Recommended Posts

I am fully aware that they call home and do not rely on a infected system to tell me that it is communicating out.

A software firewall useless on an untrusted network? Wow this is funny....you clearly have absolutely no clue about anything. This made me chuckle a bit. Please tell me more.....The software firewall bocks communication from anything outside of the computer by default. No other configuration needed. You need to create rules to allow communication with other network computers. Even the windows firewall wants to believe everything other than the host pc is hostile. I am not even touching the VPN comment, it doesn't belong in this convo.

Let me rephrase that. A software firewall is not entirely useless on an unsecured network but lets put it this way, I would be more concerned about encrypting my outgoing traffic.

No I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling running a software firewall and call me paranoid or whatever you like but I like to keep tabs on what can and cannot access the internet on my personal computer(s).

HawkMan your post consisted of too much nonsense to merit a response

Alright since you want to go there, what is not encrypted? Most sites that require a password is encrypted via ssl. Go ahead and get me on my searches and my chat that is meaningless. My banks are all ssl encrypted. Anything that I need to do for my company is VPN secured that could be deemed sensitive. You are actually pretty secure simply by breathing.

despite being a resource hog. back when i used circa 2004. i was always frustrated with it. it hogged the pc resources and offered little or no protection whatsoever. back then i just uninstalled and let my computer be fully "open" to the network. windows firewall is not great, but it works. but nothing beats a router with a custom firmware and well configured

Hello,

It depends on the type of threat being countered. For example, the firewall software I'm using things like specific options to detect and block traffic from network worms, warn about ARP and DNS poisoning and a few other features beyond a simple binary "yes/no" block of packets entering or leaving the network stack.

I think Windows Firewall provides pretty good basic protection, but I like having more fine-grained options to protect against threats as well as the alerts my firewall provides.

By the way, as a disclaimer, I actually work for a company which makes a software-based firewall, but the things I've mentioned above are not specific in particular to my employer's software. Most?if not all?third-party software firewalls do this.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Wouldn't Windows' built-in firewall on an up-to-date installation do the job just fine in those situations? At our school and dorm network for example all clients are isolated and can't communicate with each other.

despite being a resource hog. back when i used circa 2004. i was always frustrated with it. it hogged the pc resources and offered little or no protection whatsoever. back then i just uninstalled and let my computer be fully "open" to the network. windows firewall is not great, but it works. but nothing beats a router with a custom firmware and well configured

TMG 2010 does :shifty:

I have windows firewall enabled but that doesn't allow you to block applications from calling home (as far as i'm aware) so i have zonealarm too. I use avast antivirus as MSE is awful, it misses so many viruses, can't remove viruses and has loads of false detections, can't believe others don't hate MSE too.

I may try a different firewall app soon though.

Use this along with Windows firewall to monitor outgoing traffic, if you must!

Make sure to get the free version,

http://www.sphinx-so...ista/order.html

I am a lazy user who is concerned about security. I have used ZA since about 2003 and moved to Pro in 2005. I am currently a ZA pro subscriber and it has given me some system performance problems in the past but nothing I couldn't get past. The problem with me, as I have already said, Im lazy.

I feel ZA Pro gives me decent security, I always pay attention to alerts it gives me and therefore I hope Im safe as i can be with a commercial customer product in this price range.

Im going to keep a note of this thread as it will be interesting to see if it is worth the investment in time in order to get a firewall that performs better than ZA Pro.

You're not lazy, Orange, if you can get past all the blocking of every app on your system.

:yes: But in all reality it isn't every app, just the ones that make your computer useful on the internet (well not exactly the apps, but sites that the apps connect to)....you can play solitare usually (I haven't seen that blocked), though you may not be able to play any online games even when you disable the firewall completely.

I really don't see the need to pay for a software firewall on Windows 7 and above. It was probably needed on earlier versions of Windows, but not anymore. The built in firewall in Windows 7 works great for me. If need be you can use a free frontend like Windows Firewall Control.

That's the job of your AV and heuristics. firewalls are to protect from targeted attacks or remote attacks. at the point when outbund traffic matters, it's to late and the virus will, if it's a decent one, have disabled your FW anyway.

a FW has a purpose, it's not what you think it is.

Actually sandboxing is better protection. As far as Zero day protection, I think MSE is terrible.

MSE is terrible compared to what, it's virus module is as good as Norton, but Norton is so much more than just the AV which makes it a far better total package, as far as sandboxing, it's one of those false protection cushions that make people think they're more protected than they are. relying on sandboxing for your protection is a terrible idea, and even so it won't protect you against many of the very clever phishing and Trojan attacks that are out today. it'll just protect against certain viruses.

MSE is terrible compared to what, it's virus module is as good as Norton, but Norton is so much more than just the AV which makes it a far better total package, as far as sandboxing, it's one of those false protection cushions that make people think they're more protected than they are. relying on sandboxing for your protection is a terrible idea, and even so it won't protect you against many of the very clever phishing and Trojan attacks that are out today. it'll just protect against certain viruses.

I'm referring to something like sandboxie for sandboxing your web browsing. Now if you download something and let it out of the sandbox and run it, sure you will get infected. I'm talking about using sandboxie in protected against drive-by / zero day exploits where the infection is contained inside the sandboxie sandbox.

I think it's a hell of a lot better than just relying on AV. Personally I run Avast, Malwarebytes, Sandboxie. I removed Java from my system and use flashblock to so flash content does not load automatically.

Meanwhile other people just want to use their computers and are not getting infected without being paranoid sandboxed.

Also pretty much all banks here use Java to log in (since they all use a security system called BankID, which uses i, and allows you to digitally sign documents with a legally binding electronic signature), so removing java is out of the question.

and there's always a way out of a sandbox, that's why they're called trojans. Well unless you go with the VM OS, but that's just plain ridiculous.

common sense beats any sandbox. common sense and MSE is enough for most people, and Norton will keep you safe even without common sense in most cases.

Meanwhile other people just want to use their computers and are not getting infected without being paranoid sandboxed.

Also pretty much all banks here use Java to log in (since they all use a security system called BankID, which uses i, and allows you to digitally sign documents with a legally binding electronic signature), so removing java is out of the question.

and there's always a way out of a sandbox, that's why they're called trojans. Well unless you go with the VM OS, but that's just plain ridiculous.

common sense beats any sandbox. common sense and MSE is enough for most people, and Norton will keep you safe even without common sense in most cases.

That's also why they are called drive by downloads. You go to a harmless site has has recently been compromised like say neowin (could happen). It then takes advantage of a zero day vulnerability on your system. Then the AV just so happens to miss it and you are now infected. In the case of a sandbox its more than likey contained. Thus no harm was done to the system. In this case just going to a trusted website got the computer infected. it had nothing to do with common sense.

In the case with you needing java, you are surfing the web with something that ALWAYS has vulnerabilities. that the bad guys know about and haven't used yet. So at the very least I would run quickjava if I HAD to use java, which let me turn it on for the bank but off the rest of the time.

Surfing the web with Java enabled and the word common sense cancel each other out. Because in this case you can use the worlds best common sense and still get infected.

That's also why they are called drive by downloads. You go to a harmless site has has recently been compromised like say neowin (could happen). It then takes advantage of a zero day vulnerability on your system. Then the AV just so happens to miss it and you are now infected. In the case of a sandbox its more than likey contained. Thus no harm was done to the system. In this case just going to a trusted website got the computer infected. it had nothing to do with common sense.

In the case with you needing java, you are surfing the web with something that ALWAYS has vulnerabilities. that the bad guys know about and haven't used yet. So at the very least I would run quickjava if I HAD to use java, which let me turn it on for the bank but off the rest of the time.

Surfing the web with Java enabled and the word common sense cancel each other out. Because in this case you can use the worlds best common sense and still get infected.

Assuming you visit dangerous sites, don't keep MSE up to date, don't keep Windows up to date, or Java or Flash or whatever, yeah, you're in danger.

Anyone else? That's where the common sense comes in.

And just for the record (though I'm no fan of Java) it's not that insecure anymore http://secunia.com/a...statistics_2012

In the case with you needing java, you are surfing the web with something that ALWAYS has vulnerabilities. that the bad guys know about and haven't used yet. So at the very least I would run quickjava if I HAD to use java, which let me turn it on for the bank but off the rest of the time.

Surfing the web with Java enabled and the word common sense cancel each other out. Because in this case you can use the worlds best common sense and still get infected.

Sorry, but you're sprouting ignorant bs from the "always has vulnerabilities" and to the end. Come back when you have an education and know what pure talking about. Btw your browser, our sandbox, your OS, your mail app, and everything else on your computer Alison"always have vulnerabilities" by your classification, sure no one knows what they are or that they are there, but they are.

Also Norton will in fact stop zero day vulnerabilities in drive by downloads. They have the top rating score on zero day test, and stopped everything.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of by Hamid Ganji While companies like Apple and Samsung have been relatively conservative with their devices’ battery capacities in recent years, Chinese manufacturers have taken the competition to the next level by introducing significantly larger batteries. However, the latest report from China suggests that a local company may already be developing a smartphone with a whopping 14,000mAh battery. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claimed on Weibo that a smartphone maker is developing a device with a 14,000mAh battery. If true, it would be the largest battery ever used in a smartphone and could, in theory, provide up to a week of battery life on a single charge. The leaker did not reveal the name of the company behind the device, but there are some clues. This week, HONOR unveiled the X80 Pro Max in China with an 11,000mAh battery and 90W wired charging support. The company also launched the Honor Win in January, which packs a 10,000mAh battery. HONOR, a former subsidiary of Huawei, has a proven track record of developing smartphones with unusually large batteries. However, other Chinese brands, including Xiaomi, have also launched devices such as the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max with 7,500mAh batteries. Though Chinese users on Weibo also believe the company behind the new battery is HONOR. Interestingly, Digital Chat Station said the device with the 14,000mAh battery weighs around 220 grams, making it lighter than the Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max (233 grams) and slightly heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (214 grams). The iPhone 17 Pro Max currently packs a 5,088mAh battery in eSIM-only versions, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra features a 5,000mAh battery. Neither device is expected to see a dramatic increase in battery capacity in its next-generation successor. So when it comes to battery comparison, Chinese brands are unbeaten. HONOR smartphones are currently available in the EU, but the Chinese brand has no official presence in the United States due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
    • Qualcomm takes on NVIDIA with new Dragonfly CPU and AI chips by Pradeep Viswanathan Microsoft, Google, Amazon, AMD, Meta, Apple, OpenAI, and several others have been developing their own chips for AI infrastructure. However, NVIDIA still remains the dominant player in the market. Today, Qualcomm announced a major expansion of its data center infrastructure portfolio to better compete with NVIDIA. The new lineup includes the Qualcomm Dragonfly C1000 CPU, Qualcomm High Bandwidth Compute technology, the Dragonfly AI300 inference accelerator, new connectivity products, and custom silicon solutions. Qualcomm claims that this new lineup improves performance per watt, token throughput, and total cost of ownership for AI data centers. The Dragonfly C1000 is a new data center CPU built with Qualcomm’s custom Oryon cores. This chip will feature more than 250 cores, frequencies above 5GHz, and a chiplet-based design. Qualcomm claims that this new C1000 can deliver more than 2x better performance per watt compared to existing server CPU offerings based on specifications. The Dragonfly C1000 will support PCIe Gen 7 with more than 2TB/s of connectivity, along with CXL, advanced RAS features, and both air and liquid cooling. Qualcomm expects the Dragonfly C1000 to be commercially available in 2028. Additionally, Qualcomm and Meta announced a multi-year, multi-generation agreement under which Qualcomm will supply Dragonfly C1000 data center CPUs for Meta’s next-generation server fleet. Qualcomm also announced High Bandwidth Compute, a new near-memory computing architecture designed to address AI’s memory bandwidth bottleneck. HBC Gen 1 will debut with the Dragonfly AI250, which is expected to sample in mid-2027. The AI250 will deliver 133TB/s per card, an 18x increase in effective memory bandwidth compared to the AI200 with LPDDR5X. The new Dragonfly AI300 with HBC Gen 2 is a rack-level AI inference platform from Qualcomm. Qualcomm claims that the AI300 can deliver 4x to 8x better performance per watt compared to existing GPU-based architectures based on memory bandwidth per watt per card. The Dragonfly AI300 is expected to be available in 2028.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Meta Plast earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      136
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!