PrivateFirewall V7.0.28.1 Released Today

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by kdcdq, Jun 1, 2012.

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

    paniccom Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Posts:
    100
    I just installed PF after uninstalling Comodo firewall. I had no problems with CF, just wanted to try PF after hearing good things about it. I have no hard data to support this, but it feels like pages on Firefox are loading much quicker since changing over. Anyone else notice similar?
     
  2. IvoShoen

    IvoShoen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    793
    I noticed the same here. Also, much less CPU usage with PF. :)
     
  3. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,051
    hi
    Ive personally never experienced any browsing slowdowns with comodo or any other product.
    One thing i have noticed with the latest version of firefox is it does seem slower and it has given non responding messages to me on several occasions so i dont think comodo is at fault here and i dont believe comodo affects browsing at any level.
    I uninstalled firefox and im now using comodo dragon which runs faster in my opinion.:isay:
     
  4. Blues7

    Blues7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Posts:
    870
    Location:
    2500'
    I have also found that although Comodo seemed to run quite well on my system, the best performance (and lowest resource usage) is with PrivateFirewall. :thumb:
    FWIW, I too run Firefox.

    (To date, I've had extensive experience with Online Armor and PrivateFirewall, a couple of months with Comodo and a short but unhappy experience with Outpost due to a variety of conflicts.)
     
  5. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,051
    yeah private firewall looks a neat little program but i still think comodo and online armor are the two best firewalls.
    I found the PFW interface to be confusing and it seemed to fail in tests.not stealthing ports etc although i find that irrelevant.
    As long as ports are not open i wouldnt find it a concern.
    And the developer of PFW is always helpful .:argh:
     
  6. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,051
    well comodo firewall is extremely light also.the cfp.exe only uses 4mb maximum on my computer.
    And the complete suite uses only around 9mb.:argh:
     
  7. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Appears the default Standard mode for PF is a bit flakey in my opinion. In that mode regardless if the "Alert on all outgoing connections" options is selected, you will not receive any alert for new outgoing connection at boot time. PF will silently block the connection and add it to the firewall log as a blocked connection.

    The activity I refer to is outbound tcp port 80 connections which PF could not id since the Application log field is blank. This could be worm activity but the IP addresses are all Verisign. I suspect this normal WIN 7 UI consent activity. I also saw it occur for svchost.exe on DHCP activity I had not yet added an application rule for.

    I suspect this could occur during the time when PF is loading and the GUI is not active preventing any display of popups?
     
  8. paniccom

    paniccom Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Posts:
    100
    I really don't know much about testing firewalls and such, but since it seems like my web pages are loading MUCH faster under PF than Comodo, is there a way to see that the firewall is actually doing what it's supposed to? I just feel like I'm getting something for nothing (faster internet for the same security?) because I've used Comodo the past couple of years and had no problems, but now everything seems much faster, even opening pgms on my PC. CF had the Defense section and I don't know if I needed it since I'm running Avast (Free) 7, which seems to catch things like malignant websites. I know you people on here do quite a bit of testing and comparing, so I'd like to know what you think about this speed gain and the security of PF in general. Thanks for your time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  9. Blues7

    Blues7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Posts:
    870
    Location:
    2500'
    I don't do a lot of testing but I try to keep up with reviews from respected members here as well as sources online.

    Personally, I've run GRC's "Leak Test" and passed.

    I've run "Comodo Leak Test" and scored 300. (I believe this score was achieved both inside and outside Sandboxie as I recall.)

    I've run a variety of Zemana's Anit-Logger tests and did well on keyboard, clipboard and screen capture tests. At the time PF wasn't capturing audio/video as I recall. My memory is a little vague there.

    I've also run some SpyShelter tests in the past but I've had issues with their software so I tend to avoid anything from them.

    Plus, just from watching how the firewall/HIPS interact with my own downloads, installations and programs I have set rules for not to connect out or phone home, I've had ample evidence of its effectiveness.

    It also gets great reviews from sites like Matousec and CNET, depending upon how much credence you wish to bestow upon these services.

    If you are using PF as part of a sound layered defense, I think you are well covered. For me, Sandboxie is an essential ingredient in that regard.

    This site seems to have a great deal of tests that you can run yourself if you are so inclined...
     
  10. paniccom

    paniccom Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Posts:
    100
    Thanks for your very informative answer, Blues7. The only test I'd tried was GRC's "Leak Test" and I sort of messed it up. I tried denying it the first time, and then after that it wouldn't run at all. I think I permanently banned it from running under PF somehow. (This is why I read on this forum--I'm obviously not qualified to do tech testing). This may be a subject for a new thread, but I'm wondering if maybe my Avast 7 and Comodo Firewall had too much overlap of security, causing my web pages to load a bit slower under CF. Of course, I probably didn't have them configured properly to run together--there may have been services on either one I could have shut off. Think I'll search the forums for this...
     
  11. Blues7

    Blues7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Posts:
    870
    Location:
    2500'
    If you want to be able to run GRC's "Leak Test" again, you'll need to remove any entries for it in "Process Monitor", "Applications" and then under "Settings-Advanced-Detected Applications-Processes".

    Then you'll be able to run it again. :cool:

    I think your combination of Avast and PF should be a very good security blanket.
     
  12. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,051
    how would you rate PFW against online armor.
    Im using online armor at the moment.
    Is PFW any good and is it passing the stealth tests yet.?:argh:
     
  13. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    It's been a while since the last time I use PF
    I can say it has improve a lot and it runs very light.
    its my new fav firewall :D
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  14. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Romania
    What about the issues PFW has with Avast (or vice-versa)?I'm talking about the fact that when these 2 are installed,PFW doesn't block properly programs anymore.I mean,try to block IE or FF or Chrome for example in PFW...they're connecting without any problems even blocked.
     
  15. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    I can't confirm this
    but on my set up sandboxie+roboscan+PF
    chrome is blocked just fine (I remove IE, so I can't test it for you)
     
  16. Blues7

    Blues7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Posts:
    870
    Location:
    2500'
    I've never used Avast so I can't comment directly though I've seen mention in the PF change log related to Avast over the past year or two...

    ...your best bet may be to open a support ticket and inquire directly from the source if you find that those issues are still present. They'd want to be made aware of any conflicts they might be able to address now or in the future.

    All that said, it's not unusual for there to be various issues or conflicts with installed security software.
    (For example, Online Armor's "web shield" doesn't work with Sandboxie, etc, etc.) Sometimes these issues can be resolved, sometimes you can make program adjustments to allow them to work together (including the need to disable a feature on one or the other)...and sometimes you just have to find software that work more harmoniously together on your own particular system.
     
  17. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    hmm are you saying GRC shield up? it pass the test

    or maybe you mean other test?
     
  18. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I assume you are running Avast with its web shield set to "on"? With Avast web shield on, all Internet traffic is forwarded though a proxy server on your PC located at 127.0.0.1 i.e. localhost at tcp port 12080. I believe PF does not monitor localhost connections by default. You can try to create an outbound deny firewall rule for the above. Or you can turn off Avast web shield which will cause your browser to route all connections through normal HTTP/S ports.
     
  19. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Romania
  20. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,051
    Its not an avast related problem at all.why should avast change their driver just so that firewalls can block the web proxy.?
    The avast team changed one driver in version 7 and firewalls are now having problems filtering the web shield.
    If anything it seems to be a windows7 problem .comodo firewall cannot function correctly because of limitations in windows 7.
    :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:
     
  21. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    --- Correction ---

    Yes it is an Avast issue and the Avast forum is where you should be getting help from.

    Here is how to prevent all non-Avast web shield filtered traffic on port 80 for your browser.

    In your existing PF browser firewall rules:

    You need to disable your existing browser PF Primary and Alternate HTTP Connections rules by by unchecking the H and L boxes.

    Leave all your remaining browser rules as is; that includes the existing Secure HTTP Connection rule that connects to port 443! In the event you uninstall Avast or turn off its web shield, you will have to activate Primary and Alternate HTTP Connections rules and delete or deactivate the new rules you will add below.

    You need to create 2 firewall rules for you browser to only allow HTTP traffic to Avast web shield proxy server:

    Allow outbound - TCP - from local 1024-65355(user) port - to remote port 12080, remote IP 127.0.0.1 - checkmark IP address connection box only.

    Deny Outbound -TCP - from any local port- to remote port 80, any remote IP - checkmark H and L boxes.

    Move the two new rules to the top of the existing rule set.

    That's it!

    If these rules look weird remember that its avastsvc.exe that is doing the actual HTTP connections with Avast web shield turned on, not your browser.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2012
  22. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Romania
    Let me tell you the weird part.Under Win Vista Premium x32 the problem doesn't exist.Maybe Beethoven1770 is right about Windows 7...(because this issue i've had it on Win 7 Ultimate x32).
     
  23. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,379
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    BTW - for those people using Avast mail shield, you need special firewall rules similiar to those I gave above for Avast web shield for special ports Avast uses for POP3, etc. protocols.

    Bottom line - Avast shields are a royal pain in the butt when I comes to third party firewall outbound traffic.
     
  24. biscuits

    biscuits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Posts:
    112

    Yes, I tried PFW and it passed the ShieldsUP! stealth test.
     
  25. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    9,341
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    3 Cheers for PFW! :thumb:

    Waiting with baited breath for Privacyware to hopefully release an even more improved "free" version of this extremely useful and beneficial work.

    EASTER
     
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.