But it uses a lot of resources and slows down the PC a lot. Please suggest a good free open source if possible firewall that is as good as comodo but less resource hungry Thanks
By 'as good as Comodo' you mean a simple firewall? Or a product that also has HIPS and auto-sandboxing capabilities? If the former then perhaps Windows Firewall Control is what you're looking for https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-firewall-control-wfc-by-binisoft-org.347370/page-201 If the later, I don't think there's any.
There's Private Firewall https://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Firewall/Privatefirewall.shtml I don't know how well supported it is tough since the original site doesn't even mention it. https://www.privacyware.com/support.html Comodo always was light, I'd try to find the culprit elsewhere in your machine.
That's strange, because CFW on my system uses very little resources. But I know every system is different.
Which version of Comodo are you using -- Comodo Internet Security, or Comodo Firewall? As others have said, Comodo Firewall is known to have a low impact on system resources and performance. However, if you are running Comodo Internet Security, that is another story. It is possible that the AV component is the culprit.
Private Firewall is no longer developed and is more or less abandon ware. That being said it really works very well & seems to have some form of a behavior blocker. Zone alarm works but is really very stripped down & seems to me used as an introduction to their commercial Security Suite. Comodo is still being developed and does work. I feel that at this point there is no other freeware choice. I know that the Windows Firewall is used & works but I don’t like it very much.
Use Jetico 2 as firewall, it s free. Comodo firewall is a strange software this days.If i remember correctly Comodo 3 was much more closer to a firewall, than later builds that seem to have a brain of their own.I ve installed last year some version and i did not like it.
For a FREE FW+HIPS, the only choices I know of are Comodo & Private FW. Zone Alarm's PRO Firewall (NOT free) offers a behavior blocker, over & above its very competent firewall component. As to Private Firewall, it has 3 main components: (1) firewall, (2) HIPS, (3) narrow scope anomaly detection (accessed from GUI by File>Settings>Advanced). The FW component is outdated -- no longer "state of the art," but it is quite utilitarian IF & ONLY IF one is using an up-to-date modem with built in FW (Modem's FW filters incoming, only; PFW filters outgoing). The HIPS component is still competent, & very tweakable. The Anomaly detector monitors email for volume surges, & monitors each individual process for unusual cpu demands and sudden increases in thread count. I can vouch that PFW is compatible with Win XP, 7, 8.1. As for whether it works with Win 10, I do not know.
- binisoft/malwarebytes firewall - sphinxsoft firewall - since windows 8 very acceptable: windows firewall. on win10 i use (2) and (3)
Home users don't need advanced firewalls, nobody will hack them via open ports or whatever methods shown in movies, they aren't worth the time spent. Not saying, even if a user is specifically targeted, dynamic IP will make the task harder. Modern hackers will prefer phishing or social engineering. At worst, all they need is an outbound monitor like binisoft WFC.
Eset has a powerful firewall,very light,add another layer like voodoshield for example, and you will be very secure with minimal resources.
WFC is very actively monitored by it's developer here in the forums and is super in the extreme LITE as a feather. Nice compliment if it's all your looking for. Comodo is a heavy industry on a PC especially of said PC is packing low memory capacity so that's understandable the difficulty found in using it. WFC has no HIPS but is pretty efficient in configuring rules and comes with a built in ALERT BOX feature where you set your preferences on the fly. If that helps.
@itman & @guest -- Regarding guest's statement: "If you learn to tighten ESET, you need nothing else." Unless I am mistaken, that statement infers that there is a school-solution/ideal configuration of ESET. If that is the case, I wonder WHY ESET doesn't configure it that way by default?
the same goes for all security sw, and even for windows. ms could make windows tighter and much more secure if they wanted to. that's possible. the windows os could very well be released with all the possible mitigations applied, making it almost bullet-proof. but that would take away most of its usability. the average joe's and jane's would find it too hard using their computers. that's why ag and nvt erp are niche products.
Yes, that is more or less the generalized answer I expected. Appreciate it. However, ESET could offer check boxes such as "Normal (recommended) || High (may increase false positives) || Very High (for experts only)". Hitman Pro has an experts-only option. Stinger offers a slider for its heuristics under an Advanced tab. Settings are "Disabled, Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High." Its help files provide cautions about using this slider or even going to the Advanced tab. It's a shame when security companies choose to dumb-down their apps for the lowest common denominator of user.