Scroll down to the bottom for summery of tests by brand. Winner's and loser's may surprise you.

http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php

Shelly

That study was one of the reasons I switched from Zone Alarm to Comodo. Haven't had any problems with comodo, yet. I have it running on all 3 of my computers. I still use a laptop that has win98 and comodo won't run on 98 so I'm still using Zone Alarm on that one.

ed

  

Thanx, Shelly. Very interesting, indeed. Comodo really shines!

.
Onward & Upward !
Sid

WINDOWS 10
ASUS P8Z77-V Pro MB
Intel i5 3750K CPU
8g Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM
Corsair Neutron 250g SSD

Thanks Shelly. Appreciate the heads up. Been questioning my firewall application for some time. Gonna fire up Comodo ASAP as a result.
paparalph

Unfortunately, Comodo is not compatible with Vista yet

Shelly

priscilla


i-MAC newbie out of training

The Alpha version of Comodo Firewall Pro 3 for Vista x86 and x64 can be found in the link below. (One must be register for free to view the post):

http://forums.comodo.com/cfp_beta_corner/comodo_firewall_pro_3011_alpha_setup_closed-t9588.0.html

It comes with a warning of course:

PLEASE DO NOT RUN THIS IN PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT.

THIS CODE IS PERHAPS THE SECOND MOST POWERFUL SOFTWARE YOU HAVE IN YOUR MACHINE AFTER THE OPERATING SYSTEM KERNEL!

THIS IS FOR TESTING PURPOSES ONLY! DO NOT USE IT IN YOUR PRODUCTION MACHINE OR THE MACHINE THAT YOU USE.

============================================================

I'm wondering if I should try it out...

You would have to be nuts to run alpha software on any system you cared about! What do you think all those warnings are about? Its to protect them from legal liability.

Shelly

I don't see the latest free version of ZonerAlarm, i.e. 3.0.337.000. I hope it's better than the version tested, 7.0.302.000 which shows up as very poor.

Edit: Just ran a test at https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 Shields Up and passed with flying colors (all green) which showed my computer to be in FULL STEALTH mode. Spam didn't get through either. That seems much better than very poor.

Edit 2: Just downloaded Comodo,.... just in case.

If you are behind a router with NAT you are going to test all stealth whether you have a software firewall or not. Most of us here have routers, so only need a software for outgoing traffic.

Shelly

Shelly, I'm using a new Buffalo Air Station Wireless G router. How do I determine if it incorporates NAT, or, do all routers have it?

As for outgoing data, if only clean stuff is allowed IN to your system, won't the outgoing stuff be clean, as well? Of course, I'm talking about my kind of setting in which only our home systems are involved in a simple home network and we're a mile from the nearest neighbor, two miles from the next nearest one, etc.---sure beats L.A.!

.
Onward & Upward !
Sid

WINDOWS 10
ASUS P8Z77-V Pro MB
Intel i5 3750K CPU
8g Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM
Corsair Neutron 250g SSD

It is too easy for "unclean" stuff to make it into your system. You can be tricked into it, or there are "drive-by-downloads". When you navigate to a website, you give that website permission to pass thru your router, at that point in time they can throw everything at you including the kitchen sink, and your router, being the faithful servant that it is, will allow it all to pass, bacause YOU told it to merely by going to that website.

Acadia

Very good point, Bill.

.
Onward & Upward !
Sid

WINDOWS 10
ASUS P8Z77-V Pro MB
Intel i5 3750K CPU
8g Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM
Corsair Neutron 250g SSD

However, a good antivirus/antispyware/antitrojan should stop infections.

I installed Comodo awhile back...dropped ZA...didn't even realize how
really good Comodo was...

DavyWavy -

I made the switch to Comodo from ZA several months ago when others here did too. I'm glad I did. I've got it on all 3 of my computers and even got my Dad to use it on his 3 computers.

Is there a need for a software firewall, if I have windows firewall on and behind a router?


I ran a check on a few firewall testing sites and I came back secure.

Edit: Including Bobbo's link in post #5.

Visit the Basement

If you are behind a router with NAT you are protected from incoming threats. A software firewall will additionally protect you from outgoing threats that are already on your computer, such as a Virus, Trojan, or Worm that you inadvertently were tricked into letting in.

Windows firewall in XP has no component for outgoing problems calling home. The Windows Firewall in Vista does have two way protection, but the outgoing protection is turned off by default. You have to enable it.

Shelly

priscilla


i-MAC newbie out of training

Yes.

Shelly

priscilla


i-MAC newbie out of training

Thank you once again.

Visit the Basement

Very interesting, been using Comodo merrily since Laurie found the fix to a problem a few of us had.

Jetico is rated highly, anyone using this on Win98?

I installed it on a mchine I am cleaning up for a lady but it seems I am forever clicking OK to allow almost anything to happen. Seems I need to click 4 or 5 times before I can move on and this is happening frequently. There is no way I can expect her to keep doing that every time she moves about the screen. I was wondering if I had a bad install and had intended to remove and re-install. Now I will wait for any replies.

That was very interesting. Thanks to Shelly for his post.

I changed to Comodo at the same time as Laurie did and for the same reasons. I've been happy with it and found it tests well on GRC and with Leaktest. Glad to have that confirmed by people with greater knowledge than I have.

Elcee

I've toyed with all the firewalls over the years, tried 'em all. Eventually gave up and accepted ZA. Then I started to have problems with it, moved on to the Windows built-in on XP, someone finally gave me a pointer towards Comodo and I've been happier than a clam ever since. I never have to even think about firewalls anymore.Now I just think about ID theft/Phishing/spyware/viri/rootkits...

Jim.

There is a comment at Download.com that suggests Jetico and Windows 98 isn't a good mix.

http://www.download.com/3640-10435_4-10634841.html

Thank you Paul, good information there.

Thanks.Dump Zone Alarm free version?!!

So the firewall I use (Comodo) is rated excellent.

Good to know.

I just switched to Comodo, too! No problems so far! Thanks, Shelly!!!

Zeico

I just replaced ZA with Comodo. Works OK I guess, however, when I update my spyware programs, it lets them go with out question. With IE and Firefox it asked permition the first time as ZA does. I'm just wondering why it didnt from the spyware(Adaware, Spybot, Spywareblaster) programs?
Thanks
Denbeau

Thanks Allyn,
DB

Shelly

Thanks
Shelly

I've now changed to Comodo, thanks for link. I'd be glad if any of the knowledgeable users of this firewall would advise me of any recommendations for the settings.

Please be aware that the firewall in ZA Pro is no longer the same as the firewall in ZA Free. ZA Pro came in third in that chart, ZA Free is nowhere near as good! It seems that Centerpoint, unlike the old ZoneLabs, is more interested in developing and pushing you into their paid product.

I will today replace ZA in my XP nachines with Comodo, and hope that they soon come out with a Vista compatible product.

Shelly

The free version number listed by Matousec that scored Very Poor is not what I have. Mine is the same as the Pro.

I agree with your assessment of Check Point's marketing. They are doing their best to hide the free version from easy access.

Thanks.Will replace ZA free with Comodo firewall

For the benefit of anyone like myself who has questions about the settings etc of Comodo firewall, I found this on the Comodo Forum http://forums.comodo.com/faq_for_comodo_firewall/tutorials_a_compiled_resource-t6167.0.html

See especially "Set and Forget Setup" on the second page. You can also download a User Manual.

Good link, thanks Noreen

I notice that information is about Comodo Version 2.3, there are some changes in the current Version 2.4.

Shelly

Bearing in mind Shelly's post 32, there is also a concise listing of helpful threads etc here http://forums.comodo.com/help/faqsthreads_read_me_first-t9364.0.html

Thanks.Installed the new firewall and also downloaded the user guide.Configuration is simple-opted for Scan for known applications.

Well, I switched to Comodo, and now others can't download from me on P2P (WinMX). And before the howls about P2P, I only use private servers, which are pretty fussy about who they admit, and I have never had a problem file in several years. Back to ZA for me.

As far as I know, ZoneAlarm has worked well for me. I won't install Comodo until I am assured that ZA ver. 3.0.337.000 (Free) is deemed less than effective. This is not intended to demean Comodo, but as they say, "If it aint broke, don't fix it"

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Zone Alarm free was deamed less effective in Shelly original post. You're showing alot of blocked attempts there. With the obvious evidence that Zone Alarm Free is worthless it's easy to think that Comodo would be showing more attempts than your ZA is showing in your screenshot.

Visit the Basement

Shelly's original post related to ZA Free version 7.0.302.000. The current ZA Free version is 7.0.337.000, which is not listed in Shelly's link.

However, Shelly's other link to Scott Finney's article includes the following information:

============================================


In the computer world, there’s a right way, a wrong way, and the Mac way. The Mac way is essentially the same as the wrong way, except it’s much faster and on a much larger scale.

Interesting how people change the product they use based on one tester's report. Any other independent testers out there come up with similar results?

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

Scott Finnie in his newsletter ran his own tests and came to the the same conclusions.

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/91.htm

Shelly

============================================


In the computer world, there’s a right way, a wrong way, and the Mac way. The Mac way is essentially the same as the wrong way, except it’s much faster and on a much larger scale.

Scott, links to matousec (as mentioned in the OP's post) & also mentions FirewallLeakTester (which basically repeats matousec & Scott). Kind of like a round robin.

Anyhow, then the question is, just what is it that they are all queuing in on - "my primary security focus was outbound firewall protection"? This, "abuse of trusted programs"?

How is one to determine that some process is wanting to abuse a trusted program? Or does the firewall (those that do it) do it automatically?

You typed the words I was thinking. Thanks!

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

============================================


In the computer world, there’s a right way, a wrong way, and the Mac way. The Mac way is essentially the same as the wrong way, except it’s much faster and on a much larger scale.

I have just installed Comodo. Having been a long time ZoneAlarm (ZA) user, I was expecting some popups from Comodo asking questions on allowing this or that to have access. I have had common users tell me ZA is too difficult to use. I can only imagine what they are going to say if I recommend Comodo to them. It is way more complicated than ZA.

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

Okay, I am not sure Comodo is a good firewall. After installing the thing, it didn't even ask me if Spybot Search & Destroy 1.4 should be allowed access to the Internet. And neither does it ask with Spywareblaster or Ad-Aware 1.06!

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

It would be nice to have a firewall that didn't ask for such redundant things.


http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=453128&mesg_id=453128&page=#453232

Visit the Basement

Doc didn't need a link to this very same thread. Referring him to replies #15 and #19 above would have been sufficient.

Jim.

I learned it from Lou in this thread.

How come you didn't post that smarty comment when he did it?! Huh? Or did you just post that comment because I did it? I bet that's the reason. If other people do a circular reference it doesn't merit a comeback, but if I do or the other reprobates in question on this forum do we're subject to "vile" responses and ridicule.


Whatever JIM!!

Visit the Basement

Did you notice the at the end? The reply was all tongue in cheek good fun.

I admit I don't think of you people on dial-up. Dial-up is a dying breed I rarely think about. My apologies to you on that. The circular reference thing is kinda dumb, but at the same time kinda funny.

Visit the Basement

What's a "registered user"? If you mean it's someone who is "logged-in" to the Forum, you are correct - I was logged in. But then, I'm always logged in - I never log out. So, if you think that just because I'm logged in means I read all the topics, you are mistaken.

I saw the smiley but didn't understand the meaning you wanted it to convey.

Anyway, we "dying breed" of dialup users thank you.

Jim.

Oh come on. I was just trying to prove a point that I was trying to convey the other day with the stupid ZOO thread. You implied (even though you're probably going to reply to this and say you "implied no such thing"!) that a few of us were registered users in 2003 and never posted on a thread, but we did in 2007 when it was reposted. Also implying that the replies in 2007 were due to the individual who posted the "vile" joke.

My point was that your assertion was "crap". And you proved it here today. You didn't read the "circular reference" thread, which is why you probably didn't gripe to Lou about having to reload the thread because you're on dial-up.

Which is what I was trying to say the other day. Everyone who posted in the ZOO thread in 2007 even though we were members 4 years ago, may or may not have seen the thread in 2003 to call it "vile". Flmcg definitely wasn't nor was JohnnyReb.

Calm down PaulD I was just messin here. I'm not riled up at all about this. I was just trying to have some good clean fun.

Visit the Basement

Why are you going out of your way to be confrontational? I told you it implied no such thing. Period. End of sentence.

My post was stricty neutral. You imbued it in your mind with meaning that I did not state nor imply in that post. As I said before, and I quote, "it's your conclusions and interpretation of what I wrote that's crap".

Jim.

Well, maybe you should just check out THIS LINK!
THIS LINK!
http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php#453538

I think it is a circular reference without being circular.
Make sense?
Check it out & see if it does.

I was trying to get something actually meaningful out of this. A method to do a circular reference without circulating. But so far it has proved unfruitful.

So if you would all just jumparoo down to #75 below.

[blockquote][strong]QUOTE:[/strong]
Well, maybe you should just check out
[link:www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=453128&mesg_id=453128&page=#453538|THIS
LINK]!
[link:www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php#453538|THIS LINK]!
http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php#453538

I think it is a circular reference without being circular.
Make sense?
Check it out & see if it does.[/blockquote]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's been a long day, so at the moment I don't see the sense
in it.  I copied your message & posted in plain text just
to see if I could understand what you meant, but it didn't
help.

Jim.

Check my edits which you may have missed .

Visit the Basement

Visit the Basement

Ok, now you've really peaked my interest.(Well maybe not really )
Could you post a link to this ZOO so I don't have to go looking for it?
I rarely get to the other side .

Oh god help us! I reaaaallly hate hijacking threads!! I'm so sorry to Shelly. His intention was good and this is a really good eye opening thread on firewalls.


http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=132731&mesg_id=132731&page=

Visit the Basement

Geez!
111 posts over a simple joke ?

Can anyone say, get real.


Figured I'd read down till & found one sensible post, then stop (luckily I didn't have to read to the end).

"Kiwi2022"
http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=132731#132796

Keep reading. It ended up to be one of the most fun, threads about nothing we've had in awhile.

Visit the Basement

Nightly Reader

Don't get your knickers in a twist. The point was simply that Doc's question had already been answered in this thread, before he asked it.

Actually, it wasn't because I didn't run the scan which looks for known applications. Comodo didn't even blink at these applications with just a regular install with no further configuration. So, something isn't right with it.

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

I guess no one is interested that Comodo has a problem...

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

Did it ever occur to you that the program might be designed to ignore instead of block other legitimate security software?

Shelly

Not with a typical install. You are suppose to run the "Scan for known applications" option inside of the program after installation before it will do that. I did not do that. And, it let those programs I mentioned through anyway.

What do you mean he's the Doctor? Doctor Who?

Sometimes ut gets discouraging around here. I have come to the conclusion that half the people here are operating with limited security protection because they are just too lazy to bother reading about how to uses whatever software they have.

I began this thread to pass on some useful information on an important subject, and all I see is a lot of people making nonsense points because they can't even RTFM, check out the publishers forum, or even examine the software they installed.

Please go to http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=453460&mesg_id=453460&page=
And read my post #4.

I will now abandon this subject. I am here to offer help to people, not to spoon those who won't lift a finger to help themselves, or others.

Shelly

Good post! I feel dumb for asking the question that get's asked 50 times a year!

Visit the Basement

Shelly, I appreciate what you say, but ZA has served me well over an extended period, including it's handling of P2P, while Comodo forced me to spend time and effort trying (ultimately futilely) to configure it to do so.

There is more to life for Joe Average than having to embark on a course in computer security in order to configure a firewall, when an alternative is available that doesn't require the same effort.

I have used ZA, both free and pro since the day it came out. The day I learned that ZA Free was a sham and no longer offered the same firewall protection as the paid version, as it always did when owned by Zone Labs, I dumped it. To use a crippled program for ones security is foolish, even though actually getting attacked is a long shot for any user (other than those who deliberately expose themselves to dangerous sites).

Anyone who uses a NAT protected router needs no software firewall for incoming threats. They only need protection for something already on their computer trying to call out, to spy on a user, or to steal things like financial or identity information.

Only an idiot would say that they have enough protection to prevent anything getting on their computer. New threats come out every day that are a threat until the security companies learn of them and issue protection against them. And even the savvy user (a rare bird in truth) can be tricked into allowing or even inviting malware onto their system. Once on your system the ONLY avenue of protection possible is an outgoing software firewall.

Ironically Vista, the most secure Windows environment ever, has some security vulnerabilities due to security features that prevent many existing security programs from being used with it. Until new versions are released that will work, we are limited to Vista's built in security, or a few costly third party programs. In a few months this will change as new programs are released buy those companies with sufficient programming skills to make their products work. Until then, not turning on the outbound filter in Vista's firewall because it will ask you questions to set up its filter list is crazy.

I can't get over Microsoft turning off the outgoing filters to give users a better user "out of box experience." That is tantamount to criminal negligence. But then I think about all the crying over access control and I question the sanity in both camps.

Listen up all you experts, Vista was not written for you. It was written for Joe Six pack, who never saw the inside of a computer, and is largely computer illiterate. Selling a new OS to all the real gurus in the world would not pay the light bill at Microsoft for three days. I would never suggest to users that they turn off any of the protection's in an OS, and I will always encourage users to turn on or install any protections they can.

Shelly

QUOTE:

Shelly, I appreciate what you say, but ZA has served me well over an extended period, including it's handling of P2P, while Comodo forced me to spend time and effort trying (ultimately futilely) to configure it to do so.

There is more to life for Joe Average than having to embark on a course in computer security in order to configure a firewall, when an alternative is available that doesn't require the same effort.

---

Paul D



Paul........please check my post for you at this link, re Comodo

http://forum.worldstart.com/showthread.php?p=1129545#post1129545

Pacific