Sygate Or Outpost

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Mannaggia, May 25, 2005.

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

    Mannaggia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Posts:
    234
    Location:
    Northern California
    I am currently using Outpost Pro 2.6 on XP Home SP2. My license is coming due shortly and I'm thinging about switching to Sygate free. Outpost is ok, but I'm not that crazy about it that I wouldn't switch to something else. It's probably hard to compare a paid for firewall to a free one, but still would like to know if Sygate would be a good choice, or stick with Outpost. Any opinions?
     
  2. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    I think you can continue to use Outpost 2.6 beyond the renewal date, but if you want upgrades then you have to pay the annual fee in your case. You might go ahead and test Sygate for a while before deciding. You can probably renew Outpost at any time (I'm guessing). Both firewalls are pretty good, each has a few shortcomings. My own opinion on those two would be that I don't think Sygate Free (or Pro for that matter) would be particularly any better than Outpost Pro.
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Both are a great firewalls, and they have its pros and cons, but Outpost Pro use less cpu resources than Sygate Free, and for me this is a great advantage... ;)
     
  4. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Sygate will use less resources and less memory than Outpost if you were to turn off its detailed logging feature, otherwise, Outpost is renewed way more frequently than Sygate. Also why not check out ZA as well.
     
  5. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Arup,

    I tried your suggestions in Sygate, but I didn't see any significative change...
     
  6. Howard

    Howard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Posts:
    313
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    I used to use Sygate Pro until very recently, but I didn't much care for the additional 3 minutes or so it was adding to my boot time. As the only vaguely meaningful response in the Sygate forum to this problem had been to uninstall/reinstall, I decided to take the opportunity to try out a different firewall, so I tried out Kerio, and was very impressed. The free version of Kerio gives me all I require and seems - unlike Sygate - to have been designed in this millennium. So while I still have more than 6 months of my license for Sygate Pro to run, I prefer to use Kerio free.
     
  7. Jeremy2

    Jeremy2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Posts:
    72
    I was a sygate pro user, switched to outpost because of loopback vulnirability, I wonder if this has been fixed or not?
     
  8. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Loopback or proxy vulnerability still exists, Sygate Pro or free consumed aroudn 15mb on my system and I had logging turned on, compared to that, Outpost consumed slightly more at 17mb on the very same system.
     
  9. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Outpost is superior to Sygate when leak tests are taken in to account.
     
  10. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I'm talking about CPU usage... ;)
     
  11. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Another thing to prefer Outpost over Sygate :)
     
  12. Arup

    Arup Guest

    If leak tests were the Yardstick, Kerio 2.15 would fail, latest Jetico passes all the leak tests out there, CHX would never even be considered, thankfully there is more to a firewall than leaktests, Sygate has good SPI engine and lets you write your own rules, the best part is that even the free version supports ICS, the pro version has features like easily upgradeable IDS signature, Anti Spoofing, Anti OS fingerprinting as well as totally stealthed browsing where your browsers identity is not available to anyone on the net. All this feature truly still make it a good firewall to consider and there still remains a strong following to Sygate, having said that, it sorely needs an upgrade and has been lagging behind that department lately.

    VC,

    If you mean CPU usage, I had no such issues with Sygate pro or free version.
     
  13. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    The CPU usage is not so high, but it always consume between 1-10% of CPU, even if it we not transfer any data throught the net...
     
  14. Arup

    Arup Guest

    VC,

    Thats really strange that there is CPU usage even when idle, are you on a LAN by any chance?
     
  15. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Yes...

    On my PC, Outpost use less CPU usage than Sygate, and NetVeda use even less resources than Outpost...
     
  16. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Agreed about NetVeda, it is the lowest among the newer group of firewalls, the only one that beats it is Kerio 2.15
     
  17. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Yep, NetVeda is the firewall that I know that use minor resources...

    I would like to see in Sygate the loopback issue fixed and the cpu usage improved, because I really like this firewall... ;)
     
  18. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    VC - I can confirm your CPU usage problem. Sygate uses more cpu than ANY other firewall I've tried. On my Win2k system, when idling, cpu usage is typically 0 (zero). With Sygate installed idling, it runs around 2-4%. I too prefer to avoid Sygate for this reason, although in general I think it is a pretty good firewall otherwise. The proxy issue doesn't affect me. Also, in Sygate I do not have packet logging turned on, so that isn't the problem. I think it just uses more resources than all the others..
     
  19. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    While witholding browser/OS information may be useful for some people, it is far from offering "totally stealthed browsing". Assuming you mean hiding activity from your ISP, this would mean using an encrypted connection to an anonymising proxy service (think Tor or JAP) and really is outside the remit of any firewall.
     
  20. Kye-U

    Kye-U Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Posts:
    481
    I think Outpost because Sygate still hasn't fixed the loopback problem.

    Also, with Outpost, you get to use thead blocking feature, DNS Caching and many other features.

    FYI, I'm using Kerio, because Outpost used too much CPU for me.
     
  21. Mannaggia

    Mannaggia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Posts:
    234
    Location:
    Northern California

    I used ZA free for a while. I was using ZA free 5.5 when when Comcast gave us customers a connection speed upgrade. When I would run the speed test at dslreports, it wouldn't show the new upgraded speeds. I decided to give ZA 4.5 a try and speed tests showed the new upgraded speeds. I didn't want to use an older version of ZA, I figured newer was better protection, and since I already had an Outpost Pro license, I started using Outpost. Anybody else have that kind of a problem with ZA 5.5?

    From what I'm reading here, maybe I'll give Kerio a try. I can always go back to Outpost.
     
  22. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    My experience with Outpost was pretty good compared to Kerio. Outpost didn't use any cpu here. In fact, Kerio seemed to use far more ram as well. I'm speaking of the Kerio 4 line, not 2.1.5.
     
  23. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    It's funny that you had speed problems with ZA. I have no speed probs with ZA 5.5 here, however, I recently used Outpost for a week and DID have some slowdown issues with Outpost Pro 2.6. I otherwise found Outpost to be excellent, however, I am now running ZAP due to the slowdown problem I had with OP. I could actually see web pages loading slowly in FF with OP, but not with other firewalls. Don't know why either... Seems like everyone has a different experience.. :)
     
  24. Mannaggia

    Mannaggia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Posts:
    234
    Location:
    Northern California

    The weird thing was that I didn't notice any slow downs when loading web pages and going from site to site while using ZA 5.5. It was only when I ran the speed tests. When Comcast upgraded to 4000mbps, the speed tests would show I was only getting about 2800mbps while using ZA 5.5. When I went to ZA 4.5, the speed tests showed I was getting my 4000mbps. Maybe it is something about those speed tests that ZA 5.5 didn't like. :)
     
  25. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    Interesting indeed.. I just went to toast.net/performance and ran the speed test with ZAP 5.5 (latest) and got 3612 and thereabouts several times. That's about typical for me. No problems with speed here.

    You gotta use what works best though, regardless... :)
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. jhr76
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,498
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.