Curse

Kamatsu · Oct 16, 2011, 02:55 AM // 02:55

Hi,

I thought I'd check with the ppl here in Guru1/2 regarding what they consider a good firewall program to use.. that is free. I'm asking because some friends have asked me for a suggestion, and I've also heard/read some questionable things about the firewall I use (Comodo).

Some things to note:

- It should be runnable on Vista and Windows 7 (64-bit for both)
- it can't come with anti-virus. Or if it does, must be able to completely disable it - this is cuz we all use our own AV and don't need/want any conflicts trying to run multiple AV programs.
- It must be fully functional as well - none of this x-day trial then it turns into a steaming pile of crud that wouldn't stop a tank from hitting the side of a barn! Or if it has a pay-to-unlock-features aspect.. depends on what aspects are locked (if it's just stuff like tech support from the company.. then pfft..).

With that in mind - any suggestions of good/decent free-to-use software firewalls? And any thoughts about Comodo?

I've had no real issue's with it.. but I've read that they have sold their souls to certain ad/mal/bad-ware companies/sites/etc and let them through without telling the user.. (but this might just be hearsay and rubbish.. it might be truth.. I honestly haven't checked much up on this).

Thanx in advance

Spiritz · Oct 16, 2011, 08:30 AM // 08:30

i have only 2 firewalls on my system - the routers inbuilt firewall and the free one that comes with windows 7 and touchwood ive had no problems yet.

gremlin · Oct 16, 2011, 09:51 AM // 09:51

For years I ran with Comodo as my firewall and Avast as my antivirus, both were good and periodic checks from other programs said my system was fine.
If the free avast had come with a firewall I would have used it as I think they have a good policy towards handling protection.

Not read anything about comodo selling out to anyone but I have changed to my own isp protection software so haven't kept up.

Checked a few sources I used to use and it looks like you could do worse than Comodo, but "Outpost" and possibly "Online Armour" are also good contenders.

Check with one of the sites that monitors these things like Matousec.com

Mouse at Large · Oct 16, 2011, 10:52 AM // 10:52

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-firewall.htm

LifeInfusion · Oct 16, 2011, 06:42 PM // 18:42

Comodo, since ZoneAlarm got bought by Checkpoint they've steadily degraded into immensely slowing down your computer.

Firewalls aren't good enough though. You should use noscript + Adblock on Firefox. Spybot S&D , MalwareBytes AntiMalware , and others once in a while.

If you want to go paranoid, grab https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...cy/?src=search or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ddon/ghostery/

Draca · Oct 16, 2011, 08:26 PM // 20:26

windows 7 built in firewall does everything you need allready. If you want free then stick with it.

Tarun · Oct 16, 2011, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Comodo is trash.

If you can, try to save up and get Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro. The free version is nice too, but the pro version is often a lifetime license and half off from 40-50 bucks.

Chthon · Oct 17, 2011, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarun

Comodo is trash.

If you can, try to save up and get Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro. The free version is nice too, but the pro version is often a lifetime license and half off from 40-50 bucks.

Hmm... These guys seem to think that Comodo's firewall is slightly better than Outpost. And they back up their opinion with complete details on their methodology. (You can even download the source for their leak tests.) Do you have a specific reason why you think Comodo is trash? Or can you point out specific flaws or omissions in their methodology? Ones that are so big as to make the difference between being the currently top-ranked firewall and being "trash"?

As for Outpost, I know very little about it, other than that it also scored very well on the same leak tests, and that a quick bit of googling shows that they pay for reviews (which is mighty bad form in my book).

(On the other hand, if you're talking about Comodo's anti-virus, yeah, it's crap.)

Tarun · Oct 18, 2011, 08:29 PM // 20:29

Would you trust a so called company that issues SSL certificates to known malware websites? I wouldn't. What makes it worse is that they have done this on more than one occasion.

Comodo has also already been caught allowing certain malware vendors to be marked as "trusted" in their firewall and has been called out on it. The threads on their forums about it get deleted quickly.

Chthon · Oct 18, 2011, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarun

Would you trust a so called company that issues SSL certificates to known malware websites? I wouldn't. What makes it worse is that they have done this on more than one occasion.

1. I haven't really followed this, but my understanding was that this was a "stupidly giving certificates to the wrong guy" problem (like DigiNotar) rather than "Comodo deliberately helps malware" problem. Am I wrong?

2. Incompetence in issuing certificates does not necessarily entail incompetence in making a firewall. All the evidence from Matousec's testing seems to indicate that it's a fine firewall.

Quote:

Comodo has also already been caught allowing certain malware vendors to be marked as "trusted" in their firewall and has been called out on it. The threads on their forums about it get deleted quickly.

Now, THAT worries me quite a bit more. Can you provide links?

Tarun · Oct 19, 2011, 05:11 AM // 05:11

1. They are supposed to thoroughly check sites before issuing certs. When they got called out on it they made a pretty weak cover story.

2. But if you think about it, SSL certs and rules for a firewall are a bit alike, if you catch my drift.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/ar...6/1692519.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/ar...8/1692604.aspx

This was one. I'll have to think of the others as some of it has been a while. Might try googling for it if you like.

http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...howtopic=49138

Keep in mind they are a "security company". Yet they don't seem to care much about security. And if you can't trust their SSL certificates for security, how can one trust their firewall?