Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 Testing and Optimization Thread

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Escalader, May 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr payne

    Dr payne Guest

    I guess it would be ok to use? if no problem are happing. Gives me a warm feeling, or am I being disillusion?
     
  2. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    If you are looking for a "warm feeling" from the SPI posts I can't see how you could have that at the moment.

    I have OP FW Pro 2009 installed BUT I don't bother with SPI since it is ineffective. Some of the other protections must be working so you are better off with it than without, I guess. But through no fault of your own you picked a bad day to ask me!

    If a feature wasn't working in my day, we fixed it ASAP and told the users that it wasn't yet ready for prime time. At least they knew.
     
  3. Dr payne

    Dr payne Guest

    I don't understand what you are trying to say.

    "since it is ineffective" It does not work? Just there for looks?

    "picked a bad day to ask me!" Why reply now, if it's a bad day?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2009
  4. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    Sorry I didn't mean to confuse you at all, I did make the assumption that you were following along with the thread mentioned earlier.

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=256231

    It describes the situation I was referring to.

    It's up to you to use or not use these products.
     
  5. pbw3

    pbw3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Posts:
    113
    Location:
    UK
    Manny, that's a really useful thread on the OP forum.

    I have recently been going through a similar process with the component stuff - turning the setting up, getting lots of alerts, spending time doing reading, and am now asking myself "do I need this". I have now come to the conclusion that as I did not install Outpost for the HIPS / leak stuff etc, and as it can interfere with real life to investigate these .dll alerts (although interesting personally), the better solution for me is to turn it all down a notch or two, and then maybe go and look up things retrospectively as and when I feel the need / have the time.

    Ie, the more I am using Outpost, the more I am clear that I mainly want a firewall - ie that was why I installed it. I use other means to protect the sytem (LUA / SRP in blanket default deny, browser in default deny, Sandboxie, etc).

    Hence, in addition to the packet filtering (that replaces the Windows Firewall), Outpost has value to me in its ability to monitor and log network activity extremely well - which is partly where I started with this - whilst also providing control over which applications can access the internet (SRP only provides control over what can run) and which is a little easier to configure for outbound access (for me) than the Windows Vista firewall.
     
  6. Manny Carvalho

    Manny Carvalho Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    Thanks.

    This is a personal choice where one has to find a comfortable balance for themselves. I find that it's enough for me to just monitor executables with Component Control. I've never had any problems with dll's being changed by other than normal things. So, I found it just too much trouble to figure it all out and have it turn out to be a legitimate change. Since I'm not bothered with malware, I dialed it back and waste my time elsewhere.

    Again, personally, I could just use Windows firewall and be fine but I like the control OP gives me and the way it makes me understand my system better. It all depends how much need you have for control and your behavior on the net. Hopefully, one of these days somebody can come up with an operating system that can be widely used and have none of these malware worries. It'd be nice just to forget about all these security programs and practices.
     
  7. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    On the horizon.....Google Chrome Operating System.....
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html


    HKEY1952
     
  8. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Attached are some low level OP rules offered up by the vendor product 6.7.1 64 bit version.
    Latest updates insatlled.

    I would like to know how these should be "set" by the user (me) to optimize security.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. winterlord

    winterlord Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Posts:
    175
    just wondering is there a beta or something of the pro version? so i can use with windows 7
     
  10. Manny Carvalho

    Manny Carvalho Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Posts:
    270
    No, but there should be a public beta coming near the end of this month. The current released version available at Agnitum's site supports Windows 7.
     
  11. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,603
    Location:
    USA
    Hello Escalader...Unless you have a special need, why not block them all....with the possible exceptions of 0,1,2,50 and 51....."Report this Activity". You probably don't need them.
     
  12. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
  13. mhob

    mhob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Posts:
    26
    I am getting high pings and laggy internet browsing when the Outpost Firewall turned on. Pings are 500ms+. When I turn Outpost off, I get 60ms. I am testing with PingTest website, and SpeedTest.

    Anyone know how to resolve the high pings problem?
     
  14. TheBadger

    TheBadger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    On the question of which IP protocols to allow, these are the basic ones that you'll need:

    1 ICMP
    6 TCP
    17 UDP

    some VPN software may require other IP protocols to be enabled, but this is not that common these days. Most VPNs today encapsulate their traffic in either TCP or UDP.

    hope that helps.

    -TheBadger
     
  15. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    Hi Badger! Welcome!

    Yes it does help I kind of knew I needed these 3 the OP log shows those by the dozens! But I hesitate to "block" all the rest!

    Guess I'm just chicken! :oops:

    What would be an example or 2 of VPN software? Not sure I have any!
     
  16. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Well I have decided to press ahead with some blocking rules on these "odd" protocols. ie odd in that i don't know what they do or even if I need them. But following my own policy of default deny and exception allow I'll see what trouble I get into.

    The 2 posts here in this thread suggesting I may need certain protocols merge into:

    0 HOPOPT
    1 ICMP
    2 IGMP
    6 TCP
    17 UDP
    50 ESP
    51 AH

    Does anybody have an changes for this list?

    I'm on W7, 64 bit.

    Pretend we are NOT behind a router as this is a notebook and I'm in a hotspot in a crime ridden part of town!:D
     
  17. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,603
    Location:
    USA
    I would add pepper spray.
     
  18. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Good idea! Maybe a lead pipe! Anyway enough or we will really go OT!

    More later!
     
  19. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Okay Guys my experiment is done (for now)

    First I let OP FW Pro 2009 ICMP settings table handle:

    1 ICMP so I added no blocking rules to rules already provided by the vendor. That's like buying an accounting package for tax and then modifying it to add tax logic.

    I have allowed:

    1 ICMP
    2 IGMP
    6 TCP
    17 UDP
    51 AH
    89 OSPF
    132 SCTP

    And, blocked in/out on ALL the rest.

    There is no promise these will work on your setups, I'm only reporting what is working on my setup.

    Windows 7 Ultimate
    64 Bit CPU
     
  20. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    FWIW, my posts in this thread continue using the latest updated version of Outpost Pro 2009 6.7.2(3001.452.071:cool:. It is the 64 bit version currently working with my Windows 7 notebook.

    Lately testing has been on setting the low level protocol rules in network .

    I have allowed:

    1 ICMP
    2 IGMP
    6 TCP
    17 UDP
    51 AH
    89 OSPF
    132 SCTP
    And, blocked in/out on ALL the rest.

    I forgot to tell the thread that I made these rules HIGH priority so that they come 4th in OP's ranking list.
    A good thing is that when I updated to the latest version the install logic allowed me to save all previous settings. A bad thing is the save settings day to day still seems to be broken.

    Here is the OP support / help on the sequencing of rules it uses for custom rule sets. I see now that when I conceeded the ICMP rules to OP's table leaves those as 10th so that will require a rethink on my part anyway. Noone said this was easy. FW's are not for the user searching for a silverbullet quick and easy.
    More later.

     
  21. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    In OP user should keep the Host protection on.

    There are various levels or settings. Here is the OP Help on the settings:

    Setting Local Security Level

     
  22. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    As the thread can guess I selected this setting. Not because I think I'm advanced but because it offers the maximum security.

    I have NOT got a lot of product prompts at all. 1 or 2 at first then nothing. So IMHO, OP is scaring off users who fear or dislike prompts.
     
  23. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    4,021
    >> So IMHO, OP is scaring off users who fear or dislike prompts.

    Any software which bothers with needful popups is annoying.
    user should know which action is needful.

    relating to my comment outpost hips forgets settings.
    i play an online game in full screen and sometimes hips bothered me with
    settings i already had done - and if i confirm for a rule it second/thirds/aso.
    the same **** question - till i restart(ed) outpost - the game was still running.
    but the popups were gone and all is fine. and that behavior was reproducible
    here after the 2nd and 3rd fresh install with settings from scratch with
    each newer build.

    another thing that some users requested is exception rules or folders.
    i dont know if its coming in v2010 - i will see.

    anyway i change beginning 2009 to online armor and didnt regret it yet.
    in between i started windows 7 and had some time to check out other
    nice software.
     
  24. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    really? outpost always worked fine for me, and was pretty dang quiet for the most part wen alerts werent needed. i was on 32bit.
     
  25. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    4,021
    remind me to make a drawing especially for you! :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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.