Outpost 2.1 or LooknStop 2.05?

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by profhsg, Jun 22, 2004.

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

    profhsg Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    145
    I have used and am licensed for both Outpost 2.1 Pro and LooknStop. As far as inbound protection is concerned, both seem to completely stealth my system as online tests (GRC, Symantec, Security Space, etc.) are concerned. LooknStop seems to be a bit easier on resources, quite a bit less glitchy with other apps and has no annual renewal fee. However, in terms of application control, OP 2.1 is a heck of a lot easier to limit outgoing apps to particular protocols and IP addresses. Moreover, I also like (a) the logging on OP 2.1 and (b) the Active content filter plug-in on the program (I don't need the ad control plug-in because I use Ad/Subract Pro).

    So, my question boils down to this: how important is it in terms of security to (a) be able to specify particular IPs, ports etc. for apps rather than just block/allow (yes, I know you can specify some of these for LnS but it's definitely not that easy to do), and (b) be able to block Active X, VB scripts etc. from Web Pages (yes, OP 2.1 can also block them from e-mail, but again I don't need it because my e-mail client allows me to do that)?

    Thanks in advance for your replies.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  2. optigrab

    optigrab Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Posts:
    624
    Location:
    Brooklyn/NYC USA
    Useful (if not important), particularly for apps that are semi-spyware, like Window Media Player, RealPlayer, etc. I like the idea that all my apps are limited to particular IP's & ports, and don't have to worry about unannounced changes in their reporting behavior.


    Somewhat more important from a security standpoint than the app blocking scenario. If your surfing habits are even occasionally risky, this feature can be a real headache-preventer.

    My 2 cents.
     
  3. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    I would regard this as a basic requirement - see here for a list of possible uses, though my comment about ZoneAlarm should have specified the free version only.
    Active Content on web pages is the entry vector for spyware and browser/system hijackers - as such a good web filter should be regarded as being as essential to security as an anti-virus or firewall. However you can use a third party filter for this (Proxomitron is the most powerful and flexible but something like WebWasher Classic would be easier to use - both are free though I don't know how they compare with AdSubtract) so a firewall's capabilities here should be regarded as an extra rather than a requirement.

    Just to clarify some other points here, Outpost does not have an annual fee - your licenced copy will carry on working indefinitely. It does provide free upgrades for a year after purchase so if you wish to upgrade after that, you will need to pay for an extension but this is optional. Outpost's resource usage can be greatly affected by your anti-virus software - ensure that the Outpost logfile (at least) is excluded from any background scanners if CPU usage seems unusually high.

    It should also be noted that Look'n Stop does not have stateful inspection enabled by default (which doubtless helps reduce resource usage) and is limited to 128 connections if it is enabled. This may cause problems with some applications (some P2P ones especially) and web access via multiple local proxies.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. jhr76
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,481
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.