LooknStop 2.05 vs Outpost PRO 3

Which one is better? Which one is lighter, has less slow down on internet conection and navegation and which one protects more??

 

No doubt that LnS is the lightest firewall you can get..or at least lighter than Outpost.

Personally i switched back to LnS from Outpost 3 (was installed a day) since i experienced some web-browsing slowdowns and bugs which caused Firefox not to work properly and a few Outpost freezes.

I'd say try both, cause i dont think Outpost is a bad firewall, i personally just didnt have good experiences with it where other people might have had no problems at all.

I cant find a better alternative to LnS, so thats what i'm sticking with for now.

About the protection, they're pretty even in that.
However, i'd say LnS offers more protection since you're 'forced' to make rules for your allowed programs, which you're not in Outpost.

But configured right, they both offer the same amount of protection, more or less i'd imagine.

 

I'd have to agree with Cormac, although outpost3 is a good firewall, I prefer LnS, seems to run a lot smoother than outpost! for me it did anyway...

 

What about the spyware detection of LooknStop?
Is looknstop hard to configure?

 

Forum search, forum search...

Outpost or LooknStop?
LNS vs Outpost Pro...
help me plz
Outpost 2.1 or LooknStop 2.05?

 

As for the lighter part . LnS is lighter . As for protection . NOPE . Outpost is more powerful . That is not to say that LnS is bad . It is very good . A very good choice indeed . You should try each . If one causes a problem , use the other .
To say LnS is stronger because you are forced to make rules is just ridiculous . If you wish , you can make rules for EVERYTHING in OP . OP has configured certain things that are well understood . Such as browser rules . That makes it MUCH easier than LnS . At install , you can choose to configure evrything manually or let OP do certain things for you .
And by the way , OP , in auto configure , puts NOTHING in the fully allowed area . Only partially allowed . Meaning that EVERYTHING is kept under watch .
Good luck as either is a good choice . It depends on what you are looking for . A security freak would have to choose OP . If you ar after something light AND good , LnS fits the bill

 

ridiculous?
So you can honestly say that you think the 'casual' OP user will make rules for all his allowed applications?
No firewall is safe out of the box, and that goes for both fw's.
Auto-config in ANY firewall is far from the safest config to use.

When it comes to protection (when they're both configured right) they're even.
The latest test i saw, there was one failed leaktest between the two and they came out #1 and #2 on the list.
LnS as #1 by the way.

 

lol .
Yes . Ridiculous . Again , OP can do the same thing , IF YOU WISH .
You say OP is not safe out of the box . Oh , I beg to differ . Whether you auto configure it or not . And once both are configured , you say they are even . Congrats then . You read your tests . And PLEASE believe all you read . I know nothing of internet security . I know nothing of firewalls . So , I guess you are right . I had no business saying the things I said ( wrote ) . My apologies . I guess LnS is as good , MAYBE BETTER , than OP . Wow . My eyes are now open . The good thing is though , that , if you know how to configure , LnS is as strong as OP . Since it IS lighter , I need to switch then .
Chappelle . Thank you . You answered his question better than anyone else could have . LnS is as good and , it is lighter . No brainer .
Sorry I could not help out . LnS is the way to go .

 

try them both. Although LNS is lighter, as long as OP doesn't give you BSODs or internet slowdowns, the RAM usage wont' make a huge difference (it MIGHT if you have a really slow computer). More importantly is which firewall you feel more comfortable with, since both can offer the same theoretical level of safety, the rest depends on you, the user.

 

This is strange, every time when there is a discussion about Firewall and AV it is getting very emotional.

 

You need to relax, you seem to have some issues when it comes to opinions differing from yours.

And what did the return key ever do to you?


If you think that a FW out of the box (with auto-config) beats a firewall with a config based on (tight) personalized rulesets, then fine for you.

 

As a non geek, I do not have the expertise to do much in the way of configuring a firewall. I believe one should work well OTB. I use LnS with the enhanced rules. I consider that OTB. I have had no problem, which does not prove my point any more than one can say that such and such AV is the best because he has not been infected.

It is my opinion that any program should work OTB unless it is intended for the more expert users. If it is not secure OTB it is of no use to me.
I have used Kerio 2.1.5 also without any special rules with no adverse impact.

I do not know what is the best or even the top four firewalls, but I would be satisfied with the Kerio 2.1.5, LnS or OP.

Jerry

 

Lol .
I am relaxed . Can it get any easier . I wrote that you were right . I was wrong . Very simple . LnS wins ! You made the argument very simple . What must I write to make you understand . I bow to you yet , I need to relax ? Sorry to offend you . Apparently , you can read but , you cannot retain the info . LnS is the firewall to choose . Period . Light , easy to use , very powerful . Nuff said . Good luck in picking a fight .
AGAIN , YOU WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG !
Now , I am going to play with my NEW firewall . Think I might go over to the LnS area and read for awhile .
Thank you Chappelle for answering the original question and for making me understand more about firewalls . By the way . Outside of Outpost , would you agree that LnS is as good they come ? In other words , once I choose LnS , I should be set ?
Thanks in advance

 

Uhm, it really doesn't look that way..

The way I see it is that if someone isn't familiar enough with firewalls to put in rules themselves, alerts with detailed information with an option to create a rule probably isn't going to make a lot more sense to them. You should have seen how delighted my mom was to see a firewall that simply asked "Firefox wants to connect to the internet, do you want to let it?" without any confusing IP addresses, ports, or protocols.

When I was first looking for a firewall I found it a lot easier for me to double click the app and put in the ports it uses. For the internet filtering rules, it was very easy to either download and import a predefined rule, or right click on the log and 'create rule'. I do wish that LnS would add the ability to put in host names, rather than just IP addresses, however, but otherwise I couldn't be happier with LnS. I think for most people, though, a good filter set with basic allow/deny for outbound is the best way to go. If you go much beyond that, it would really be a good idea to do a little studying up because it's likely that things won't work right without a little fine tuning anyway.. after all, look at how many tech support places have a scripted answer to check/disable/uninstall your firewall, and reports of people that have simply started allowing everything just to get rid of alerts.

It's really all a matter of personal taste, however, my recommendation would be to try both. I have no qualms with someone that prefers Outpost over LnS, either one is top notch.. what's best for some may not be best for others.

 

I agree 110%!