settings and more without beeing
bored of lots of settings. SterJo (Pro) seems more simple, but hey,
Rome wasnt built too in one day

[pajenn]

Originally Posted by mantra

yes i know , it sucks

but i guess it's the only portable firewall that works for example under xp too

but how many portable firewall do you know ?

have a look at DCFirewall. It's free, portable, works under xp (32-bit version at least), and it notifies you about programs that try to dial out. however, it's TCP only (no UDP) and no HIPS. it's not a great firewall obviously, but I found it worth having on my old xp laptop and used it every now and then when I had my proper firewall turned off or as a "stand in" on new xp systems before i decided what proper firewall to install.

[J_L]

Never heard of these, thanks.

[Alphalutra1]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

My opinion: using a firewall based on windows XP filtering service and
Framework is worth nuts. it was built in afterwards

Windows XP always had a firewall. It was not built-in afterwards. In the release version and SP1 the firewall was known as "Internet Connection Firewall," then had its name changed in SP2. So, knowing that, why is the XP firewall "worth nuts?" Have you noticed packets slipping past it, or it failing in others ways with respect to inbound traffic?

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

on xp i have meanwhile no firewall - in dont no why i should have one.

If :
1)all your ports are closed (which I highly doubt you did since it requires some out of the way configuring)
or
2) you are behind a NAT router and trust your LAN

then sure you don't "need" one. However, if you aren't in either of these scenarios, I'd recommend enabling XP's default firewall. Minimal hassle and saves you from any of your open ports being compromised.

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[Brummelchen]

using a firewall based on windows XP filtering service and
Framework is worth nuts

...

known as "Internet Connection Firewall,"

ofc it was named like this and became "windows firewall service". but that is complete different from the filtering service like vista or win7 offer.
and i t could only control inbound traffic, not outbound. due those matters i never activated it - and some things never changed:
► http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_firewalls
► http://www.practicallynetworked.com/...c_firewall.htm

yes - i am behind nat. and even when ports are open there is nothing which can answer

i can deactivate firewall service - but if i deactivate the filtering service i get busted.

[Alphalutra1]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

...

ofc it was named like this and became "windows firewall service". but that is complete different from the filtering service like vista or win7 offer.

Yes Vista and 7 use a different framework, but XP's firewall is more than adequate for most (including yourself) users. Do you have explicit examples where Xp's inbound protection was bypassed and inadequate? If you don't, it is completely fine then.

Beyond various extensions and allowing for more configuration, I fail to see how Vista and 7's is completely different w.r.t. the end goal of stopping incoming attack.

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

► http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_firewalls
► http://www.practicallynetworked.com/...c_firewall.htm

Why did you include this?

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

even when ports are open there is nothing which can answer

I assume you mean when ports are forwarded from WAN to your LAN to a specific computer, that you have no open ports? I highly doubt this, unless you did some out-of-the-way configuration (Rmus or maybe Kerodo, I can't remember, did this several years ago, perhaps on dslreports security forum, search for it)

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[Brummelchen]

but XP's firewall is more than adequate for most (including yourself) users

you should not argue with me that way.

and your assumption is wrong - read again

and even when ports are open there is nothing which can answer

no tricks - no net - no false bottom. just old school knowledge.

[Alphalutra1]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

and your assumption is wrong - read again

no tricks - no net - no false bottom. just old school knowledge.

No my assumption is correct, trust me. I'm not sure you have a complete grasp of "old-school knowledge." Ports are closed when the OS replies to a request to said port with an RST. Ports are open when a service is listening on a closed port and responds to a TCP request. By default, and without a lot of tweaking, XP has a few services "listening" on certain ports and therefore those ports are open and therefore open to attack. The blaster worm took advantage of this to remotely take advantage of XP computers attached to the internet. This worm largely precipitated Microsoft making SP2 enable the firewall by default. Since I assume you haven't done said tweaking (which involves disabling quite a bit of the OS and registry tweaks) you have ports open on your XP install. Therefore, since you don't run any firewall on those XP machines or even if you didn't, the network address translation (in layman's terms, the router only forwarding packets the computers in your internal network specifically requested to said computer) your router is performing is the only thing ensuring that those services aren't exposed to the world.

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[Brummelchen]

XP has a few services "listening" on certain ports and therefore those ports are open and therefore open to attack. The blaster worm took advantage of this to remotely take advantage

no doubt about that - blaster came a little time after i started using routers (jan 2003). due the limitations to ICF i had outpost installed for years and since
2003 outpost became useless for inbound control. ofc i turnd off some services
- i didnt had a LAN working (with LAN i had to reinstall all clients from scratch - such deep where my mods).

Just happened upon this thread. Very interesting.

@Alpha, I wish you (and Stem) would post more in this forum

[Brummelchen]

bumping:
Sterjo Portable Firewall - it aint really portable, it creats entries in the
registry for date, language, registration (pro) and one other hidden (pro).
only log and rules are same folder.

although its very small and offers basic rules - rules are general and for all apps same, eg Port 80.
Free offers from my view really poor options although the Pro offers not much either.
It does not prevent those events for those who need program based rules.
for experienced users that can be done with the windows packet filter
one tutorial here how to configure it
http://www.webapper.com/blog/index.p...-for-security/

btw till end of january the pro is offered with a reduced price.

[mantra]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

bumping:
Sterjo Portable Firewall - it aint really portable, and one other hidden (pro).

hi
may i know the hidden key? thanks

[Brummelchen]

/message sent


BTW v2.7 is available. sorry, no changelog found

[mantra]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

/message sent


BTW v2.7 is available. sorry, no changelog found

thanks a lot!

[jaodsvuda]

Well,Pro version 2.8 is on a GAOTD right now...