A few years ago. I remember all I needed was a good antivirus. Nowadays it has become a trend to buy or install a security suite which includes a 3rd party firewall such as Kaspersky Internet Security, Norton Internet Security, Eset Smart Security, etc... This makes me wonder is it really needed? I mean isn't it just enough to leave the default Windows Firewall along with a good antivirus only?
No, the Microsoft Windows built-in firewall is quite adequate. If I were to install an third party firewall it would be Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro, and occasionally I do install it, to keep abreast with its technology. HKEY1952
Probably W7 firewall should be good enough but I don't know how to configured it so I stick with what I'm comfortable with Comodo firewall/Online Armor firewall.
Hello, I do not go out and look for a 3rd party firewall proactively. I use WRSA Essentials which has a firewall designed to supplement and enhance the windows firewall. I consider this an added benefit of WRSA but would not install a 3rd party firewall otherwise since this is just an extra benefit of WRSA. So my answer was "Yes Windows Firewall is enough".
Have I yes but never keep them long. I find windows wall just works with out any slow downs or complication,and along with router firewall I see no need for third party firewalls.
Router and Widows Firewall, last decision and won't change anymore. But windows firewall may give you headache with big host file! I didn't observe bad behaviors in extreme conditions with default host file.
I use avast! Internet Security on 3 of my computers. It contains a firewall. On the other two I use Online Armor.
I don't trust Windows built in security, firewall, SRP, applocker, etc. As long as I use Windows, I'll also run a 3rd party firewall, HIPS, etc, and a hardware firewall.
Same here. Years ago another firewall was an absolute neccesity for me. KIS does quite well with it's suite, but thats just on one system, the rest are MS only. No problems because HIPS i use intercepts anything that might try to slip in and execute.
Yes, windows firewall only offers incoming protection and that = no protection at all in my book with windows xp that is
Agree 99%. it's not so much a trust issue for me since I use MS's o/s. Just that I want the additional security with the HIPS,some data privacy features and IP blocking features
It depends on which version of Windows. Windows 7 firewall is nice light, and secure using a third party controller makes it a simple solution, my favorite controller for W7 now is TinyWall, no worry about data leaking, or program conflicts. I like Online Armor and Outpost, have licenses for both, need them for XP. So my answer would be yes and no.
Today's third party bi-directional firewalls/security suites simply offer much more baggage than I think is necessary in my security strategy. They slow the system down, and have you noticed how often they have to be updated for bug fixes and compatibility issues? How do I know the latest update is properly protecting me if the last one was buggy? I prefer simple and strong inbound packet filters. Let me take care of the rest. I don't subscribe to the notion that outbound program control offers very much additional protection over what a thoughtful security plan provides. In the case of Windows XP, for example, a stand-alone anti-executable, in my opinion, is far superior for program control. I doubt an outbound connection pop-up will be the very first indication of malware on my machine. So, having tested it in the past, I always fall back on the Windows firewall. Just my non-professional opinion.
Depends on the user. Most people do not need and do not want other firewall, because it is just like UAC, bothersome and they would click on allow all the time anyway. For added protection, windows firewall control applications allow basic control of outbound applications, for the rest of malware is meant AV, cloud defense and so on. I understand, that some people prefer bi-directional firewall as a secondary layer, but it is better to prevent PC to be infected in the first place then to tries block infection, that is most likely futile, since it ussualy uses allowed applications like a browser via port 80, most likely they way PC got infected, then HIPS is more usefull to prevent injection of DLLs and processes. One expert explained it very well to me, what is the point of the firewall, when you allow internet connection to all necessary applications anyway? Sure, you can block apps calling home, but why to use them, if you do not trust them? Router is more then enough and a hardware can not be easily bypassed.
i go for 3rd party because of ease of use and more power of other things like hips sandbox .,.......etc but main reason ease of use i been using outpost/KIS from 7-8 years now kinda familiar thats the only reason
If it is Firewall i.e. something that filters internet traffic then the built in version in Vista and 7 seem good to me. Take the time to add rules and you get granular control so it is really is 'enough'. 3rd party versions are usually easier to configure and come with lots of other goodies. I've voted Yes but have in the past and probably will again use third party tools though not for true 'firewall' functionality but the HIPs etc that come with them. Cheers
I used for many years Look'n'Stop without any problems. In the last 6 months on my Vista machine I've decided to have Windows own firewall, as L'n'S was a possible culprit for blue screens caused by a conflict among Sandboxie/L'n'S/Avira. Ever since I uninstalled L'n'S and changed Avira Premium to an on demand scanner, I had no more blue screens. I'm also convinced that Windows firewall on Vista and Win7 is enough considering my security.
There's no one answer that is right for your question. Yes, and no. It all depends on how sensitive the data you have is. Speaking for myself, i'm fire walled to death considering i'm behind a UTM appliance, and using Online Armor. I'm using Online Armor for leak protection, but no software firewall is going to be able to filter inbound traffic as well as my UTM. Strictly speaking of a software FW without the hardware.
I do. I use OutPost Pro's FWon my XP system only because I won a free lifetime license in a contest. It never detects anything outbound. I think the native MS software FW is more than enough, particularly on a Win7 system behind a hardware firewall. And if anything ever did penetrate my layered inbound security, I would just restore a recent complete system backup from an external HD. An ounce of inbound security is worth a pound of outbound HIPS, but both are trumped by a decent backup strategy.
i tried a few over the years but Windows 7 is apparently good enough for inbound protection. it would be nice if M$ added an easy way to control outbound traffic though.
