PCTools releases Firewall Version 3.0.0.36

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by bellgamin, Sep 21, 2007.

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

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    PCTools forum has announced firewall v.3.0.0.36 HERE with download thereof availble from HERE
     
  2. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,633
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Interesting. Wonder just how it stacks up against the more popular offerings everyone is pretty much settled into as of late.

    I would be hard pressed to part with Kerio 2.15, but then i been full circle with them all except this one. Maybe a surprise?
     
  3. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    Is this firewall a re-branded LookNStop?
     
  4. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,518
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    I think I read that here also. If so, it's almost 10x the download size. ~600kb vs 5MB. And that was supposedly because of an improved GUI. But I just read that here. Haven't tried it.
     
  5. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    So what does this wondrous software firewall do better than the last version, or any other software firewall for that matter?


    edit:

    32-bit only.
     
  6. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    3.0.0.36 is the final version of what was previously a beta. The beta version was extensively discussed, including Stem's testing thereof, HERE. Those comments should still be applicable to the released version.
     
  7. Delgado

    Delgado Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    131

    Having used LooknStop for a while, Ive just tried this firewall from PC Tools, and it looks to me like a rebranded Zone Alarm Pro. The icon in the system tray is Zone Alarm as it fluctuates between the PC Tools one and the Zone Alarm one.

    Also the style of the whole set up is Zone alarm except the GUI.

    Seems to be working top class, with everything showing Stealth at Shields Up.

    :thumb:
     
  8. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    So it's a re-branded ZA Pro.
    Thanks Delgado.
     
  9. Gren

    Gren Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Posts:
    93
    Can't imagine its ZA Pro........ZA Pro is paid for, this is free. Moreso ZA Pro is not Vista ready (only free or suite is), this one is.

    I'd like it to be true but I can't see how it could be. Maybe its ZA Free?
     
  10. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,151
    Location:
    PA
    This program is a nightmare on my Vista computer. Wouldn't let my AV and other things start up. Forgot the OLE protection rule, too.
     
  11. Eldar

    Eldar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Posts:
    2,126
    Location:
    Vilvoorde (Belgium)
    Haven't experienced it here, it just ran fine. :)
    Did you remove your previous firewall completely?
    Maybe there's a conflict somewhere with your software or perhaps hardware.

    Or it just won't work on your computer. :doubt:
     
  12. ccsito

    ccsito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Nation's Capital
    ZA free? I highly doubt that ( I guess you mean the program to resemble a watered down version of ZA Pro?). I haven't read anywhere that Checkpoint Software and PC Tools were sharing programs.
     
  13. nhamilton

    nhamilton Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    61
    No.

    It is basically a fork of LnS. It was rebranded then PCTools have continued to develop it independently.
     
  14. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,151
    Location:
    PA
    Yes, I used all the registry cleaners and things. Just might not work. :(
     
  15. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    934
    wont work for me ,keeps rebooting computer.When stealth is selected it closes port to p2p
     
  16. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    it runs very well here. It seems to be a stable and powerfull firewall even if it fails some leak tests.
     
  17. cp4eva

    cp4eva Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    127
    Location:
    TX
    I'm trying it now, too. Running smooth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2007
  18. huntnyc

    huntnyc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Brooklyn, USA
    Could not get this program to start up properly after installing. no go here and don't have a clue about the problem.

    Gary
     
  19. 031

    031 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Posts:
    185
    Location:
    Bangladesh
    This version is great . the previous version was unable to stealth all service ports ; well this version makes the pc totally invisible ( grc shields up test) . This firewall also can detect and stop code injection so hopefully it will do better in the leak tests . Recourse usage is average . 12-18 mb in my machine . amount of popups is also tolerable . Well personally i am waiting for comodo 3 final release . Go ahead , give pc tools a try ......... ;) ;) ;)
     
  20. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Well, at least the description of the SPI implementation as now changed, from "Full" to:-
    This is very basic, and offers no protection from spoofed/invalid etc. Basically they are putting forward that any outbound connection made is then trusted with any packet that is returned from that IP (or in fact any spoofed packet with IP/port will be allowed in). Personally, if SPI is to be implemented, then at least do this at some level that actually helps.
     
  21. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,780
    Yeah, there's not much point to it unless it's well done..
     
  22. adam777

    adam777 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Posts:
    48
    Having read all that was said regarding SPI not being well implemented and so, I've decided to give this FW a chance anyway.
    Actually, I think it's works pretty well for my needs.
    However, I believe I may have found some weird bug, and would like to know if anyone else is able to confirm my findings (or better, come up with a solution :D ).

    I've set up the following rules for using DC++:
    (1) allow outbound tcp/udp ports 1025-65535
    (2) allow outbound tcp port 80
    (3) allow outbound udp port 53
    (4) allow inbound tcp/udp port 34678

    The problem arises from the 4th rule.
    The port number is just some available port I've chosen randomly.
    When enabling logging of DC++ activity I can see that inbound connections that match this rule are indeed allowed by the FW, however, only by setting the exact same rule under advanced rules, I can get DC++ to work.
    Let me clarify - it's the exact same rule, the packets that are allowed by the new rule are associated with DC++ and already allowed without the new advanced rule.
    Needless to say, I would prefer not using the global allow rule, and only use specific application rules as much as possible...
    Thanks in advance, Adam.
     
  23. nhamilton

    nhamilton Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    61
    I am unsure what your saying is wrong with the SPI implementation?

    If a connection is made which is valid, then anything on that connection is allowed. So only data that matches local IP, local Port, remote IP, remote Port.

    If some one does a spoof packet for a valid connection, how are you suggesting that it should be detected?

    If a valid connection is made, what packets on that connection should be dropped?
     
  24. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Hello nhamilton,
    Nice to see you still about, my regards to you,
    Spoofed inbound is quite easy against an outbound with no (or limited) SPI. Now we do need to look at what is classed as SPI. To me this is "Stateful packet inspection", and personally would indicate a check of state of each packet. This would normally be done by IP/ port/ checksum/ and sequence of TCP. Yes I know, even with sequence check it is still possible to spoof, but it is difficult (well for me anyway).

    I know, as we now see, most put forward this need for "Leak prevention",.. Personally, I would prefer a firewall that can controll all possible inbound, be it from such as "out of sequence TCP", "unsolicted inbound DNS", "Invalids", "Malformed" "low level~ such as ARP). Unfortunatly, I know most do not understand this need, and look at such reports made for "leaktests".

    Please, you tell me if a full depth SPI is not needed in todays web-browsing.

    Regards,
     
  25. Cerxes

    Cerxes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Posts:
    581
    Location:
    Northern Europe
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.