I don't need no stinking firewall

Well I don't. Do I? I mean I have a Linksys wireless router firewall with SPI. AVG Pro 7.5, SuperAntiSpyware Pro, and Mamutu all running in RT. I have never been infected except back in the days before I knew about Wilders, and use to try Antispyware's that I didn't know were rogue. I also surf fairly safe and can use McAfee Site Advisor if I want to check out websites before going in. So again I don't need no stinking firewall. Or do I?

 

Your router IS a firewall.

 

You don't need a software based firewall. However, having been a member here for 15 months, you know that malware finds a way. Why not shore up your defenses?

 

I also have Windows XP Firewall enabled. I was thinking of even adding ThreatFire back in the picture instead of a software firewall. Which is what I meant by not needing a firewall.

 

I understand this, but despite many people having success using Comodo and OA. There are many that have had more than their share of problems with them and other third party firewalls. Is it worth it?

 

There's several ways to skin a cat in security terms - I don't use any AV scanners myself since I have total control over what gets run on my system (via PG/SSM) and I can submit anything suspicious to the likes of VirusTotal first.

It is however useful to be able to control applications' network access since this has privacy (preventing phone-home software) as well as security (blocking/alerting on malware) benefits. That is the main point of a decent software firewall, once you have a router taking care of hostile incoming traffic.

 

I don't use a software firewall either. We have an external modem with a hardware firewall and a router with a hardware firewall. I'd think 2 hardware firewalls is plenty. But, I still have Faronics AE, DeepFreeze, and Sandboxie on board just in case.

 

I have to agree with Paranoid2000. With more and more people properly implementing a router into their Internet connection the need for software based inbound protection has reduced dramatically. However, many would be surprised what may be going out.....even from the most innocent of software. While I have become a basically safe(er) surfer and downloader then I was in the past. The outbound protection of a software based FW can not be beat as a potential early warning to a breech(?) of privacy that otherwise you would have had no idea existed.

 

Usage of the term "firewall" seems to be getting a bit loose in this
forum lately. Yes, you need a stinking firewall (apology to Alfonso
Bedoya). If you have a NAT router with a built-in firewall, and you
set it up properly, you have a firewalled Internet connection. Should
you add software to your individual machines which provides additional
filtering protection, is a question only you can answer, based on your
experience and your system set-up.

 

Since you're considering options while apparently still want to stay light on the layer additions, if I'm reading you right, then you might try a middle road approach by :

- installing a very light software firewall, like Ghostwall : outbound protection, a firewall which don't pretent to be more (etc, I'm sure you know all the GW line already). Or Jetico 1, or even PCtoolsFW+ for something just slightly "bulkier".

- paired with only _one_ Behavior blocker

-and perhaps only one of your already in use anti-malware (I'd go with SuperAntiSpyware Pro).

Personally I'd even put the last one on demand only, and/or use Returnil but that's just me.

 

I would really like to see some statistics: How many people run into problems because of malware that used a leak in outbound protection, which was not protected by a firewall; vs. How many people run into problems because of installing a firewall with outbound protection, which turned out to conflict with some other parts of the system?

I give all my votes to the latter case. I am running a simple NAT router, and I didn't had a virus or malware as long as I can think back. On the other hand, I tried all major software firewall over the last month, because of all that outbound protection hype, and I didn't discover a single one that was free of issues. Ok, some few exceptions only slowed down my system and else were running fine, but these where mostly the firewalls that are strong in inbound protection but weak in outbound leaktest protection. So there seems to be anyway no need for them behind a router.

 

I think outbound vulneralbilities are presented hugely overrated,Why ? At least on Wilders there is always a big talk on how to protect against outbound/inbound and what to use in place,but real evidence personally from the members participating in these endless threads is really,really vague. Ofcourse i don't take treats from the web lightly as i have my stuff in place but if they're real that massive then it will show up in more real live experiences to be discussed here.

Its kinda like endless decribing and analising the Pie receipt without eating it !

 

Actually, the pie is quite easy to taste.

Install any decent software firewall and actually check the logs every day for a few days. Then you'll get some less than vague hints regarding _your_ actual needs, or absence of (unlikely, imho), outbound protection.

 

OK, I did so for the last few month, and I never logged any malware trying to connect out ....

 

Actually, that was the reason why I finally decided to throw away outbound firewalls years ago. Haven't looked back, no sir.

 

-I tried Online Armor Free:
It has the most convenient HIPS, but it slowed down my surfing speed especially when
I set FireFox in the Run Safer mode. Moreover, it offered limited Registry protection.

-I tried Comodo 3: It was lighter than OA Free (i.e. did not slow down my surfing)
and offered better overall protection. However, its HIPS were very ''undisciplined''
(i.e frequent pop up messages). I tried the suggested D+ settings I read in
various threads, but I found no significant difference.

In the period I used Online Armor Free and Comodo 3, I had no Firewall
warnings about suspicious outbound connections (i.e programs calling home etc.).
On the contrary, I had the usual/frequent HIPS warnings, which were not
necessarily associated with threats or suspicious activities.

>If it is HIPS -and not a software Firewall- that I really need to have,
then, I'll better stick with ThreatFire and/or EQSecure.

 

So that's who said "I don't need no stinking badge" huh? I can't remember what movie that was from, but I wonder if he used a software firewall? LOL. Depending on how old the movie was, i doubt he even had a PC. LOL. I agree that it all boils down to a personal choice. I actually liked PC Tools Firewall. It was light weight, caused no noticeable slowdowns while browsing or when rebooting and I believe also offered some other protective capabilities than outbound protection. Honestly I know people like my son who is behind a router firewall and only uses Avast Home and Windows XP FW and has never been infected other than when downloading something he shouldn't have. I know he surfs more dangerously than I do, but again I guess there's always that chance of something getting in even using Firefox, and someone not knowing unless it tries to connect out.

 

Clearly there might be that chance. But I was just wondering, how does it compare to the chance of ending up with a crippled system, because of actually installing a firewall?

Taking my own experience, and all that stuff that I read in the various forums about people and their problems with their firewall, I have the feeling the latter chance is much higher.

 

U do need a FW so that u can switch it every other day and make posts about this here.

 

Installing any software may cripple a system. Granted, security software seems to have a higher chance because of the way it must interact with the system.

How big of a percentage are the people posting with problems vs the actual amount of people using the product without a hitch?
Something to keep in mind, the combination of software\hardware (both security & non-security related) are infinite. IMO, though the install may have "broke" it. It does not mean it was the FWs` fault.....it was just the last straw. Considering all the variables involved it continues to amaze me that they work as well as they do in the majority of cases.

 

Nothing to switch here,and i can post !!

 

There might be a lot.

But anyway, how big the percentage of people using a firewall and actually not even realizing that it is the source of their problems. I read some funny posts from people thinking they got an virus and they were so frustrated that they actually ended up formating their whole system; but in reality the problem was a well known issue of the FW they were using.
OK, that may be a bit extreme.

But how high actually the number of peoples getting infected because of outbound leaks?

 

LOL. I know aigle was only having fun with me and he's right. LOL. However, I am honestly trying "not' to do this anymore and thus my thread. I have slowly been trying to narrow down the security software I like and actually need, and thanks to this thread so far, I'm beginning to think a software firewall isn't one of them.

 

Infections are not the only concern. Actually probably the least if at all a concern. I am speaking more of information being leaked, whether it is something as simple as system specs,surfing habits, or of a personal nature.

 

Let,s see how it goes.