Neowin.net

how give a crap what it looks like as long as it works

QUOTE (#3.0)

But i think when the Win XP service pack 2 comes out the new firewall they provide and free works just as well. I should know i got it from the Feb. security disks they sent to me.

the one in xp sp2 is like a real firewall, its based off trend micros firewall, none the less i will not be using that feature

Where is the new firewall at on those discs? I installed everything on the disc when I reformatted my XP machine. Same old ICF was present after the updates. Is it an easter egg on the disc?

Outpost, ZoneAlarm, Sygate, KPF v4... they're all victims of the bloatware syndrome. A firewall should be just that, a firewall, and nothing more (well, perhaps an IDS). There are other, more competent programs for filtering web content, blocking popups and all that.
Stick with KPF v2 and you'll get the security without the bloat.

Sorry, security requires more than having a firewall, and these companies are keeping up with the times.

Agreed. That is ultimately such an absurd comment to make, actually quite ignorant. How is Outpost bloatware? Actually none of those are, KPF is bordering on it, but it still doesnt even rival the kings of bloatware, namely Symantec and McAfee. I would say Outpost v2.XX and KPF are rock solid personal firewalls. Excellent for the home PC. Outpost's plug-ins can be disabled and turning off the Component Control feature turns it into exactly that...a simple firewall. KPF can also have its extra features disabled.

This guy obviously hasnt even looked into each product. More competent programs...how about a more competent reply

@ Lokheed: Despite the trollish nature of your post, I'll bite.

Of course security requires more than a firewall. Believe me, I use all the security measures and then some. But building them all into a firewall is NOT the solution in my book.
I like my applications simple. One small lightweight application for every task, with a simple interface (for power users and administrators, since regular users shouldn't have to bother with it).
That's what made me stick with KPF v2.
Outpost has all these useless plugins like popup blocking, content filtering and stuff that other, small, specialized applications do just as well. So what if they can be disabled - it's the principle of the thing. If a program even starts to show hints of bloatware infection, I drop it. And yes, I have used both Outpost and ZoneAlarm, but dropped them when I discovered KPF.
And as for firewalls, I wouldn't touch McAfee or Symantec. That is bloatware taken to the extremes.
As for content filtering, popups and the like, I go for Proxomitron and Firefox and some other layers of protection.

Building all the security stuff into a firewall, I think, creates clueless lusers unable to deal with the realities of computing once exposed to a production environment in which, almost certainly, a multitude of different software and hardware is used to maintain security, much of which requires an enhanced level of understanding on the part of both users and admins.

No, "all-in-one" firewalls like Outpost and ZoneAlarm (and McAfee, and Symantec) are not getting my vote. Simplicity rules.

Yes thats true cappuchok.

Read ANY firewalling text book and it will tell you that you install AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE on the firewalling box, as every extra line of code in memory is a potential bug.

Personal firewalls are somewhat different in that they will always be running along side questionable code, but I still think bloating the specific services that make up the firewall is asking for trouble. KISS.

Any firewalling text book huh...running along side questionable code? What the hell are you talking about? Where are you getting this information from?

You guys tick with KPF 2.1 till you die, no matter. Just dont try to pump that drivel down my throat about code this and bloat that. Firewalls dont get exploited through options or plug-ins, they get exploited through poor admin priviledges being applied improperly and packet inspection flaws.

KPF 2.1 is an archaic design and only contains MD5. Security is much more important then lite weight programming or simplistic designs. Use what you like, but dont delude yourself in believing just because its small and lite, it works better then the rest. KPF's core is solid but its heurisitics are old and outdated. Any simple leaktest will prove my point.

http://www.pcflank.com/art41c.htm

While leaktests arent the sole criteria to judge a firewall on, it is something to take into consideration. KPF 2.1 does quite poorly and since it isnt supported anymore, you are stuck with what you have. I run my firewall for protection, not for some stance on lite weight, simpistic designs.

God people are so damn %&$*& lazy. Ever heard of google? Type this into it: Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1

3rd one down I do believe. That was hhhaaaaaaarrrdddd.

QUOTE

v2.1.5 and earlier sometimes resets the configuration

thats why I stop using Kerio (s*itting) firewall

btw, that soundtimes sound so sporadic... It reset (at least to me) at least one time per day!!

You're comparing a firewall you pay for to those that are free.

Tiny Personal Firewall is bloated too

Agreed, one of the best firewalls out there for ease of use

Tried it. Dropped it.
It didn't log the packets I told it to log, while KPF v2 logged everything just fine.
Also, I couldn't get it to NOT ask me about unconfigured traffic, like KPF v2 does. As I have other users, non computer-literate, on my system, I prefer a firewall not to bother the user with irrelevant information. I have configured all the rules I want. All other communication should be blocked, and the user not asked about it. I couldn't get Sygate to behave that way, though I'll admit I only tested it for one night.

Besides, it's commercial. If they offered it as (even unsupported) freeware or under the GPL, I MIGHT consider it, given that they improve the logging features and lets me choose to drop any traffic not explicitly allowed, without asking the user.

Next stop, Smoothwall, I think.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on one thing as I tried Sygate last night (uninstalled it again almost instantly).
I made a rule to block and log all requests to ports associated with the Blaster exploit. KPF v2 logs it just fine. Sygate, however, does not log it. So how do I know it really will block this if it won't log it (the rule says block and log, but as it doesn't log, I'm assuming it doesn't block either).
Clues appreciated...