Hi, I went to firewallleaktester.com and downloaded (or at least tried to) all the leaktests to test them against the ESS firewall module. Here are my results : Excluded leaktests : DNSTester - I don't use the DNS Cache service, and advise everyone to disable it too. It's dangerous and not that useful, and can dramatically slow down your connection if you use a big hosts file like the MVPS one. MBTest - As long as I use a French version of XP, it won't work. AWFT - installation needed. Note : I couldn't download these and since I wasn't able to disable AV-protection (bug*) I wasn't able to test them : Breakout CopyCat FireHole Outbound Thermite Now for the testing : CPIL - failed, successfully opened a new window with the data and site. Ghost - failed, sccesffuly opened IE with it's GET parameters. Jumper - failed. LeakTest - passed (communication attempt detected). PCAudit - passed but only because no rule for explorer.exe was defined for general HTTP (as it should be). PCAudit2 - says it fails, but seems not to send any data. PCFlank - fails (transmits data). Surfer - fails (gets its data). Tooleaky - passes. Wallbreaker - fails the 4 tests. Yalta - passes (without the driver, can't install it). Hence, with only 4 of 11 leaktests blocked (and only because of strict rules), I strongly advise ESET to include an HIPS-like component into their Suite. The firewall is good performance wise and configuration wise even if it takes some time to get used to and could be more ergonomic, but, it needs serious improvements regarding leak test protection. I know it's still the first Beta and I trust ESET to fix that until release time. bug* : When, in Advanced mode, I go to the Setup -> Antivirus panel, and try to click on 'disable' either for the mail or real-time antivirus protection, it does nothing. It works only for the Web protection. Also if, in the advanced setup, I try to uncheck the antivirus protection, I can't click OK to close the dialog until I check it back. Now, does ESS want me to stay protected at any cost ? I think it's either a bug or a design problem, because not being able to disable protection can be annoying.