Agnitum firewall - 2008 and 2007 versions

I have been using Agnitum's firewall for some years now. I have stayed with 4.XX versions, as they seemed to do just fine. Last night, I upgraded to the 2008 version, just to check things out, and was hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

I must say, that the 2008 version seems highly inferior to earlier versions.

1- gone is plugin functionality, which augmented the firewall so well (i.e. httplog, blockpost, traffled)

2- the gui layout seems to me not nearly as neatly and intuitively arranged as earlier versions were

3- after viewing the logs, they just seem overall not as informative as the logs were of earlier versions - this decreased informativeness seems to extend to most other areas of the program. that was one main strength of this firewall, it's powerful logging and the ability to really have a grasp of what's going on with the network.

I am trying to understand, why this has been done, as it's obvious it was a concious decision. I have been wrong or misinformed many times and this may be a case in point, but I wonder if i'm in the minority as regards my assessment of this firewall's changes between these versions.

?

 

The new version is pretty poor. Very buggy, lacks a few features and generally causes more problems than it solves. Im sticking with v4 until its sorted out.

 

i faced alot of proplems with outpost
BSODs , decrease download speed , corrupted files after being downloaded in presence of outpost , slow surfing speed , incompatibilty with many softwares , useless antispyware module as it's costantly disabled in the presence of any third party antivirus to provide compatibilty so it has no benefit , also agnitum provide a very poor support
i think outpost stills in the alpha stage right now and need years to be a mature product .
so that ,, although i used outpost for many years , i have switched to comodo right now
i thinkg the fact that "outpost is fading away becoz of its fatal bugs" is true

 

3.51 was last useable outpost version here

 

In defense of outpost 2008 version is running stable with anti-spyware disabled.

I suppose due to matousec tests esp. fake protection revealer, agnitium has rewritten outpost from ground up emphasized by version number 6 (not 5 as expected)

Thus there will be some issues like any all new program but in the long term outpost will be more secure and stable.

 

I tried 2008 for over a month before giving up ....too many bug .... static fixes..... back to 4 for a while

 

I tried it out last night and it was really slow and buggy. I kept getting driver fault error and response was terrible.

 

u r right
they have rewritten the code of the program from the beginning due failure of outpost to pass the FBR leak tests of matousec so it still has hundreds of fatal bugs
we can excuse agnitum , that a new platform has bugs
this is normal
but the question is:
can a large security company like agnitum release a final product ""which means that it has no or little bugs"" while it stills so buggy
no one could blame agnitum if it released buggy outpost 2008 in its beta version
but a final product for which people pay money is supposed to be a mature product and is supposed to protect those people instead of having frequent BSODs

 

Thats why people are given a trial of 15 days or 30 days or whatever - prevents them from buying software that will later cause problems.

 

I've yet to see anywhere in the forums where members can declare: "I hereby ordain abc firewall to be bug free!" Is there a bug free product out there? I seriously doubt it. Also, why doesn't anyone ever point fingers at Microsoft for rebuilding Windows into their present monstrosity, Vista, forcing these firewall vendors to radically change their products due to Vista's kernel patch protection?

FWIW, the present Outpost 2008 version works near flawlessly on my 5 1/2 yr old P4, socket 478, home-built pc. It does, however, need improvements in certain areas, especially logging, attack detection and Web control, but it is running very stable for me.

 

The vendors were using undocumented APIs to hook into the kernel. MS had told developers to keep away from these APIs but they didn't.

Plus, it wasn't like Vista was a stealth release. They have been developing it for 5 years. They even delayed shipping it during 06 Christmas to allow developers to develop their products for Vista.

You can hardly blame MS for other developers not getting their software ready in time.

 

It's not that simple. Vendors had to re-develop their products to be compatible on Vista, while maintaining compatibility on XP, 2K...etc.