Privatefirewall 7.0 - VERSION 7.0.20.39

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by burebista, May 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. brainrb1

    brainrb1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Posts:
    491
    I use malwarebytes pro. for IP control.I was trying to find a lite ,free and easy firewall for my notebook and search still goes on :thumb: I don't use u torrent often but with private firewall it was very hard to get a decent download speed.
     
  2. Leach

    Leach Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    If you're using Windows XP(not sure if it can use any higher OS), there was a very light firewall as well as not very friendly. Some folks are fond of it may be because this is a port of Free BSD's IPFW firewall for windows. It uses a config file which you have to prepare for yourself. Something like "permit TCP 1024-65536 from IP 192.168.x.x to IP..." I can't remember. It also has no app and hips control and gui as well, actually it has nothing but a plain packet filtering. I'm nearly sure you won't like it... Just remembered. I think the project is dead. You might have a look at WIPFW here.
     
  3. brainrb1

    brainrb1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Posts:
    491
    Thanks but i am using vista sp2 on my notebook and win7 on my desktop pc.On the notebook i use avast free,pctools firewall,sandboxie and malwarebytes.Desk top i use MSE,sandboxie and opera browser..got rid of xp long time a go..i was one of those odd guys that loved vista:D if i could find something in between pctools and private firewall for my notebook it would be nice (have three gb of ddr3 ram).
     
  4. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    Even though it seems a light firewall with decent HIPS the problem I find with Private Firewall is that if you take a closer look, most of its predefined rules are for inbound and outbound traffic. Even for programs like IE that does not need to have inbound traffic.
    That is very wrong in my book.
     
  5. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,063
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
  6. brainrb1

    brainrb1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Posts:
    491
    Thank you .Any substantial changes from the last version?They are coming up with upgrades fast,looks promising.I would use it if i can get it to work with utorrent flawlessly.
     
  7. burebista

    burebista Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Posts:
    223
    Location:
    Romania
    From here:
     
  8. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    Contrary to what's advertised, Privatefirewall is not offering a Stealth solution.
    Configured with it's default settings and allowing it to create rules on it's own following the "White List" of applications will show a lot of open ports on any firewall test.

    I have checked that with Shields Up, PC Flank, etc.

    The default rules include a lot of permissions for applications to listen for connections from the web which are very outdated an unneeded in my opinion.
     
  9. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    3,699
    it doesnt matter if stealth or closed - but open means that some program is answering that should not answer!
     
  10. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    Exactly and Privatefirewall is not doing it's job. If set to public profile with no network sharing it should not let anything answer internet probes.
     
  11. Wait, by default it allows inbound for e.g. Internet Explorer? Are you sure it's allowing inbound connections/chains as opposed to inbound packets?

    (Though it would be kind of dumb if you could only make rules for individual packets and not connections. Still...)
     
  12. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    I've opened a Support Ticket with them and there are a few Allow Rules for the High Zone (Internet) in place that allow for response to unsolicited packets.
    Disabling those make the Stealth mode work. Probably some left over of an old version or something that went wrong in automatic mode.
    Although, most of the firewall rules are set to:
    For example Allow Incoming and Outgoing packets to ports... on the TCP (or UDP) protocol and what you can do is to enable the rule for the High or Low zones (Internet - Trusted).
    I don't think most programs need to have inbound access so the rules could be more restrictive.
    Otherwise, with a little tune up the firewall is running fine and doing it's job.
     
  13. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    Due to problems with Win7 Home Groups and the lack of support for IPv6 I had to uninstall.
    Has anyone tried the new version? 7.0.20.47?

    here are the
    RELEASE NOTES - 7.0.20.47, posted 06/24/2010
    - Modified default port-specific rules.
    - Enhanced connection detection capability.

    Martin.-
     
  14. TheMozart

    TheMozart Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,486
    So it seems the general consensus is a vote of NO to this firewall?

    There seems to be a lot of "security holes" in this firewall.
     
  15. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    Well even though I'm not a HIPS fan I'm liking the leak prevention capabilities of the firewall and the fact that it almost sets itself automatically. The problem remains about the open ports issue that I'm trying to solve with Support.
    I still have an open ticket with no definitive answer..
    If you can try it out we can exchange opinions.
    BTW I'm running Win 7 x64.
     
  16. TheMozart

    TheMozart Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,486
    I wouldn't bother installing it seeing the programmers are not educated and smart enough to close the port security holes BEFORE releasing this product to the public! How can they write and release a program like this to the public when it's so flawed?

    Maybe they should take up cooking or a new career :argh:
     
  17. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    After telling the firewall to close the holes it has open by default, it will open them again on a port scan from Shields up or PC Flank, this images bellow are what I get every time.... NOT GOOD.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. drakhil

    drakhil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Posts:
    24
    i think the newer version solves the problem of open ports
    great:cool:
     
  19. MasterTB

    MasterTB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Posts:
    547
    Location:
    Paran?, Argentina
    Nop. My caps where taken using the latest version.
    But I've got a support ticket with them and there is another revision of the rules coming that will address that.
    Hopefully for good.
     
  20. papasmurf

    papasmurf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest USA
    Well, I feel I should respond here,
    I too have some portscan pics, I ran shields up, and another program.
    I am happy with this firewall, it does what I need it to do.
    I am just not certain that any of these tests are worth anything.
    As you can see, There seems to be a slight difference of opinion about at least one of those ports.
    The firewall warns me when things try to get out, and it blocks ports from things trying to get in.

    ports1.jpg
    portscan1.jpg
     
  21. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    7,320
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I have momentarily switched from running my Online Armor image to instead run my PFW image. My IT says that, so far, PFW + Prevx have scuttled every nasty that he has thrown at them.

    PFW is weak against certain members of the keylogger family, but pairing it up with Prevx/SafeOnline more than covers all of those particular bases.

    Browsing with PFW seems a teeny bit lighter than OA. Has anyone made a more "scientific" comparison between OA & PFW as to their relative zippiness when browsing?

    Just for info here is a covey of screenshots of HIPS-type aspects of PFW . . .
    ScrHunt01 14-Jul-10.gif
    ScrHunt02 14-Jul-10.gif
    ScrHunt03 14-Jul-10.gif
    ScrHunt04 14-Jul-10.gif
    ScrHunt05 14-Jul-10.gif
     
  22. lws

    lws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Posts:
    196

    I'm in XP Pro SP3 and am running PFW with avast 5.0 as per Kee's setup and added network shield..... along with with SpyShelter free. My browser is firefox 3.6.6 run with dropmyrights along with wot, keyscrambler and noscript as addons. I can tell you that my browsing is zippy zippy fast lol. Even starting up firefox is instantanious with this setup. Tried different combos before....switching AV's and firewalls, mixing and matching etc.. and through it all, in the end, I like this setup the best.
     
  23. papasmurf

    papasmurf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest USA
    Can you tell me if Prevx, (free version), is compatible with AV software? I am running Avira with PFW, and those two play nice together. Will Prevx play nice too?
     
  24. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    7,320
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Yes, Prevx plays nicely with Avira, & with most other AVs as well.
     
  25. papasmurf

    papasmurf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Posts:
    28
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest USA
    Thank you :D
     
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.