What is the lightest Firewall?

[briangw]

Umm. A NAT? It uses zero of you PC's RAM, zero of your PC's CPU and generally has less stupid and useless options (well that's debatable).

The problem with NAT is that it doesn't block outgoing connections, which could be needed or not based on what you do. ;)

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Based on what?

You go first.

[sfd]

symantec firewall

Don't you never ever use the Symantec's Norton Internet Security. It's about the worst bloatware firewall app I've ever seen. Seriously.

Tiny Personal Firewall some latest version here...

[sukamusiru]

It sounds like you have a memory leak in your old version of zonealarm. Just upgrade to the latest one and you should be fine.

Sounds like a reasonable description. I'd try upgrading, ZA was my preference over TPF..

[ThunderRiver]

You go first.

You know.. if you don't trust Microsoft at all, don't even argue. We know what we are takling about. ICF is secure for blocking unwanted incoming packets, but if that's not good enough, you can stick with ZA.

It should be your turn to talk, not his. So far, you don't have any evidences against ICF except it is made by MS.

I have to agree with OPaul on this one.

[OPaul]

You go first.

ICF passes any firewall test you can will find. The only thing it will fail on is browser security (things like blocking your referral, which is kind of stupid anyways) and outgoing communication (because it's not designed to block outgoing communication). ICF also passes PC Flank's exploit test ( http://www.pcflank.com/exploits.htm ). Please explain why you disagree with my comment that ICF is just as good as any other firewall at blocking incoming traffic.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Oh joy, I got a stealth scan. I guess I am done configuring my firewall. :rolleyes: A stealth scan may be significant, but it doesn't always mean you are safe from inbound threats.

[OPaul]

Oh joy, I got a stealth scan. I guess I am done configuring my firewall. :rolleyes: A stealth scan may be significant, but it doesn't always mean you are safe from inbound threats.

Please elaborate.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Firewall tunneling.

[OPaul]

Firewall tunneling.

That wasn't much of an elaboration.

That would only be relevant if there was a socket to connect to on the other end and as all firewalls allow for HTTP connections they would all be just as "vulnerable" as ICF.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

That wasn't much of an elaboration.

Yeah I know. If you want to learn more, pay me $20 or go buy a book.

[Monkey Man]

sygate is using 8 meg on my pc atm

[jago_lfn]

if you have an old computer lying around somewhere you can give smoothwall a go. http://www.smoothwall.org

[NeHoMaR]

if you have an old computer lying around somewhere you can give smoothwall a go. http://www.smoothwall.org

Good idea. But I can do that with any firewall software :D

Do you know about a good open source (freeware) firewall? (for Windows XP) I know there are very good free software available, some times better than commercial ones :yes:

[NeHoMaR]

About new Windows Firewall (Windows XP SP2)

Is that firewall similar to a commercial one? Where can I find DETAILED info about SP2 Windows Firewall only? (Not ALL SP2 feactures)

:D :D :D

[dreamthief]

About new Windows Firewall (Windows XP SP2)

Is that firewall similar to a commercial one? Where can I find DETAILED info about SP2 Windows Firewall only? (Not ALL SP2 feactures)

:D :D :D

does this match your request?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&DisplayLang=en

[NeHoMaR]

does this match your request?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&DisplayLang=en

Yeah! Very good! Thanks! :D

[Bearded Kirklander]

I used to like Zone Alarm (the free version) but it caused trouble with too many games I tried to play. But I have a router now and it blocks all incoming WAN requests and that seems to protect me good against incoming stuff. But I don't know what to do about outgoing. Zone Alarm did used to be very lean and efficient, but I have heard it has gotten bloated and too many features were added. Is that only for the PRO version or also for the free version? Thanks

[PseudoRandomDragon]

It isn't bloated, people just see the extra tabs and instead of turning off features, they just complain.

[lnmnky]

The ZA pro version's main difference is web filtering. Which is like a NetNanny. Also does cookies, and web beacons etc.

I used to run the free version, and it's great.

If you don't need web filtering, then go for ZA free. Or give it a try at least.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Actually, web filtering was just an addin to ZoneAlarm Pro until recently, now web filtering is only included in ZoneAlarm Security Suite. There are a lot of differences between ZAP and ZA, like being able to manually open ports, setup ICS, more email protection, IDlock, privacy, expert rules, blah blah blah.

[lnmnky]

Jees, everyones going "suite" these days. Even system mechanic is incorporating a virus scanner now.

Time to visit oldversion.com......

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Or just use ZoneAlarm Pro, which does not have antivirus/IMSecure

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The problem with NAT is that it doesn't block outgoing connections, which could be needed or not based on what you do. ;)

True, true but the post did ask "What is the lightest Firewall?".

Certainly a NAT is the lightest. As I said, it takes zero RAM and zero CPU time.

A NAT is the best place to start. Consider adding a software firewall if you feel the need to add additional security (and outbound port blocking).

I'm not sure that it's warranted for most users. Perhaps they would be better off with having 11MB more memory free.

[PseudoRandomDragon]

I agree. If outbound isn't an issue, go with the hardware firewall.