Kaspersky Lab, a leading developer of secure content management solutions, has released a new analytical article on using leak tests to evaluate firewall effectiveness by Nikolay Grebennikov, deputy director of the Department of Innovative Technologies. According to Grebennikov, due to the increase in the number of malicious programs, the additional security provided by a firewall is increasingly pertinent since firewalls block undesirable network traffic. He states that even the latest operating systems, such as Windows Vista, cannot block all types of leaks on their own (although, from Windows XP SP2 onwards, Windows has included a firewall. Firewall functionality was significantly expanded in Windows Vista).
According to the results of testing conducted in March 2007 by Guillaume Kaddouch (http://www.firewallleaktester.com/articles/vista_and_leaktests.html), Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit using default settings blocked only 9 leak tests (the leak tests blocked are shown in green in the results table). The new operating system is clearly better protected than previous versions thanks to numerous improvements, including UAC, IE protected mode, Service hardening and Kernel Patch Protection (Vista x64). However, even Windows Vista requires third-party protection programs to provide the necessary level of protection from leaks.
Thanks for the tip, EL1TE!
View: Article on VirusList
exactly! ... so in other words you cant trust there opinion since it's obviously going to be biased since they want you to buy there product. lol
There. Their. They're. What's the difference....
when that happens, security isn't on the minds of those companies, money is. and when money is #1, the consumer will suffer. Example: look what symantec did to PatchGuard
Last edited by Dynames00 on 27 Dec 2007 - 21:49
...
Consumers suffering all over, at the feet of the corporate masters.
...
Consumers suffering all over, at the feet of the corporate masters.
Actually, I don't see it being the number 1 priority that is the problem. The true problem is when it is the ONLY priority. That is why you are getting lead in your children's toys and toxic chemicals, and worse in your food now, and too many of your manufacturing jobs being outsourced to places that don't practice human rights. Too many Enron-type corporations around. Having lots of cheap consumer cr*p is not a good thing in the long run. You end up paying far more in other ways for it.
Last edited by Foub on 28 Dec 2007 - 13:48
...
Consumers suffering all over, at the feet of the corporate masters.
Actually, I don't see it being the number 1 priority that is the problem. The true problem is when it is the ONLY priority. That is why you are getting lead in your children's toys and toxic chemicals, and worse in your food now, and too many of your manufacturing jobs being outsourced to places that don't practice human rights. Too many Enron-type corporations around. Having lots of cheap consumer cr*p is not a good thing in the long run. You end up paying far more in other ways for it.
I'll have to agree with you on that one. Good post.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making an honest profit.....
Vista's firewall is for a power user like me and can be extended by third party applications.
These test were conducted with default settings which are pretty lenient so as to not break applications.
I have customized the settings per my usage and I am pretty happy with it. Vista passed all the leaktests when I first started experimenting with Vista's firewall several months ago.
I use the netsh command to control all the settings although the GUI is very easy to use.
I used to use Kerio with XP but I have no use for it anymore after moving to Vista. I had experimented with IPSec rules in XP but its not flexible as the control that Vista provides.
Vista also lets me control QOS settings per application so I can limit bandwidth usage without resorting to third-party apps.
Last edited by Express on 27 Dec 2007 - 22:02
Vista's firewall was one of the only few good things about it that I liked.
Well, as a PC firewall, Comodo 3.0 is the best firewall I have ever used, and it's free.
For antivirus, you can do about as well as Kaspersky and NOD by using a combination of Avira Antivir and AVG antispyware, which are both free. You can also add on Avast, AVG antivirus, and Bitdefender for free, just make sure to disable them from running the background or your PC will grind to a halt.
I leave only Comodo running in the background, and do only on-demand scans of new files.
Last edited by toadeater on 28 Dec 2007 - 06:09
software firewalls does give you a lot more control in not only opening the port, but also sayig thatonly this app has access to it. and it's about a few hundred time more convenient and easy to use instead of filing with a HW firewall.
I've always depended on hardware firewalls for incoming traffic, but it's nice to know I can depend on a software firewall for outgoing traffic at the same time.
Computer I'm on right now, just had Vista blown off it. Runs SO MUCH better now.
While we're on the subject of Kaspersky, just installed Kaspersky Personal Pro AV and Kaspersky Anti Hacker. Along with router, I'm not worried about ANYTHING!! Should be no reason to have to pi** around with netsh to secure your system with a good software firewall installed. What joe blow user do you think knows anything about that?
duh?
add it to any mmc, or just run it directly with 'Windows Firewall with Advanced Security' in administrative tools on the start bar.
Thanks for the info guys.
Can anybody seriously call the THING that comes with XP SP2 a firewall. How limited can a product be and still be called a firewall?
and of course Vista's firewall isn't going to be top notch. if it was any better than it is right now it would confuse the hell out of all the average users and just create massive problems
to gain something, you must loose something. better security = less usability. microsoft found a good "sweet spot" right in the middle and ran with it.
-----------------------
although, from Windows XP SP2 onwards, Windows has included a firewall.
---------------------
XP has always had a firewall!
There was MASSIVE amounts of administrator whining before SP2's release. Claims that the firewall would break the web and destroy internal corporate networks and applications didn't quite pan out...did they?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.