Outpost vs OnlineArmor: which one?

It doesn't matter what I would choose since my needs and security profile are 99% likely to be different than yours.

But you are concerned with security or you wouldn't have asked the question and have tried both? Have you tried the latest version of OA? It has a free version and friendly support and can run in quiet mode.

As to the OA dll question I see dll's in the program list and the start up list and can block any that I feel should be blocked so I question the accuracy of the source you provided. But you should simply trial the latest versions of both if these are your fixed choices and use the one that works best for you.

Hope this helps.

 

I used Outpost for years. I recently switched to Online Armor. Why did I dump Outpost Firewall? = the biggest reason was because it has become ridiculously unstable and unreliable.

I tried lots of Firewalls when searching for a replacement for Outpost. Here are some of the reasons why I eventually settled on Online Armor over all the others I tried:

1.) it provides much better protection than Outpost, and more control over your computer overall (e.g., I can literally set OA to a "blank slate" and then slowly build the connections I need via the popup requests. I never could completely do this with Outpost. To avoid lockups or delays etc Outpost always seemed to need to have a global rule or two for things like DHCP or DNS or something like that. It's not that big a deal, but the point is you really have more fine tuning ability with Online Armor. OA also has more extensive program control, keylogger protection, identification of network computers, IP addresses, MAC addresses, etc.

2.) Online Armor is really smooth. Things that would cause Outpost to hangup on, run smooth as butter in Online Armor.

3.) Online Armor is surprisingly easy to use. It has a Standard setting and Advanced setting. Advanced gives you more control over small stuff (which I like). Once you set what you want, you receive very few if any popups. And here's the best part: with Outpost if a request for access is made and you allow it "once" you often end up having to allow a gazillion different requests to get something to work. With Online Armor you just have to press once. It's very intuitive and easy to Allow/Block things--much more so than Outpost. You really have to experience it to see what I mean.

4.) Online Armor has given me no crashes or lockups as of yet. The last two releases of Outpost were a joke and locked things up all the time. Since Outpost updated to 4.0 and above, it has really gone downhill. I still use Outpost on an older computer. But I use version 3.5.

5.) I really liked Outpost before 4.0, and would have never considered switching if Outpost had not become so unreliable and inefficient. Outpost has a couple things I like that Online Armor doesn't have: Outpost allows you to create a rule but not have it active. So you can activate the rule (Allow/Block) at any time without actually having to delete the rule. Instead of erasing a rule, I can instead deactivate it (which means popups would occur for it once again). Once deactivated, if you ever want the rule again, you don't have to recreate it, it is there waiting for simple activation. I also like Outpost's Block Most function for things like Gaming and when I let relatives use computer who don't know about firewalls (this way they are not bothered with popups). But this is mostly a non-issue as well with Online Armor because once you use it for a few hours, it configures so as to give you hardly any popups (it really will most likely give you zero).

Overall, Online Armor is without a doubt a superior firewall and much easier to use. I suppose if someone picked Outpost over OA it would be for specific reasons related to specific objectives. Frankly Online Armor is the most fluid and easy to use Firewall I've ever used. PLUS the guys at TallEmu are the most friendly and regularly interact with users via the forum. They take user feedback seriously (unlike my experience with Agnitum who seemed to have turned to the darkside much like ZoneAlarm has). The other thing that's exciting about Online Armor is that it has depth. Just this weekend I learned a few new things about Online Armor that are sweet. It really has a lot of cool things. They aren't all apparent right away. Online Armor is the firewall to beat in the future.

If you use the free trial, you can see for yourself. Just keep in mind, there might be a little learning curve. Before you freak out or start posting to change something, give it some time and learn to use it how Online Armor directs you. I've found I like it the Online Armor way better. I also remember there was a learning curve when I first started using Outpost instead of ZoneAlarm too. I ended up loving Outpost. I've ended up loving Online Armor even more than I loved Outpost.

 

Online Armor for sure. When you install this firewall it will ask you about what programs etc. that are acceptable to you and your computer. Then in the future it will leave you alone unless something new or strange comes along. I liked the free version and I love the paid version. They are above any firewall that I have ever used and I have used several. To compare between the free and the paid go to http://tallemu.com They also have a promo going on right now with $15.00 off the paid version. Promo code is OAFEB

 

I did not know about the promo and paid full price for 2 year license (Online Armor without AV). But the paid version is buggy on my computer (and others). I should have chosen something else like Prosecurity or just used the Windows firewall. OA service would not start at all, and it killed my Internet connection.

Only solution was to uninstall.

Edit: It also slowed down boot a lot. I know it is supposed to the first time you re-boot, but on my computer it was not only the first time.

WASTED MONEY

 

Online Armor for me, too.

 

Just got OA paid version yesterday and im glad i finally did.

 

When will OA be released for Vista

And what is the difference between the free version and that version you paid money for?

 

http://www.tallemu.com/comparisons.html

http://support.tallemu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3500

 

stability factors aside with Outpost Pro 4.0 and up, one of the things that disappointed me about the 2008 release was that Outpost is no longer just a Firewall. You're forced to get what is basically a suite (anti-spyware, web shield etc). Outpost has gotten away from just being a firewall.

One of the things that I like about Online Armor is that it allows you to totally uninstall all the hooks for the HIPS portion of the software. Essentially leaving you with just a Firewall--which is all I want.

I loved Outpost for a long time. I still like it (3.51 and below that is).

 

I wanted to post this addendum to my post above (#27) where I said Online Armor does not have an Outpost like "Block Most" function. This is true in the sense of a specific operating mode that you can set the FW to. However, one can achieve the exact same function as a "Block Most" by simply placing a Final Rule in the OA rule tab that specifices "All Programs". This accomplishes the EXACT same thing as Outpost's "Block Most".

I wanted to post this in case users were not aware of this OA capabiity. This capability essentially obviates any need to even have a Block Most function.

 

I am an Outpost user. I am not sure if they have a trial period or not. If they do I would try both (not at the same time) and see which one you prefer.

 

Don't know why Comodo doesn't upgrade their 2.4 FW & target it at XP FW noobs. It just needs a 'net rules BU within the GUI, (although the 2.4 BU 'script is easy to run). I always thought the 2.4 GUI was easy to navigate and it's "application behavior analysis"--sort of an entry level HIPS (I guess) was quiet. I still run it on the image with KAV 7, since it it looks like it's going to be 2009 when KAV 2008 gets out of beta in the US.

 

Personally I have tried every stinking firewall I can lay my mitts on. All I want is a firewall. No HIPS. No swiss army knife. I am long past the stage of caring enough to spend that much time on a firewall again. I used to use Outpost v1 and v1 Pro. I loved it. When I switched to a multicore cpu, I had to up it to v2.0. I could care less if I pass Matousecs silly bogus tests, or for that matter Mr Gibsons scans.

All I want is an outbound application tool. TF sort of has it. If TF was better I would use it in place of a firewall.

That being said, I have decided to stick with Outpost v2.0 and make 2 rules, Allow and Deny. If that is as much as you need, then many firewalls are capable of this.

If you need to control every aspect of your computer, the older versions 2 or 3 of Outpost work nicely. OA I have tried, and it is as good a firewall as any. They are all noisy at first, and most of the new ones are full of extra features sure to satisfy the most demanding control freak

As has been said, which one is up to the individual. Also it has been said in this thread that OA has an interface that is easy to understand. I cannot say that about OA, but can about Outpost.

IMO the #1 thing to be concerned with in a firewall, even before security ratings, is how well laid out the GUI is or YOU. If it is a pain because you feel like you are clicking with your left when you use your right, maybe you should look around till you find one that you feel is 'just right'. Then worry about how secure it is. Most of the big name firewalls will protect you sufficiently enough, regardless of what the bogus 'leak tests' reveal.

If you are that worreid about leaks, you should browse in a sandbox and have HIPS watching your every move.

Just my 2cents.

Sul.

 

The link you provided has very outdated data. It references OA v 190 which is about a year old (and I think the same is about Outpost). I dare to say they both provide very high security level. So you'd better rely on your taste. Outpost just released 2009 version. OA is about to release v3 which differs much from the currently released v2.1.0.131.

 

Completely agree with everything you've said there about Outpost - used to be good. Maybe the new 2009 has gotten back on track, but I agree it became way too bloated.

I've purchaed 3 Online Armor AV+ licenses for my Vista machines, I'm currently using the betas and apart from a few minor niggles my machine is running great with OA.

 

I chose OnlineArmor over Outpost because Outpost did not work with other security applications such as KIS 2009. In addition, the application control in OA was more granular than that in OP. In terms of just the firewall component, I could not tell which one was better.

 

Lu Chin, are you joking? Of course Outpost (or any other firewall for that matter) will work without a problem with KIS 2009. KIS has it's own firewall and hips , etc...

 

When outpost is installed with KIS (firewall disabled) key components of outpost are not enabled - spyware - no loss , web filter - useful

Outpost and NOD play fine but KAV product dom't fit so well

 

I am currently using comodo ver 2 on an xp based quad core. It works very well. I wanted to switch to OA free but there were two areas that concerned me.

One was the L-O-N-G delay during a boot. It must add a minute to my boot time and I am not sure why it needs to do that as I have never had any other firewall or a/v a/s cause this sort of delay. The windows theme plays but the screen continues to sit there and finally I get to the desktop. I tried it on 2 computers and each did the same thing.

The other area is after going through the wizard and doing a reboot, the program seems to be continually "noisy". Once comodo is trained it is virtually silent. OA free just keeps having pop-ups long after it indicated it has completed the training process. This is during times of no installs and very little surfing.

I don't know if the "run safer" would improve things or not. Nor whether OA provides better or equal protection to comodo 2.

But it was disconcerting for my machine to take so long to boot. I was concerned that it would not even boot at times. Not knocking the program in any way, but I'm surprised that this is not noted more often.

 

Neither. I have not ran a firewall for over a decade, and never had a problem. Just enable NAPT in your modem, that's all you need.

 

hi

i am outpost user i tried online armor once but didnt like since i am used to outpost so what matters is which firewall you feel better and easy to set rules.......i guss ...same some of online armor user feel about outpost little bit annoying...

2nd if you behind a router i recommend you outpost because it has nat and inbound protection +protection against dll injection +blockpost + lots of other good features......so i guss you should try both then decide which one is better for you..........

 

its hard to find a magic bullet Firewall-Hips. I have tried Outpost, and i used to love it, but only as a firewall. I have a full copy of Online Armor, and i do like that but only as a HIPS, i disable all the firewall stuff in it. I like like all in one programs, i have the firewall i choose to run, i have my HIPS i choose to run, i have a product for each modality, so maybe you should look into that idea also?

 

Hello mack,

I did install the latest offering from Agnitum today (outpost pro security), certainly a good improvement for my browsing speed compared to other OP versions I have used

I would think the inbound protection you refer to is the "Ethernet protection"? which yes, for a LAN it is something other vendors should follow. I know a lot of users are on trusted home LAN`s and feel no point/need of such protection.

I did not get quite that far with the installation I made, as I found some problems with some of my installed applications when thy attempted global hooks and made them unresponsive,.. I had to hard_reset the system. I did find log entries for the attempt of global hook by the applications and also logs of the startup of windump etc, so there is a bug/problem there. I did manually set rules which fixed the problem, but it does need to be looked at. I did not have time to follow it up with checks creating error reports etc, so un-installed for now.

Also for the loading of dll`s, at one time OP would only inform of the loading, not actually give the user the option to prevent, as that changed?

I think a blocklist within the firewall is always good as long as it does not slow down the firewall,.. there is of course peerguardian for those firewalls which do not contain such a feature.

Yes, it does look interesting, and I will certainly find time to look at it again.

I have not looked at the latest from OA yet, but will when I can.

- Stem

 

hello stem,

i agree that lan systems are quite secure for home users
but in some weird conditions

case 1:-
let say my brother install some software in his laptop and get infected and antivirus detected the virus/backdoor/trojan at that end there is much chances of terminating that virus/backdoor at that end before its infect the entire lan....if you have inbound protection in this case its helps a lot.....

case 2:- i use nmap to probe my brother lan port having outpost installed its shows all ports filtered......which i belive not bad.....because some backdoor and malwares does the same in infected lan and 2nd my brother pc got massage that my pc it trying to probe his pc and it lock the lan connection from my pc

sorry my english is not good i hope you'll get the point i am trying to put on....

3rdly ...i dont feel any back effects of having lan security its only add one more good feature.....in outpost..