Comodo Firewall

It's getting great reviews all around, including an editor's choice from PC Magazine.  I always had problems with ZA but not with this one...  It's perfect for newbies or veterans... HIGHLY configurable...  Doesn't take much ressources either...  Load way faster than ZA (for me at least)...

Anyway, it's free so it's not like you have something to lose...

They also have other free stuff, like an anti-virus, an  anti-phising tool and Automatic file backup and recovery for Windows XP and Windows 2000 but I didn't try those.  I'm perfectly happy with Avast for my anti-viruses needs...

Cool. I'll give it a go.

whats wrong with microsofts standard firewall?

Quote (spleethoven @ Sep. 02 2006, 5:12 pm)

whats wrong with microsofts standard firewall?

a) It's developed/maintained by Microsoft.  They have one of the worst general security/vulnerability records of any software vendor.

b) in XP SP2, they basically completely redesigned their TCP/IP implementation, and broke a lot of things in the process.  This was done in part to accomodate their "firewall".  Parts of it STILL don't work properly - I've seen many an XP configuration just decide it won't pass IP traffic one day, no matter what config your firewall has.

Generally, I'm not a fan of software firewalls regardless of the vendor.  I used to do front-line ISP support, and 99% of all connectivity issues were software-firewall-related.  Often, regardless of vendor, the TCP/IP stack would just blow up - no traffic in any direction, uninstalling the product didn't help, it was permanently toast.  Since this seemed to happen with all vendors on a regular basis, my suspicion is MS' TCP/IP stack interface is craptastic and subject to random corruption (the way software firewalls work is to insert a "shim" into the stack directly, thus integrating directly into ALL TCP/IP operations.  So, if it screws up, there's a large possibilty of corrupting the whole stack.)

So, my advice is to avoid a software firewall if at all possible - invest in a hardware solution (a 3com, Linksys or D-Link router/firewall isn't that expensive anymore, and will in general provide a much more reliable level of security and greatly decrease the chances of permanently damaging your Windows installation).

So, essentially, hardware firewall > 3rd party software firewall > MS' built-in firewall.

So, since I'm connectd through a Linksys broadband router, I don't need a software firewall?

I found this thread about Comodo firewall: Why Pick Other Firewalls Over Comodo.

Quote (spleethoven @ Sep. 02 2006, 5:12 pm)

whats wrong with microsofts standard firewall?

Nothing is wrong with it, being a IT network administrator who administrates a network that only runs the Windows Firewall, I can vouch for it.

Yes it doesnt have all the fancy bells and whistles as the other firewalls you guys love so much, but it's a firewall, not a Christmas tree, it's suposed to protect your PC, not look pretty and give you lots of crap to click on.

Oh, and 3 letters why it's awesome:
GPO

Quote (CptCox @ Sep. 02 2006, 11:35 pm)

Quote (spleethoven @ Sep. 02 2006, 5:12 pm) whats wrong with microsofts standard firewall? Nothing is wrong with it, being a IT network administrator who administrates a network that only runs the Windows Firewall, I can vouch for it. Yes it doesnt have all the fancy bells and whistles as the other firewalls you guys love so much, but it's a firewall, not a Christmas tree, it's suposed to protect your PC, not look pretty and give you lots of crap to click on. Oh, and 3 letters why it's awesome: GPO

Why are your PCs running XP firewall on an internal network (as your post implies)?

Also, Group Policy (GPO) is irrelevant here, as we're largely talking about home users, eg, running XP Home, which won't connect to a domain for GP to apply and doesn't include gpedit to do it locally.

And, it's not about bells and whistles, it's about proper function.  From the sound of it you've never had to support an app that is essential to business function but won't play nice with the changes MS made to the TCP/IP settings in SP2.  I have - it ain't pretty trying to figure out what it's looking for exactly and how to get around it.

Also, getting back to one of my original points, I've seen dozens of instances where the XP firewall and 3rd party software firewalls have completely corrupted the TCP/IP stack (eg, uninstalling the 3rd party product and/or doing the "official" MS TCP/IP reset via "netsh" can't fix it, leaving the user with no or partial networking functionality).  To me that's pretty clear real-world evidence of fundamental deficiencies in the TCP/IP stack itself.

So we're clear, I've been doing IT support professionally for over 6 years now - everything from PC hardware to network administration (switches, routers, firewalls, etc), to server administration (WinNT - Win2003, some Linux), to supporting dial-up end users at an ISP, supporting networks with 1000+  end nodes/users.  Nothing theoretcal about what I've experienced directly

@Bjorn: No, if you've already got a router with a firewall on it, there's no reason to run a software firewall on your PC as well, unless you're extremely paranoid AND are will to risk OS corruption.

And just what does a 3rd party app corrupting the TCP/IP stack have anything to do with allowing inbound/outbound traffic on port 'x'?


We'll continue this later, less we hijack a thread.

Quote (mabman @ Sep. 03 2006, 4:36 pm)

@Bjorn: No, if you've already got a router with a firewall on it, there's no reason to run a software firewall on your PC as well, unless you're extremely paranoid AND are will to risk OS corruption.

Well that is nice to know as my router as well has an in built firewall.