Old Firewall - Sygate

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by niteghost, Aug 22, 2009.

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

    niteghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    122
    Is there any reason, I cannot use or NOT advisable to use the last version og Sygate w/SP3/XP Pro.?
    Would I be compromising my PC security by using a Discontinued Firewall?.:(
     
  2. simisg

    simisg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Posts:
    410
    Location:
    Greece
    i dont think there is any problem.... but it can not protect you from modern threat methods. try private firewall is free and light an has hips
     
  3. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe
    There are a lot of free fw very trusty and easy to use, with a strong autoprotection. Why don't you think to change ?
     
  4. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    As long as it's compatible with the OS, a firewall will work the same today as it did when it was released. Firewall suites have become more complex performing more functions, but the firewall components themselves haven't changed much. Internet protocol hasn't changed. It's the same IP address system, the same base protocols passing through the same ports. Regarding the lack of a HIPS component in older firewalls, you can always add a freestanding one if you want, and probably get a lighter but equally strong package in the process.
     
  5. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe
    What changes, in the time, are the discover of vulnerabilities in the firewalls, especially in the olders, and new way to bypass them. Old fws have not the same autoprotection of the newest, even without HIPS features.
     
  6. bollity

    bollity Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Posts:
    179
    sygate is pure firewall. no HIPS.
    HIPS is very important to face modern new treats.
     
  7. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    No, it's not.
     
  8. niteghost

    niteghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    122
    I did try it, found out that it passes most test that I throw at it, UNTILL PcFlank. "Advance Port scan", left me with Port 80 FULLY OPEN, I did NOT know how to configure PrivateFirewall, to close or stealth i, Port 80, since it is use as an Http for the Browser.?
    Tried Webroot Firewall V5.8 too that was FREE, using their Free registration to obtain a serial, LOOKS EXACTLT infact it is the SAME with PrivateFirewall.
    I found that PrivateFirewall, causes a lot of "internet drag" and slows me down considerably, when I use utorrent as a Client in my Torrents.

    Furthermore, most of the Paid ones that I tried before Like ZA and Outpost are sooo... Bloated with their Antiyspyware stuff, that it really takes a while at Startup and slows down your system considerably.


    P.S. Sygate Passes every Test from ShieldUp, PcFlank and Hackerwatch.
     
  9. Woody777

    Woody777 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Posts:
    484
    you might try Sygate with Mamutu & WinPastrol. Maybe Gizmo is still offering it on his site with a free license. Combined with Mamutu, threatfire or EQ Secure Sygate might be as good as any firewall in current development.
     
  10. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    There's no reason why you can't use it if you're looking for a pretty much straight firewall with a few extra features. If you're looking to pass all the so-called leak tests, then you'd be better of with something newer.
     
  11. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe
    I always passed these test with Outpost, KIS, Comodo...;) ; Comodo, Outpost free and Online Armor free are all excellent fw.
     
  12. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe

    HIPS is one of the main elements for a real protection.
     
  13. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Your brain is better.... :)
     
  14. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    No, it's not... Real protection is LUA/SRP/DEP/HFW combined with a good AV.

    If you think HIPS which in most cases is a bunch of hacks, being added to your system is the way to keep it protected, feel free to do so.
     
  15. niteghost

    niteghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    122
    But Outpost [ paid Version] is soooo bloated, KIS, just the firewall is NOT available since 2006, and ONLY available in their Internet security Package . Comodo does nOT work very well with P2p especially with Torrents, is really a Pain to configure it & just slows the system considerably, from my experiebce.

    Sygate is easy to configure, especially, when I am very "heavy" into Torrents and P2p activities and in their Adv. settings, all one has to do is Uncheck the Server option, and it will Pass Most of the stealth Test.
     
  16. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe
    Only a joke..Internet is not only P2P, there is much more .:D :D ( you are not the only one that selects the fw dependent on P2P ).
     
  17. simisg

    simisg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Posts:
    410
    Location:
    Greece
    if you want try also pctools firewall is light for p2p...... also try sygate with prevx and antivir combination is very strong and light and you are secure.......
     
  18. niteghost

    niteghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    122
    Of course, I know that, duhhhhhhh !! BUT if my 80 % of my "Activity" is mostly in P2P, don't U think I should cover my Behind, when there are multiple of incoming traffic going on with File sharing, and to be stealth as well?
     
  19. niteghost

    niteghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    122
    Yes, I do have another layer of protection with Nod32 Antivirus/antispyware with the Web shield protection as well , Nod 32 V3.0261, will immediately "flag" or stop loadinf any Web page, OR access if it is questionable sires, plus "suspicious" downloads using http, like Rapidshare , megaupload.... that is : FOR MY HTPS protection.

    On top of that, I have the latest version and signature with Malawebytes , to run in the backgound as well Nod 32 [ runs very light will minimal resource]
    I have 2 additional program :Spyware doctor and super antispyware as well, that I scan every couple of days.

    Also, I have Anti keylogger Elite run as startup to examine any "hooks" that are questionable
     
  20. dave88

    dave88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    177
    Sygate is an Excellent firewall. Very light, and great for p2p applications.

    The one thing that kinda bugs me is, when you allow a program it defaults to allowing server rights. Is there any way to change this default?
     
  21. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Nope, not unless there is some exotic registry hack or something... but I rather doubt that. It's annoying, but you have to toggle it for every new app you allow etc....
     
  22. niteghost

    niteghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    122
    Yes, exactly, what I do is that if I do a Stealth Test using service Ports,using Shield Up, If I find any Open ports, I immediately go check for application in the Adv.setting to turn off the server rights.
    Yep, every application is default as given server Rights and client rights , Both Boxes are chec.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.