Software FW resource usage behind router FW

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Yakuman, Jul 15, 2010.

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

    Yakuman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Posts:
    75
    If one is behind a router, all incoming packets are filtered before it ever gets a chance to reach the software firewall. Does this really mean that the software firewall is less taxing on usage like CPU, I/O, RAM, etc vs without a router?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2010
  2. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    that's why you don't need a sw fw in the first place. (unless, of course, you want total control over outgoing connections).
     
  3. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    Considering some business level routers are running at around 200Mhz, you can see that a firewall should not be using that much CPU.

    It also depends on which software firewall you choose, some just suck, some are over bloated and try to do too much, some focus only on the job they should do and do it right, a la Windows Firewall. Probably why most people behind a router will settle for Windows Firewall.
     
  4. mack_guy911

    mack_guy911 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Posts:
    2,677
    if you use utm like astaro or untangle....etc you hardly require any.

    Firewall router does 90 % of your job rest is done by your software applacations antivirus/firewall sandbox......etc

    if you use utm its does 100% although software put some additional security

    to built astaro or untangle all your need is a spare computer converted it to router/utm

    http://www.untangle.com/

    http://www.astaro.com

    http://demo01.astaro.com/
     
  5. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    As great as UTM is for business, I personally believe it's overkill for the home.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.