Whats more important, Stealthed or better firewall overall

I'm wondering, McAfee firewall from AOL VirusScan Plus package or Vista Firewall?
McAfee leaves ports in Closed state (GRC.com, if i put it in Stealthed mode my eMule doesn't work properly) while Vista Firewall keeps ports Stealthed and even works with eMule in such state. I always prefered stealthed ports but i kinda like McAfee firewall. It's simple to use and has it's own database of OK programs which makes it even more easy to use.
Is being stealthed really that important or will McAfee keep me safer (i mostly care for inbound) even though ports are in Closed state and not Stealthed?

 

My McAfee license expired before the current line came up, so I'm not up-to-date with their current offerings, but I know that I had no complaints about their firewall. If it still logs like it used to, you could keep an eye on what all it blocks and not worry about stealth. A closed but unstealthed is still closed, and can't be penetrated. I wouldn't worry about the stealth but it's entirely up to your "comfort-zone" as you could always check out alpha-shield if the logging started to bother you.

 

Technically, there is nothing wrong with your ports just showing Closed. Nothing can be done or happen to a Closed port. So you're secure. I doubt it really makes much difference. Stealth is popular nowadays, and I suppose it's to be preferred, but you're ok with Closed.

 

Latest ZoneAlarm seems to stealth it and even eMule is working with it but there is an enormous lag between clicks in browser and actual start of page loading. Sometimes even 3 seconds. Vista Firewall has none. Thats just awful.

 

My router stealths them anyway, so "overall" would be my personal choice.

 

Have noticed that the latest ZoneAlarm has problems with Avast causing delays of page load. Could be the Kaspersky part?

 

U should try Comodo 3. It's just been released today

 

RejZoR, you could compare load time of web-pages between ZA & Comodo 3, which is supposed to be even lighter than 2.4. Can't see any fw being any less intrusive or lighter than Win-fw though...

 

Correct.


@RejZoR
Do not get caught up in this bull of needing to be "stealthed".
When you go to "shieldsup", its basic check is only for netbios and inbound (TCP/syn) connections.
Other scans/probes can be used to check if an IP is online, So those who think they are "invisable", well, you can be seen if someone with knowhow wants to see you.

 

...why, does Avast got Kasper's component in it?

I don't had an inkling of it huh...

 

How about with UDP scans? is that what you are specifically talking about?
Is that how a determined user will see me?

A firewall analogy in this case seems to be like all your doors are locked, but the burglar outside knows you are there and is trying to see if he can trick you by posing as a salesman, for example.

 

There are certainly scans by UDP, but these can be and are unpredictable. Scan with such as syn/ack packets will normally give reply (if sent to certain ports). It does depend on the firewall in use.

 

I would say (for "stealth"), it is more like having a radar. This is where the "stealth" comes from (I would think). But, it pertains to only one form of radar, not all. So some types of scans will give a reply, but not all.

edit:
Have a look at "nmap" http://insecure.org/nmap/

 

Avast does not have Kaspersky in it. ZoneAlarm does. Sorry if I was not clear on that.

 

Yeah but only ZA Internet Security. Free version doesn't.
Anyway, i'm happy camper with Comodo 3.0 now and from what i've seen i'm not gonna change it for anything else. It simply fits all my possible needs

 

I got a port scan warning on one of my computers the other day. Event though the GRC.com site said that all my ports are stealthed, that does not mean that anyone could not find my PC. I blocked all traffic after I got the warning. The trace back indicated that the port scan was a "minor" level warning. Stealth only means that it is more difficult to find you, but not impossible. Is this a major cause of concern? I can't close all of my ports indefinitely because that would mean no traffic could be received or sent.