A more lightweight software Firewall than Windows Firewall. Suggestions??

Please don't suggest any hardware firewall.

The software firewall can have any set of features, including incoming-only protection.

What matters is that it happens to be more lightweight than Windows Firewall, with all its services and dependencies.

Thanks in advance!

 

XP? Vista? Win 7?

 

XP or superior.

 

There is no software firewall as "light" as any of the built-in Windows firewalls versions from XP or higher.

 

"more than"...perhaps there isn't but I think very lightweight is L'n'S, GhostWall, Filseclab.

 

AFAIK, built-in XP FW is inbound filter only.

For XP in+out (but not Vista or 7) lightest is Kerio 2.1.5

 

Even if is old, Sunbelt Kerio 2.1.5 would be also my recommandation for Windows XP. For Vista and 7, the built-in firewalls are pretty lightweight.

 

Thanks guys.

Some clarification:

I don't have any problem with in-bound only protection.

I just need to know if there is any software in-bound filter/firewall that happens to be more lightweight than Windows Firewall and its 2 services/dependencies:
- Windows Management Instrumentation;
- Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Sharing (ICS)

 

I would have to agree with wat0114 above, and say no, there isn't anything lighter.

 

LnS and Kerio are both equal to Windows. Just turn off the Windows FW service and you will be fine.

 

I'm with the users who said there is nothing lighter. The closest to the built-in firewall are the already mentioned Look'n'Stop and Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5. I don't think they are actually lighter but it's as close as it gets with a third party product.

 

GhostWall is not too advanced but its use of RAM is only about 1,5 MB.

 

Thanks, GhostWall looks tempting. But, is it lighter than Windows Firewall?

----------

Guys, after doing some research I found relevant information about a tool called " CHX-I ". Was it lighter than Windows Firewall? Is there anything equivalent being actively developed?

Thanks for all your help!

 

And the Windows Firewall is heavier?

"The CHX-I Packet Filter is not a personal firewall and should not be used by those expecting out-of-the box security configurations or unfamiliar with TCP/IP networking and IP security in general."
http://www.misec.net/forum/board/Firewalls/1102329850
But honestly...I also never heard about it

 

Not really, but I'm looking for the absolutely lightest windows software in-bound protection possible.

 

What is your definition of "absolutely lightest".

Gerard

 

Lightest would be don't install one. If you're behind a router you will have inbound protection anyway.

 

Why on earth software, when Windows fw is CLEARLY the best (non hardware) solution for inbound protection only. It is already integrated into the O/S. It is absolutely bug-free. It will not crash. It will not conflict with the O/S or other installed software in any way, shape or form. It is as light as you're gonna get - virtually guaranteed. It's combined attributes make it indisputably the best solution for the requirements you seek.

Yes, the very ancient and undeveloped-for-many-years CHX-I and Kerio 2.1.15 are great, but they are antinques. It is inadvisable (imo, at least) to be running way out of date security software on a modern machine.

 

Not that it is impossible, just very unlikely that anyone has the resource usage narrowed down for each Windows starting from WinXP w/SP2. Windows Firewall dependent on several subsidiary services, ... not so easy to separate the resource usage belonging to the firewall from resource usage belonging to the other Windows features.

Has anyone ever went beyond simply saying “Windows Firewall is the lightest” to stating how much mem usage they observed Windows Firewall using?

 

There's more to it than simply mem usage or CPU time or other buzz words people like to bring up when making resource usage comparisons. With the already built-in Win fw, there's no chance of any conflict whatsoever with the kernel or other areas of the O/S. MS isn't stupid; they've designed the fw to integrate with the O/S as well as and most likely better than any 3rd party fw developer is able to do.

 

Yes, but...

Ok, Ms isn't (always) that stupid but I think they're also not known to be particularly efficient with spending resources, or are they ?
YMMV

 

It is easy for you to repeat things, but it isn’t easy for you to give us an estimate of how much resources Windows Firewall requires at minimal. In order to properly answer and help the original poster, we need to have an estimated idea of how much Windows Firewall uses at minimum.

By the way... you are wrong about it being conflict-free and problematic-free, there are plenty of cases reported on the web!

 

Their resources weren't well spent on how you can restrict traffic. Only by IP. No domains.

There's always a catch, right?

I've been using Windows firewall for a long time now, but I must admit that I'm reconsidering using Outpost again. I got a lifetime license, but there were issues that made me drop it. I'll have to retest it for a while and see if the same issues still happen, because for all I know, Agnitum can't reproduce them.

I find restriction by domains and IPs a requisite, for me. Outpost allows me that, Windows firewall doesn't.

 

Hi m00nbl00d,

I am not sure I understand the sens of your saying, sorry.
Could you please explain again, or give me some link ?

I would apreciate, as I am here mainly because I love to learn to keep by brain cells happy.

 

OK.

Windows Firewall with Advanced Security allows you to restrict communications by IP only. Say, you want to restrict your web browser only to communicate with X website. You can only restrict the communication to that web site by providing an IP. If the IP is unique, no problems. But, if it's a shared IP, you're also allowing communications to other domains as well, even though you want to restrict communications only to X website.

It's just stupid that Windows Firewall with Advanced Security allows you to restrict communications only by IP and not domain(s), IMHO.