GhostWall v1.150 - Free firewall for Windows XP/XP64/2000

Discussion in 'Other Ghost Security Software' started by Jason_R0, Sep 27, 2005.

  1. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    ghostwall is a just simple packet filter and afaik i dont think it has any IDS/IPS like sygate does.

    id stay with sygate.
     
  2. SYS 64738

    SYS 64738 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Posts:
    130
    Please, after using GhostWall for months i would really like to get rid of this message. Its so annoying to see this every time again. Please, can you remove this asap? :'(
     
  3. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,195
    Location:
    New England
  4. Riverrun

    Riverrun Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Posts:
    376
    Location:
    ~
    OK, LowWater, thanks.
     
  5. CaDmiuM48

    CaDmiuM48 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1
    Feature request:-
    Any chance of a checkbox or the like so we can temporarily disable/enable a rules/s
    I have software that I only periodicaly allow internet access and its a pain having to delete and then remake the same rule/s over and over again.

    One final question:-
    How do I allow a program Lan access but deny it Internet access?

    Other than that I like the firewall and I thank you for all your hard work.
     
  6. turion

    turion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Posts:
    60
    This is a priority rule based firewall :cautious: you don't have to delete and remake the rules over and over again by placing the block all rule in a higher priority than your own rules.

    Answer to your last question is simple: not possible, you have to look for application based firewalls. I doubt Jason will implement this feature in Ghostwall.
     
  7. zikarus

    zikarus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    18
    Can GhostWall 1.1.5.0 be used in a portable way straight off an USB-stick?

    BR
    z.
     
  8. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    You probably can't run it off a usb stick but ghostwall can be dynamically installed and uninstalled without having to restart the computer.
     
  9. raymm

    raymm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    I tried GW on Vista 64 OS. Got message -
    Could not start the Ghostwall Driver - This means the firewall is not active.

    So I'm concluding it doesn't work on Vista 64, right?
     
  10. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,190
    Location:
    Mass., USA
  11. Hutchin

    Hutchin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Posts:
    1
    Hi,
    using the "Shields Up" site, Ghostwall is almost totally stealthed on the Web, apart
    from one prob, it keeps answering Pings from the Web.
    Does anyone know of a rule that will stop GS answering the Pings?
    I've tried
    " PING Block ICMP outgoing Any Any Any Any "

    Should that have done the job, or is there another Rule that needs altering/creating as well?:(

    Bye for now,
    Hutchin.
     
  12. NeoX

    NeoX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    Hi.

    My opinion about GhostWall:

    First of all i <3 GhostWall but if u want to use it on a daily base, u slowly recognize that some few features are missing... like putting the set up of allowed and disallowed connections in certain profiles (ex: for gaming so u cant turn on special connections and don't have to allow all... etc.)
    or block connections by process name...

    ...these things would be great if available :eek:

    ...an i don't think it would be this hard to accomplish ;)

    so i just keep waiting 4 these things to come (hoping that the author doesn't do the same ;) )


    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    AleX


    BTW, pls excuse my bad English -> I'm German
     
  13. RedZero

    RedZero Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Posts:
    34
    Check the order of your rules. ;)
     
  14. NeoX

    NeoX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    well, in other words you're telling me to reinstall ghostwall and set up all the stuff again :cautious:


    ..what a useful comment...
     
  15. sentry42

    sentry42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Posts:
    9
    I think RedZero replied to Hutchin and not to you Neox... BTW, have you checked the following thread:

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=146271

    I know it's not a replacement for profiles but the technique is quite useful.

    Regarding the feature "block connections by process name" I wouldn't keep my hopes up since I think you mean blocking processes that tries to make outgoing connections and as far as I understood from Jason's previous comments, this is nothing that he's even considering...

    Regarding Huthcin's ping issue, it could either be that:

    - a router is connected between the PC and the internet and in that case, it's probably the router that replies to the ping. For most routers, you can disable the "Respond to Ping on Internet WAN Port" which should solve the problem.

    - some GhostWall rules are either missing or in the incorrect order (hence RedZero's comment). See these threads for more info:

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=109801
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=174811
     
  16. NeoX

    NeoX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    if you check the "log" (blocked connection) then you see that ghostwall is able to detect pid and now what you have to do is use the block/allow function on pid or name of process....

    so, same function same use of this function just different input(and input is already there) o_O


    and btw pls save the set up of connection in external file ;)
     
  17. Samsite

    Samsite Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Posts:
    1
    Hi,
    I really ask you for a solution for ghostwall error when using limited account.
    The power of this firewall is that is made for user that haven’t much knowledge of IT.
    I want to advise a lot of people to use this firewall as its lite , and no question ask. But all pc i have help to install are limited accounts. This is actually a big error in you program as people that i would advise to use this program should actually work in a limited account, making actually you firewall almost useless because people that work in Admin right should actually have IT knowledge and use more powerful firewall.
    This is a nice firewall but should not give errors in limited account. Even it seems to work after error for the kind user that use this firewall seeing this error is a good reason to uninstall the program
    Are they any solution for this problem or shall I uninstall the 20 install that I already made ?
     
  18. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Jason said he would remove that error message in the next version. However, its not known when that next version will come.
     
  19. miked63

    miked63 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Posts:
    1
    This looks like the perfect solution for our needs. We have a number of Win2K systems at work, and recently we've been mandated to turn on host-based firewalls on everything capable of running one. I'm testing GhostWall (GW) out and so far, it looks like it should do the trick. I do have several questions.

    I see from an earlier discussion in this thread that there's a potential issue with limited users and presentation of an error message about a missing driver, or something along those lines. Is this a problem under Win2K? Could it be alleviated by omitting the GW startup item from the HKLM Run key, or will it always present itself, regardless? Does this really amount to little more than a non-fatal glitch?

    I am concerned that we're approaching the three year mark since this bug was identified and a fix promised for the next release. Is this product still being maintained/updated?

    Per the screen shots, we can apparently specify port ranges (e.g. "6000-6064"). Are there other syntax options for the port specification (such as ">1024" for any port greater than 1024, or lists of addresses/ranges, like "4661-4672, 4711")?

    Is an asterisk the only way to specify a subnet (e.g. "192.168.10.*")? What about a network address and mask (e.g. "192.168.10.0:255.255.255.0") or a CIDR (e.g. "192.168.10.0/24")? If these can't be used today, might they be available in a future release?

    Is GW a "stateful" firewall? For example, if you were to allow all incoming ICMP, would this be enough to allow the response to an ICMP echo request back out, or would allowing outgoing ICMP also be necessary?

    Can GW deal with multi-homed systems (i.e. PCs with more than one NIC)? If I have one NIC configured with something like WireShark (formerly Ethereal) with no IP address bound to it, and a second NIC with an IP address tied to it, how can I make sure GW doesn't do anything with the packets from the NIC used for packet sniffing?

    Thanks for a interesting product.
     
  20. truthseeker

    truthseeker Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Posts:
    977
    Will there ever be a GhostWall FireWall that will work on 32 bit Vista?
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2008
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.