• 0

Definitive Best Firewall 2011


Definitive Best Firewall 2011  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Choice?

    • BitDefender
      0
    • BlackIce
      3
    • Comodo Firewall
      50
    • Eset Smart Security
      9
    • Hardware Firewall / NAT Router
      14
    • Jetico
      0
    • Kaspersky Internet Security
      9
    • Lavasoft
      0
    • Linux Based Firewall Software
      2
    • Look 'n' Stop
      0
    • McAfee
      1
    • Microsoft ISA
      4
    • Norton Internet Security
      11
    • Outpost
      4
    • Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall
      1
    • Tiny
      1
    • Windows Built-In Firewall
      49
    • Windows One-Care
      1
    • Zone Alarm
      10
    • Other (please specify)
      12


Question

22 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

If its a stand-alone box that can be used, I like Endian Firewall.

If its on a PC, not actually sure, I'd probably go with ESET.

While ESET is good, like most "fee" firewalls, they have had to "bulk up" to compete with free products (which are no longer jokes simply by being free, especially with Microsoft in the mix).

I've no experience with ESET (therefore, I have only the opinions of others). CheckPoint *has* fixed the problems that had been plaguing ZoneAlarm (which, like ESET and Kapersky, has bulked up).

However, my recommendation for best definitive firewall remains the *only* free firewall that I recommend and use personally - Microsoft Security Essentials/Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Security.

While light in code, it remains as impervious as any of the "fee" firewalls (including ESET) at the default settings; unlike ESET (in fact, unlike most "fee" firewalls) it doesn't take an advanced degree to configure, either.

  • 0

PrivateFirewall, http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall.html, is what I've been using, although seeing one of these older "definitive" polls, I came across Windows7FirewallControl, which is what I'm using on this computer at the moment.

Using the free version which doesn't allow you to control system connections and using it WITHOUT enabling windows built in firewall.

Otherwise, just plain ol' NAT router is enough for me also.

  • 0

For years, I've been happy with Kerio firewall, but it's a shame they didn't evolved toward windows vista/seven... :-(

So for Seven, I use Comodo's one...

To those who claim NAT is enough, I'm sorry to tell them they're wrong !

Internet has become nasty and dangerous, many protections are never enough xD

  • 0

For me anyway, most of my Windows boxes just use the built in Windows 7 firewall. The *Nix boxes mostly run IPTables or IPFilter depending on what OS it is. I keep a close eye on what's installed, and I really don't need a popup confirming every little thing that's going on. Stuff coming in is blocked by default, and I can block specific stuff from going out, good for my needs. My virtual machine "junk box" that runs unknowns or just temporary things however has Comodo running in "ultra anal" mode, and it does a good job monitoring everything and anything that's going on. Granted, it takes about 20 dialog boxes to get a new program going, but that's why it's there. Pretty light on the resources as well too. If I was the type that blindly ran programs first and wondered if that was a mistake later, I'd feel pretty comfortable with it.

  • 0

software-based firewalls = laughable.

hardware based firewalls = the way to go.

I'm a big fan of Sonicwall of course, always like Cisco's stuff (except for my crappy E4200) :angry:

I never messed with Watchguard and there is 1 other I cant think of that is real popular.

As mentioned/argued in the previous 2010 firewall thread - software-based firewalls' only reason for existence is keeping bad stuff from getting out.

But as most people have a router - having an add-on SW firewall makes about as much sense as ... well doesnt really make any sense.

I'd appreciate someone in IT Security to tell me why SW-based firewalls still exist - or is it another "prying on the people who dont know any better" ?

For that matter - when it comes to SW firewalls, why is anything necessary more than windows' ?

EDIT:

I just thought of something which kinda answers my own question.

Hardware-based FW dont protect against SPAM, and phishing and stuff, right ? So - they pretty much justifies a need ? meh :(

  • 0

Switched my vote from ZoneAlarm to Comodo. I liked the previous versions of ZoneAlarm which has great application filtering, but they never changed the vsmon so it wouldn't use so much cpu when you have a lot of connections and or using a lot of bandwidth, so I tried a few other firewalls with application filtering, and at this point Comodo wins. It has good applications filtering if you set it up right.

If you aren't paranoid, and don't care what programs connect, or when they connect to the Internet then The OS based firewall is fine.

  • 0

Agnitum's Outpost Security Suite Pro for me. It's one of the few firewalls that can brag 100% leaktest protection. Bought it years ago when Agnitum was running a lifetime license sale.

Simply indispensable...especially when you're curious about what programs you are using that are trying to phone home on the sly.

  • 0

Norton Internet Security runs very smooth and quiet and doesn't interfere with my computer. Unlike Norton from several years ago that was bulky and a resource hog the last couple years versions are streamlined and IMO the top rated security suite out there and I've tried almost all the ones listed in this survey and almost all of them were annoying in some way or slowed down my system.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369749,00.asp

320570-2012-security-suites.jpg?thumb=y

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!