Why CHX-I and Windows Firewall are the same (if not better) than outbound firewalls

Go and read this article:
http://tooleaky.zensoft.com/

Outbound filtering is a false sense of security. CHX-I is (in my opinion) stronger in outbound firewalls (ZA, Kerio) in, inbound filtering. Just my input.

Any comments/rebuttals?

 

Did you see the date on that article. it was 2001. That is an eternity in the computer world. things have changed since then. The validity of that article would now be a little suspect as to being relevant anymore.

 

Re: Why CHX-I and Windows Firewall are the same (if not better) than outbound firewal

Well, I run LooknStop, application filtering only. I launched tooleaky.exe. Internet access was requested, and I denied it. The CPU utilization of the tooleaky.exe process ramped to close to 100% for a short time. I get the message shown below. Access to grc.com is fine by the way.

As bigC notes, your source may be somewhat dated.....

Blue

 

In order for Tooleaky or any of the other leaktests to do their thing, they have to first somehow install on your computer. In this case, of course, you give it permission to install.

In the real world, one should be more concerned with how such a trojan would get by your security.

For me, the risk assessment is not high enough to complain about what the firewall was not intended to do in the first place.

Anyway, there are other ways of stopping those leaktests.


-rich
________________
~~Be ALERT!!! ~~

 

HI.

All I know is that today, WXP Firewall is much more stable than any third app fw, if only because it's part of the operating system. It's running WITH the OS, while other Firewalls are RUN BY the OS.

Even my cherished AgnitumOutpostPro gave me a blue screen of death a few days ago, and on WXPSP2 for that matter! (Nope, I don't have distant assistance nor netmeeting activated, and yes, it was the latest version).

But Windows FW has no outbound filtering, and that should be a concern for anyone.

So I followed an idea I first heard about from JacK (www.optimix.be.tf), i.e. activate Windows FWall AND couple it with SSM. Now I have the stability AND a perfect outbound filtering. For instance, that's the only way I ever got to pass all leaktests while using a stable and smooth system.

Always wondered why so few people followed JacK's advice. I guess they like to pest against firewalls or programmers for not succeeding against leaktests , or they like to run and test every possible firewall they can find on the market (nothing wrong with that, I have to admit I did for months and enjoyed it quite a lot... But now I want simplicity and absolute efficiency, which is achieved by the above mentioned combination only).

Have a good day all.... Cheers

 

Re: Why CHX-I and Windows Firewall are the same (if not better) than outbound firewal

Your post is flawed but I'm not going to get into it. Live and learn

 

SSM is great for controlling what applications your system can run but it does not provide any control over their network access - if you have an application with "phone home" behaviour that you wish to block or one that you must run but only partially trust (and therefore wish to limit it to connecting to specific sites only) then an application-filtering firewall is the only option.

As for leaktests, Firewallleaktester is a far more up-to-date site - and while no firewall can block all leaktests, having one that can block most is still a significant security benefit (just as running an anti-virus scanner with a 98-99% detection rate is).