Ashampoo Free Firewall vs Zone Alarm Free

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by duke1959, Dec 31, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    Having used the latest ZA Free Firewall version I was quite pleased as it ran well and didn't seem to slow down my system. I was just wondering though, if the promises made on the Ashampoo website about their Free Firewall was true. If so it would mean it is more informative than ZA Free, even lighter on the system, and give the user more control. So is Ashampoo better than ZA Free at this point? The reviews on Download.com were mixed, but it did get a very high rating.
     
  2. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    Ashampoos firewall is definitely not as good as ZA free. For simplicity and ease of use nothing much is better than ZA.
     
  3. TonyDownUnder

    TonyDownUnder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    46
    What a remarkably confident statement you make farmerlee. Please point me to the independent comparative testing between the two products that justifies your view - cause I can't find it. I don't use either product nor Comodo Firewall but I'd certainly install it in preference to the other two named products.
    As to this view of mine see:
    http://www.matousec.com/projects/wi...ysis/leak-tests-results.php#firewalls-ratings

    Also note that the testing there was with ZA Pro whose capabilities are superior to that of the free ZA version.
     
  4. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
  5. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,513
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    Farmerlee, please provide us with some facts that will give your one-liner the predicat "reliable" and the classification "true".

    Txs in advance,

    Smokey
     
  6. Hyperion

    Hyperion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    302
    Ashampoo Free has some small bugs and probably doesn't stealth ports.I use it behind a router so i don't care.
    Compared to ZAF,you have some more granularity ,since you can specify ports (but not protocols).The default setting also gives server rights to every application,which is dangerous for newbies.

    PErsonally i d reccomend Ashampoo Free to anyone that is behind a router and wants a firewall that is very light and doesn't slow down browsing speed at all.Also unlike ZAF,it works fine with Emule.

    I d say ZAF is slightly superior in easyness for a complete newbie,since doesn't ask you ports and doesn't give server rights automatically.But Ashampoo is lighter,more good looking and best for browsing and p2p.

    Don't even bother bringing leak tests etc in the discussion,it would be pointless.These 2 firewalls are simple ones,they exist to serve much simpler needs than the security techies in Wilder's :D
     
  7. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    934
    Ashampoo does not stealth.Uninstalling it now,ports are closed only
     
  8. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,
    That's no reason to uninstall a firewall. Closed ports are as good as any.
    Mrk
     
  9. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    I made 24 leaktests, this info may help you.

    1. Outpost Firewall Pro 4 100%
    2. ZoneAlarmPro 92%
    .
    .
    .
    .
    7. Ashampoo Firewall 1.14/1. 10 21%

    You can be sure that my results are the truth. Forget Ashampoo.

    Nonsense. You have no surveillance ability. Outpost is the best actually. You could compare it with someone who has very good eyes and someone who has bad eyes, the one with good eyes is always in a huge advantage.
     
  10. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    I do not have any facts other than my personal experience with the two firewalls. I have used ZA for years and its always been a very reliable firewall. I have used the ashampoo firewall and found it to be horrible, it could not even stealth my ports by default which imo is terrible. Therefore i submit that my original statement is true.
     
  11. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,

    Leaktests - meaningless.
    Closed ports = stealthed ports.

    Now to elaborate:
    Firewall - processing of networking traffic.
    Firewall - NOT responsible for killing executables, flushing dlls and so forth.
    Real life situation - most people will not be able to tell a real leak from a benign dial attempt by legit app and will allow potential malware to connect, rendering their defense meaningless. As to those who can tell such attempts apart, they do not need a Firewall to tell them that.

    Closed ports:
    What surveillance ability? Closed port cannot accept unsolicited connection inbound. Period.

    Mrk
     
  12. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    934
    Uninstalled ashampoo,back to comodo and stealth.Didnt like firewall at all.If i had to choose between the two then zone alarm
     
  13. Alphalutra1

    Alphalutra1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Posts:
    1,160
    Location:
    127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0
    Any firewall should be able to be configured to drop SYN packets giving it the "stealthed" capability which is pretty worthless, since it does nothing special except violate internet regulations. A closed port just sends back a packet saying that the port is not accepting connections, so it is just as secure.

    As to leaktests, zone alarm free only passes one of them if I remember correctly, as it lacks the OS firewall and many other capabilities of the full version.

    Just some thoughts,

    Alphalutra1
     
  14. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia

    Could you post the score of 'Zonealarm Free'. Thanks.
     
  15. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    I am behind a NAT Router and the system that is resource challenged would do fine with this Ashampoo lighter firewall. Don't you think? Who needs steath when they are behind a HardWare Firewall (Router) or am I missing something. o_O :doubt: Server rights by default :p WHY?

    Have used ZA off and on for years it is good but has it's faults too.
     
  16. Hyperion

    Hyperion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    302
    I ll reply to the part that i haven't commented already in my previous post:

    I suppose they put Server rights by default,a bit like Sygate does,so to help complete newbies.You can however edit the rule and simply remove the "tick" from the box "allow incoming connections(server mode)" and you 're OK (exactly the way it is with Sygate too).

    Behind a router and for people that aren't leak test maniacs,it is a great,simple outbound control solution.
     
  17. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    full nonsense

    OMG, only one little server exe is needed to make your idea useless.

    Firewall is a must. More surveillance capabilities.

    Must be pretty similar to the pro results I guess, sorry no time actually for testing this, but probably same thing.

    Comodo also 92%.
     
  18. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,

    Let's say you use a router - which does not stealth ports. You only get closed. How exactly is my 'closed is secure' nonsense?

    What server.exe are you talking about?

    Open port does not mean you get hacked. It means the application accepts inbound connections, like ant P2P software. And then what?

    If the application listening on a port has no exploitable vulnerability, then there is no meaning to any incoming traffic that tries to exploit something.

    Example - Let's say you run BitTorrent, listening on port 54333. It acts as server, in order to allow other people to send requests for files and connect to you for download. Let's say someone sends a blizzard of evil packets at this port. And let's s say these packets are aimed at subverting the Messenger. What will BitTorrent do exactly with these packets? How will it interpret them? Nohow. They will be simply lost in the noise overhead.

    Closed ports means no unsolicited traffic comes in. As same as stealth. Open port means that connections can be made. But that still does not mean that incoming traffic will be able to do anything bad.

    When someone sends incoming traffic, he / she does not know what application listens on the destination port. He / she can assume and expect and hope it will be svchost or messenger or something. But you can use your ports any which way like for any 1000 applications available.

    So, someone sends a Messenger hack to your port 54422. But your Messenger works on port 32111. So nothing happens. And so forth. Then even if the evil packets reach your Messenger port, the exploit works only for a certain version and not the one you have. And so forth.

    Exploit might work if an exploitable application listens to a certain ports and receives the exploit packets. Otherwise, it's just Internet noise.

    BTW, where did I say firewall is not a must?

    It just does NOT have to stealth the ports. Closed ports, alone or by firewall, are as good as any stealthed ones.

    So, please elaborate on full nonsense and little server.exe?
    What did you mean by those?

    Mrk
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2007
  19. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    I read that Ashampoo Free Firewall is not recognized by the Windows Security Center, true?
     
  20. Demoras

    Demoras Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Posts:
    33
    That's not important at all.
    Security Center is pretty useless if you ask me. I don't use it.
     
  21. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    But is it?
     
  22. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,
    Maybe. It really does not matter.
    Mrk
     
  23. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    This is not important to me at all, but this is duke's thread so if some one knows it would be good to post it. ;)
     
  24. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    Duke! What's he still doing here. That's it! Does anyone know of a good 'Obsession Counselor'? o_O
     
  25. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    I know, I know. I promise I'm going to quit, but little by little is easier. I have installed Ashampoo AntiSpyware and it's really nice. That's why I was wondering about the FW now. I realize it doesn't need to be recognized. I just would like it too, if I decide to use it instead of my AVG FW. I liked ZA, and of course Comodo is my favorite, but Ashampoo looks like it may be a good choice between the two. Judging by their AS, it may not be bad either.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.