Application based firewalls

i am using outpost right now an i really like it as its light but i don't know if it's protecting me that godd as i am a noob?? is ouypost protecting me even if i don't really put rule but only if i alllow or deny etc..


but i outpost like zonealarm as it gives protection automatically?


i have been using zonealarm for a yr and now i have noticed that it's not as good as other firewalls and i have been using outpost ever since.

I used to use norton firewall as well but saw it was to hvy on resources etc..



Now i would like to know if kerio is better than zonealarm for lighht on resources and protection overall?

i would like to know if kerio can block more trojans,viruses etc better.


i don't want to try kerio and then having to go bak to outpost and lose the setting's.

so i would like to know tyhe advantages of kerio for me and the advantages of others i know how to use firewalls but i am no pro so i am not able to use look'n'stop.

 

Suggest you read all the posts in Kerio versus ZoneAlarm. Where you have already posted as people who posted after you did have answered some of your questions.

 

i have read it.

i know that the best firewall does not excist but there diffrent advantage that can suite u.

for example maybe one is light and blocks relly good automatically.

another one is maybe hvyier and protects u automatically

etc.. etc...

i would just like to know this for example

Outpost - light application based plus rules blocks really good.

kerio - .......

zonealarm - .......

tiny firewall - ...... not very user friendly no?

etc etc.....

 

You really might want to try the new ver. 6 zonealarm, I don't see the system drag some of the older versions had. They seem to have done it right this version.

 

Some firewalls are easier to use than others. I would imagine that a more complicated FW would offer much less protection, if you don't understand how to maximise its potential, than a simple one.

I'm using ZAP and certainly don't have any need for setting the kind of expert rules that some people enjoy playing with. For me ZAP is therefore a safer and better FW than Outpost. If you need to ask the questions you do ask, it is probable that Outpost is not for you.

Why do you say ZA is not as good as other FWs? For many people it is likely to be both better and safer.

 

i did have version 6 but it never blocked anything at all and ppl told me that outpost is better so i changed.

but i don't know why but i don't feel safe with outpost?

 

chaos61,

ZA/Outpost/etc. are all fine firewalls. The firewall component isn't designed to block viruses/trojans/etc.. If a firewall does that, it's an added feature that is a type of content filtering, and really a duplication of AV/AT functionality.

I used Outpost for a long time, thought it was fine for my needs, but a tad heavy. I switch to LnS for that very reason. If you're like myself, any use the firewall for application based filtering only, any of the firewalls that support this mode of operation should be suitable, including LnS. The learning curve for LnS using the application filtering only is non-existent. Trust me, you could handle it without a problem.

Blue

 

It is inconceivable that ZA 6 blocked nothing at all! Perhaps you did not read through the logs to see for yourself exactly what it did block.

If you expect your FW to block all trojans from getting in, why do you bother running an AV? That is not the function of a FW. For your FW to stop trojans communicating out, you have got to have a trojan on your system in the first place!

 

Did not block what? ZA is a good firewall unless you were expecting it do something it was not intended to do.

There will always be people who will tell you firewall "x" is better than firewall "y". But what may be great for them, could be totally inappropriate for you. As you noted yourself, it's a matter of what best suits you.

If you are not comfortable with it, or do not understand how it works and/or is configured, then perhaps it is not the one for you. You need to find the one that you understand, can configure properly, are comfortable with and stick with it. Don't get caught up in the chase for the "best firewall".

Regards,

CrazyM

 

well i have a router with a built in firewall so the software firewall is not really important to have. i know its a must any ways but at least i feel safe from hackers.

and as i have kaspersky i feel safe from malaware overall but i know i still need a software firewall.

wel thnx for the help all.

 

With a router ZA may be your best choice if all you are after is basic application control.

Regards,

CrazyM

 

chaos16,

You say, "...so the software firewall is not really important to have". On the contrary, it helps you implement a part of a multi-layered security strategy.

A friend of mine saw a cracker attempt while he was on his computer (broadband 24/7) happen in front of him when all of the router lights went haywire. Luckily, he was able to avert the attempt. Now he runs a software firewall, having learned his lesson. At least it will notify him of outbound attempts - depending on the firewall, even more capabilities in some - you have a good one in Outpost.

Another friend was lax in updating his security and got hit by the SuckIt rootkit - and he's an OS engineer. He's more diciplined now.

-- Tom

 

You can easily backup your settings for Outpost so you can try Kerio if you like and if you decide to go back to Outpost just restore your settings.

Thanks,

Chris