Outpost Free firewall any good?

i like Mamutu better personally, but whether its more effective than DSA i can't say for sure.

 

But I'm saying that Mamutu+PCTFW combo would be better than using DSA alone

 

But, as I said a few posts ago, since I now use a NAT router as a hardware firewall, do I still need a software one?
I was under the impression it was not necessary anymore.

 

Mamutu is certainly easy to use,pretty much a 'set and forget' application.It's definitely a top quality behaviour blocker although not free. I've not used DSA for a long time but found it was effective although it required a degree of expertise to operate.(Don't know if this is still the case.)

 

If you want to have control over outbound connections, then yes.

 

Mamutu is good and light. But as for its "intelligence" i would run Threatfire instead, which is free too.

Just run Comodo's leak test suite from here:

http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/cltinfo.html

With Threatfire and Mamutu and draw your conclusions... For me it was an eye-opener. No internet connection for either of them, to see how they will do with behaviour analysis. Even Twister's FDD intervened faster than Mamutu. It may not be real malware, but it's an impressive series of quick modifications done by a single exe and Mamutu, let's say, wakes up a bit too late.

 

These tests are for HIPS rather than BB surely?It's very difficult to judge any product based upon a benign poc test,each vendor deals with them in different ways.Some flag up stuff whether it's good or bad,others simply ignore known,non malicious modifications.According to Emsisoft Mamutu wasn't designed to pass these particular tests.

http://forum.emsisoft.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=3310

 

Yes, i know. But i found it ironic. All that nothing. And it poped up twice because i launched FastonScreencapture saying something that it was unusual application or something. I had a good laugh with that. clt.exe was more "normal"... My impression is that TF is much more on spot in general. It blocked clt.exe immediately. Mamutu on paranoid, blocks it only when it arrives at the service test. But the most interesting is, that Mamutu gives so many false positives in the meantime, while TF almost none. But then, it's more of a classical hips in paranoid. Funny that Mamutu on paranoid flags clt.exe but not on "normal" or "intelligent reduction" though. FDD also sees it as suspicious way before Mamutu on paranoid.

I am tempted to reinstall Mamutu and Threatfire and run some real malware. But i have my own idea already. TF set at 3 gived very few FP and reacts promptly. (BB mustn't give often futile alerts, it beats the whole purpose of BB) Mamutu...I would use it on paranoid. But then, it would be like classical hips (2 alerts for fastone screencapture, that's probably more than Comodo). TF on 5, i bet would beat Mamutu any day.

I believe in youtube there was a test of the 2. Guest made another if i am not mistaken. Coincidenses...

 

I wouldn't argue that Mamutu is necessarily any better than TF,in fact I liked TF when I used it a while ago,nicely complimented Defence+ I thought.I'd be interested to see which actually performs better in the real world,I'll try and chase down those tests.

 

just out of curiosity, i wouldnt mind seeing these tests with Mamutu and TF either

 

For the OP and on topic regarding Outpost Free. It is not for use on dual core cpu's, at least core2duo's. There are issues, and a very large thread at the Outpost User Forums regarding this issue.

That aside, IMO if you are looking for a lightweight (that is, about 11mb) application firewall, whose purpose is more to monitor outbound software, then Outpost Free is a fine choise. The primary reason being... you can pre-populate your presets.lst file with all of your programs and rules. Meaning, when you first fire up firefox, you can just choose YOUR preset. You keep that .lst file and your .cfg file, put them back into place on a reinstall/corruption/etc, and you are back to where you need to be.

There could be many reasons not to use it, but for the purpose of stopping outbound applications, when you are behind a router, it is a very easy one to use. If you are using it for something like a TeamSpeak server, it works well. Just remember to set the policy to 'Block Most' once you have it set up and it will not give you problems.

I would not recommend using it if you browse with a LOT of tabs open using firefox or opera, or download a LOT. I have had issues with it on many different machines it gives a BSOD periodically, and there are always lost files/fragments in whatever browser you were using's cache.

Sul.

 

Thanks Sully for that on-topic reply!

I'll stay with DSA for a while, but am monitoring PrivacyWare's website as they were thinking of turning they PrivateFirewall into freeware, to replace DSA.

 

I believe that with a properly configured system, behind a router, that a firewall is not essential. However, most of us wish to know what is attempting to get outside access, and I believe that is the draw to a firewall these days. There are good reasons security wise to use one for some, but for many who don't dabble in things they should not, not so much.

I have used PrivateFirewall and DSA. I do like DSA, I think it is simple and to the point. I have used parts of PrivateFirewall with DSA to get it to allow WAN ping, Espresso was kind enough to provide me with the stuff to do that.

But I also believe that why people like or dislike firewalls is most often because of how the interaction to the user is setup. For me, PrivateFirewall borders on confusing. Much like Comodo, for me. OA is not bad, but still not really my cup of tea. I have always liked Outpost, starting at Free up to version 4, for it's interface. To me, Outpost has the most simplistic method of creating rules and managment in general. There are many who totally disagree with that, and as each person is unique, that would be true.

It is my opinion, if you feel pretty comfortable overall with your system security, that you shop around to find the firewall that satisfies your definition of 'lightweight' and that you find the most comfortable and convenient to manage. That could be any firewall. And while some will say this firewall blows or that one rocks, as long as it successfully notifies you of an application requesting outbound privelages, and then can apply your rules to the process, it is going to work.

Many need to know every aspect of everything going on inside their box, and I myself lean very much that way. But find what you enjoy and understand, and then if it blocks your apps, use it and savor the fact that you don't have to use the 'best', only 'your best'.

As always, interpretation of such claims is up to the individual lol.

Sul.

 

Thanks for the insights, Sully.
I like OAFree, but unfortunately it's slowing down my whole PC.
Maybe that's only the Program Guard that does that though, but disabling it would give a pure FW, which is not really what I'm after, I guess.
Do you still use Outpost FW pro today?

best regards,
François

 

I still have machines that I use ver2.1 pro. They host a teamspeak server and small ftp server, and occasionally a game or two. They have been setup and running for maybe close to 3 years.

I have been trying to wean myself off firewalls that require a lot of user interaction. I have been playing more with ipSec and believe it or not, windows firewall. Not much in way of application control there, but since my main machine uses the same programs all the time, not much worry. Include the likes of sandboxe and virtual machines, and I am not really 'worried' about what is escaping my machine. But, I do have ver2.1 installed just not running, because for me the most invaluable part of Outpost is that I can easily find what program is going where on what port with it's logs. I fire it up from time to time to check out a new program and see what it is up to. There again, some people just have to know what and why

Sul.

 

It looks to me like a new version of the free Outpost firewall was released on April 27th of 2009. Link