Are 3rd Party Firewalls really any better than Windows XP Firewall

I have heard the arguments that a Third Party Firewall is needed for someone who wants outbound protection, and that for inbound protection it should pass many leak tests. But I was wondering if someone only wants inbound protection without being concerned with all the leak tests, are Third Party Firewalls really any better than Windows XP Firewall?

 

not rele. maybe other firewalls may have IDS/IPS but Windows Firewall is good for inbound protection.

 

Windows firewall is best for most users, it does its job well and works silently in the background. Third party software is generally more configurable than the windows firewall and offers outbound protection and leak prevention among other things.

 

Hello,
Better is a highly subjective matter.
If you wish to have more information about what goes on with your traffic, logging etc, plus outbound control, then you might wanna use a third-party firewall. If you wish only to have a simple firewall, then you don't need anything else.
Mrk

 

Thanks to all so far. I have always been curious as to why so many people have used ZA Free, or SKPF, when all they wanted was good inbound protection and nothing else. I feel the simple Firewall in the AVG ISS is even more than what the average user needs, but I do like to see what's going on, and feel more protected for some reason with having it. That's why I really miss the Comodo Firewall. I must say though, that I do notice having a Third Party Firewall, no matter how light it is on my system, still slows down my PC more than just using the Windows XP Firewall. I guess the next question is, should there be any other protection added, besides an AV, like Windows Defender, Spyware Terminator, or maybe even Cyberhawk? I have used all of these in the past with Comodo, and probably didn't need them, but would anything like this be needed with the Windows Firewall?

 

Duke1959 - I know what you mean about the firewall slowing down your pc. After I uninstalled ZoneAlarm Security Suite, my pc start up and shutdown times were cut in half. However, when I installed Comodo, I saw no slowdown at all. As a matter of fact, aside from the occasional pop up, I wouldn't know it is there.

 

with a third party browser like opera or firefox, realtime antispyware is not rele needed. other security programs like a behavior blocker (CyberHawk ) or a HIPS (like SSM) are optional depending on your needs, habits, preferences.

 

My browsing habits are main stream "safe" sites and I use Firefox. If real time anti-spyware aren't needed why am I finding spyware in my scans?

 

I think a lot of Zone Alarm users started using the program before there was a Windows Firewall. If you recall back in ancient times, only Zone Alarm and Outpost offered a free firewall program during the infant PC days. I am sure that many of the "old users" like myself, stayed with using the firewall and never migrated to Windows XP SP2. From what I can tell from the tray area, the firewall program and Antivirus program would ALWAYS load at the very end of the bootup process. Zone Alarm would load up a few seconds after the other programs and VirusScan would take sometime up to minute to show up. It was an annoyance but then it was a slower CPU and Windows 98. I know that it would be ideal to totally shut down any possible holes in my PC so that you are totally protected. However, personally, I am of the school that less is better because software conflicts and slowdowns inevitably show up when you load too many programs into memory at a given time. Microsoft will turn off outbound protection by default in Vista so they feel that the average user does not need it.

http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187000304

 

A lot of websites want to track users who access their sites. They deposit cookies and other debris so that they can see where their customer base is coming from. There is money to be made when you can get a boatload of consumer information so that sellers can target their products to the appropriate markets. I get consumer surveys by mail and they pay me $1 just to fill out my opinion. I also got free gift cards from completing online surveys.

 

CCSITO - I see by your stats in your signature that you agree with me that we need 3rd party anti-spyware apps. I am aware of what you said, and was responding to Duke 1959 who said we really don't need them. My philosophy is that you only have to get hit once.

 

So we can all agree that windows firewall is good enough to use? Right now I am half way through my outpost trial, and I have to decide soon if I want to pay for it or not. What should I do?

 

If you use a router and surf somewhat careful, then a solid AV product and your PC firewall, are more then adequate. Regardless of what some may lead you to think.

 

I was always under the impression from what I've read that Windows FF is minimal and good enough in a pinch until you could get a reliable FF. I'm reading here that the Windows FF is good enough. I'll stay safe with my Comodo.

 

yep, I agree with you on that one.

 

And if software firewalls leak, how is it better. Dont depend on your firewall, depend on yourself. And they all, leak.

 

I totally agree. I used to be burdened by having 3 or 4 realtime antispyware apps installed. Now I have none. Firefox with the NoScript extension cuts spyware off at the only way it gets in. Through your browser. If you are worried about tracking cookies, then turn them off in you browser. (Firefox also makes this very easy.) Why install "crap" that slows down your PC when it's very easy to prevent it in the first place. (I have been to many websites that are infested with drive-by spyware, and NoScript makes them as safe as Wilders Forums.)

I am sitting behind a FreeBSD firewall/router called pfSense and needed ports forwarded for uTorrent and eMule and then would use Jetico 1.0 (and highly recommend it for those that understand TCP/IP) because it would close those ports when uTorrent and eMule were closed. But someone built a UPnP package for pfSense firewall and now I don't have to keep ports forwarded all the time. uTorrent and eMule can open the ports automatically on pfSense now and they don't need the Windows SSDP and UPnP services enabled or even installed to do it. I only have the Windows firewall running because I have 3 networked PC's at home (Layers).

So, for me, I don't "need" a 3rd party firewall.

Firefox /w Noscript takes care of spyware.
pfSense keeps my ports stealthed when not in use (it also has Snort and Tarpit packages)
On-Demand trojan scanners A2 and Ewido for scanning anything I download through P2P

 

Well Ive used a few firewalls, firstly I bought ZoneAlarm when it was version 4 I think back in 2002, then I tried Kerio, cant remember what version that was, then I tried McAfee Firewal Plus, then I tried Sygate Professional, then I used PC Cillin Internet Security 2004, then when I upgraded to XP after running 98SE and Millennium, I tried Outpost, and really liked that one, but it got too buggy since v4.0 so I tried Comodo and didnt like it and went back to ZoneAlarm, and I'm quite content with it. I wonder what ZoneAlarm Pro v7.0 will be like but really there is no BAD Firewall they all stop stuff, some just do more than others,and its a personal preference. All the Hype that one is better than the other causes users to have nothing but headaches I'm sticking with what I like,and Sod the Rest

 

I think it depends on the needs of the user.. Windows Xp default firewall offers basic inbound protection, which can be considered enough by most users, but for advanced features ( such as lots of customizations, network traffics, etc) an other firewall might be neccesary.

I tried ZoneAlarm for some while but it annoyed me with forgeting the settings and asking me over and over again. Sometimes it would have been detected the same old network as a new one, ( if for example I took out the cable, or if my router assigned an other IP to my computer ).

So I uninstalled it and I'm doing fine with just the Windows XP default firewall.

 

Are you seriously asking this question ? XP firewall is only protection from breaking in . . you need protection from badware breaking out with your creditcard details and your shoe size etc. Also badware or malware can alter the firewall to accept connections inbound which removed your already limited protection. always use a firewall thats as you say 3rd party

 

Nah, this forum only exists for us to spin webs of deception on newcomers. Microsoft rulez!

Dashes off to wash mouth out with soap and water...

 

If you have the money then i'd suggest you get outpost as it has all the bells and whistles you need in a firewall. However comodo is also a good option and free.

 

TECHWG, are you saying using a Third Party FW like Comodo or AVG, would prevent someone from getting my Credit Card Information? I mean if they can't get in, in the first place, how can this happen? I'm not doubting you, just asking.

 

Firewall inbound prevents hackers & worms to get into PC via open ports, thats is all.
Trojan will get into PC mostly via browser or email client and those are allowed in firewall.
Firewall outbound will prevent C:\trojan.exe to connect home with gathered info, passwords.

 

The Tom_SK Exactly.