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

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by guest, Jul 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. guest

    guest Guest

    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!
     
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    XP? Vista? Win 7?
     
  3. guest

    guest Guest

    XP or superior.
     
  4. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

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

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,486
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    "more than"...perhaps there isn't but I think very lightweight is L'n'S, GhostWall, Filseclab.
     
  6. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    AFAIK, built-in XP FW is inbound filter only.

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

    alexandrud Developer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,231
    Location:
    Romania
    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.
     
  8. guest

    guest Guest

    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)
     
  9. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    I would have to agree with wat0114 above, and say no, there isn't anything lighter.
     
  10. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    i highly doubt that such sw fw exists.
     
  11. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    LnS and Kerio are both equal to Windows. Just turn off the Windows FW service and you will be fine.
     
  12. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    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.
     
  13. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,486
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    GhostWall is not too advanced but its use of RAM is only about 1,5 MB.
     
  14. guest

    guest Guest

    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!
     
  15. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,486
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    And the Windows Firewall is heavier? :eek:
    "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 :)
     
  16. guest

    guest Guest

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

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    What is your definition of "absolutely lightest".

    Gerard
     
  18. pling_man

    pling_man Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Posts:
    465
    Location:
    UK
    Lightest would be don't install one. If you're behind a router you will have inbound protection anyway.
     
  19. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    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.
     
  20. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    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? ;)
     
  21. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    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.
     
  22. ruinebabine

    ruinebabine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,097
    Location:
    QC
    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
     
  23. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    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!
     
  24. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Their resources weren't well spent on how you can restrict traffic. Only by IP. No domains. :D

    There's always a catch, right? :p

    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.
     
  25. ruinebabine

    ruinebabine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,097
    Location:
    QC
    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. :cool:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.