hello guys,

I am using Sygate Personal Firewall at the moment.

However, as Sygate doesn't exist anymore and Symanthics doesn't provides any
support
for the freeware version of Sygate Firewall, I am thinking about moving to
another firewall.

What is the best freeware but very light weight firewall in the usage of
resources?

Any comments will be appreciated.

Annie wrote:
Yes, very good question. I'd like this answering too!

Ian.

Ian Edmont <iedmont@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:e31v00$7e5$1@news.freedom2surf.net:

I haven't a clue which is the "best".

However Agnitum Outpost works well on my second computer, which is a bit
old and has 128Meg Ram, and the usual 98SE Resources.

I used to monitor these things, but I haven't for ages as all has (touch
wood) been working well.

http://www.agnitum.com/products/

Very nearly off the bottom of the page

mike

Annie wrote:
selection of best Firewall in

2003 http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/200...Y.htm#Firewall

2004 http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/200...Y.php#Firewall

2005 http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/200...Y.php#Firewall

2006 http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/200...06SECURITY.php


Also check out Pricelessware's ACF Security page to find a list of
recently mentioned Firewalls.



--
Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things
they make it easier to do don't need to be done.

Andy Rooney

In message <4bjnjvF10obj3U1@individual.net>, bIGGy <invalid@invalid.com>
writes
Plus this link:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...5&page=1&pp=25

Acknowledgement; it was posted by Mark Carter in December 2004.
--
Huss

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:02 +1000, "Annie"
<myjunksandforums@gmail.com> wrote:

Question: Why would you need ongoing support? They haven't invented
any new ports.

In message <rvq95251hftif6us4t7ule9afrpascodgf@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> writes
New 'sploits.
--
Huss

Huss <nospam.a.husserl@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
news:t7pfCyEGYPVEFw1L@ntl.com:

Since there haven't been any, why change? I love Sygate.

In message <4bkd95F120vbvU1@individual.net>, elaich <a@b.c> writes
There have.

I'll spell it properly; not new ports but new exploits, but do note that
there are thousands of ports on a Windows machine, and it is a labour of
love to check them all. Do you use a variety of freeware sites to scan
your machine? I do. An exploit that ab/uses a dll previously thought to
be safe is one example of a former exploit du jour.

In addition to using a hardware firewall, on my main machine I use the
latest version of Outpost pro (for which I've got lifetime upgrades as I
was there at the beginning).

Watching its evolution has been informative. Some of the changes include
intercepting launching the browser from a link. Sygate doesn't do that,
does it? It's also got anti spyware/anti Trojan ware built in, and the
ability to intercept as well as scan.

It monitors for the aforementioned dll abuse, and a few other things
besides. It monitors all activity inside and out, including POP3, and is
probably the best of its kind. That's why it is not free. I cannot speak
highly enough of Agnitum, and what drew me to them was their excellent
freeware v 1, flaws in Zone Alarm (which have probably been fixed,
though freeware back up sucks) plus the dispute that tore Kerio to
pieces. So you can see how I got to non freeware for that part of my
security.

Note; I dumped Norton because it's bloatware and seems to be less
enthusiastically developed than Avast, which is a marvellous package.

I don't think that the Sygate firewall can match what I have, and it
certainly won't be improved in response to new exploits, which brings me
back to my two word response; "new exploits", which, in spite of my
subsequent wordiness, should speak for itself, though clearly it did
not!

When I use the machine with Sygate on, very few programmes are allowed
carte blanche - and notice that it like free Zone Alarm is relatively
un-selective, whereas if you pay for something like Outpost you can use
very specific rules as well as having variable polices - so that, when I
update the free anti spyware, Sygate is set to always ask me to specify
what level of response. 'Always ask' is norm for that machine.

I would not entrust my primary machine to software that is not
continuously being developed in response to new exploits. So while I do
use the Sygate firewall on one machine, I have absolutely nothing of
value on it. Even so, I am reviewing the position, as you may have
inferred from the link that I posted.

I will probably stick to freeware because I have other means of
countering a take over of my equipment, including a bootable DVD-RW that
has a back up image of my system, and the software to restore it, to say
nothing of the DOS and XP bootable USB sticks, and a backup of my
hardware firewall configuration on a disc (with a different password),
in case I have to press the rest button. You see, my stuff is precious
to me (LOL).

I have a slow burning passion for freeware. There truly can be a free
lunch, but it needs to be assessed before it is consumed. Free does not
always mean good or convenient, although there are some excellent
freeware items to be had, as this group regularly proves.

Please think twice before committing your security to a package that is
not subject to continuous development, in response to new security
exploits. They can and do happen. Just as burglars evolve techniques to
get past security systems, so your system will be vulnerable to newly
developed exploits, faults in MS ware, and whatever packages are
installed on your system.

Why do I take the time to tell you this, am I wasting effort? No.
Because if we all take care of our security we reduce the number of
machines that can be hijacked and turned into offensive weapons.

I am not concerned about your personal information, fiscal and other
wise; it's not just you who suffers if you fuck up. We all do; it puts
up the cost of security in ISPs, it costs net-related companies money in
increased down time, it increases the number of zombies, and on it goes.

Just like piracy, failure to pay attention to your security feeds a
number of other things, including organised crime, terrorism, and so on.

I'm sure you can see the implications without further adumbration, so
I'll leave it there.
--
Huss

Well, I use Kerio Personal Firewall 2.15 which is the last freeware
version of Kerio & it doesn't use a lot of resources. You can download
this version from
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/keriopf215.zip .

Sunbelt Software is the new owner of Kerio Personal Firewall, they
bought the rights from Kerio.

On 30 Apr 2006, Annie wrote

As a marker that might be of interest, I just looked at what
ZoneAlarm was using -- I'm currently listening to streaming
radio, so it's monitoring a little bit of Internet activity, but
nothing complex.

The two primary modules are taking up 17.5 MB of RAM, and it's
using 1% of the CPU (an AMD +2000; running XP Pro).

--
Cheers,
Harvey

In article <44546564@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, myjunksandforums@gmail.com
says...
There is no reason why you can't continue to use Sygate, but if you're
set on changing then there are many to choose from. Usually the ones
that are rule based are the lightest. In that category you'd find Kerio
2.1.5, Filseclab, Jetico and SensiveGuard to name a few. Then after
that there are also the usual ones (slighly heavier) like ZoneAlarm
Free, Kerio 4.2.3 (free version is less a few nonessential features),
NetVeda and so on.

Here is a list of free firewalls and related apps that may help you:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=57655

As you can see there are many to choose from. Best to try a few and see
which one suits you most.

--
Kerodo

Eugene Esterly III wrote:
versions 4.x and up. They have no rights or authority over version 2.1.5
which is still the IP of Kerio. I also spoke to Kerio after this and was
told that Kerio 2.1.5 is still free for use and is now unrestricted in
use since it is no longer supported. This came about because I was
willing to pay for commercial licensing of 2.1.5. The person on the
phone seemed rather confused that I would want to use such "old and
unsupported" software. I assured them that I knew of the limitations of
the older version but that it was the perfect simple firewall and I did
not want to use anything else. So they refused to take my money and gave
me permission to use it unfettered by the packaged agreement that comes
with the installation package.

Les Nagy

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:38:14 +0100, Huss
<nospam.a.husserl@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

Firewalls don't block exploits, they block ports.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:22:16 +0100, Huss
<nospam.a.husserl@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

Firewalls work the other way - if the port isn't specifically open,
it's closed. So all ports, by default, are closed. ALL ports. And,
since there can't be any new ports, all ports will continue to be
closed, regardless of any new exploits.

Since that's ALL a firewall is supposed to do - block ports - and
since there will be no new ports to block, what "updates" do you
expect to a firewall?

Which has nothing to do with firewalls, though. ALL a firewall does
is block ports. Nothing else. If it does anything else it's
bloatware.

That has nothing to do with firewalling ports, though.

Pop3 requests originating from your computer (incoming mail) shouldn't
be blocked if you want to get email. If you don't want to get email
they should be blocked. There aren't too many other choices. Blocked
or not blocked. Maybe "blocked for all programs except xyz", but how
many other programs on your computer are going to request incoming
email?

So is any firewall that does anything more than block ports.

And won't, when the oldest firewall already blocks *ALL* ports by
default. Unless there's more than "all"?

Al Klein wrote:

Of course there is!!! "110 percent". . . There also seem to be *many*
"very unique" items or one sort and another.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group....comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

In article <a6na521u7hkocg89mqhk2v660evvf84dh7@4ax.com>,
rukbat@pern.invalid says...
That's a rather old-fashioned and archaic view of what a firewall does.
Nowadays they do pretty much whatever they want to do. Granted, it adds
a lot of bloat, nevertheless, there they are, all around us, doing the
unthinkable.

--
Kerodo

Huss <nospam.a.husserl@spamgourmet.com> wrote in news:dOiD
$0to5QVEFwgw@ntl.com:

Aside from a veritable downpouring of words, he managed to use
"adumbration" in a Usenet post.

My machine is on DSL 24/7 running Sygate only. I am not compromised. That's
enough for me.

In message <a6na521u7hkocg89mqhk2v660evvf84dh7@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> writes
Did you deliberately misread/selectively read me? What did I say about
new exploits?

Checking to see if the firewall resists scan attempts on all ports is
very wise. It is part of taking responsibility, but only part. There is
a lot more to firewalling than mere ports, unless you are easily
satisfied.

That is an old definition, and one with which some windows users are
easily satisfied.

Firewalls should gate all traffic, incoming and outgoing. That is where
Zone Alarm /used/ to have an advantage over other products. It has lost
out to a sophisticated extension of this definition.

It has /everything/ to do with firewalling, which is more than mere
ports. It is the case that Trojans listen on some ports for incoming
connections, having used one of an increasingly innovative number of
ways of auto starting. One of those would be 'joining' a Trojan into an
executable, so that it can masquerade as a legitimate part of the
system.

So, whereas MD5 checking was useful in the past, the more robust secure
hash algorithm (SHA) 256 verification routine will be used by the next
version of Outpost Pro. That is because there are now ways to deceive
security packages using MD5.

Will the free Sygate firewall do that? No. It's dead in the water.

Good firewalls become less than adequate in the face of new exploits,
unless they are continuously developed.

NB.

You misunderstand me completely. I am beginning to think that this is
deliberate. Where did I say it is blocked? What else can firewalls do
WRT POP3?

Email? Ports? You have erected at least one large non sequitur on your
lawn, and I wonder if you are trying to troll me...

....this selective quote is misleading, disingenuous. This is what I
typed:


You went from snipping the bit that said "for Avast" to your non
sequitur mantra about ports. I said I dumped Norton for Avast, since
when was Avast a firewall? Is there an Avast firewall? (Shrugging)
Perhaps there is. You tell me where to find it, go on.

If your firewall only blocks ports you are vulnerable.

Non sequitur again; a defence is needed against exploits, e.g.,
component control and firewall control over (e.g.) clicked links that
activate a browser. If you think that ports are the only problem that
you face, and that a firewall need only control ports, if you aren't
interested in fully controlling activity on both sides of the port, and
are probably a typical windows user.

If you don't control the chain from start to finish, seamlessly, you may
well have problems, as this shows:

http://castlecops.com/modules.php?na...ticle&sid=1321

http://tinyurl.com/z6vtm

Your response exemplifies the below:

http://www.anti-trojan-software-revi...e-paper-p2.htm

It is worth reading the whole paper, and doing some searches. I woke up
years back, that is why I am not satisfied with mere port control, and
that is why I am in disagreement with you and, it would seem others.

I'll leave it there. I don't think that you will change your opinions in
the face of the evidence that I have just presented, because I feel (as
noted) that your response was disingenuous and that this is unlikely to
change.

HTH.
--
Huss

In message <15na529e5nv6qgj1imr8a9s4fnu11cbde2@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> writes
Firewalls can be exploited. Since it is not possible to prove a
negative, only an ongoing process of development can give a modicum of
assurance. Black Ice is a case in point:

http://www.eeye.com/html/research/ad...L20020208.html

Did I imagine that, or were you in principle wrong? No? Well see my
other response, in which I clearly demonstrate the rectitude of my
position, WRT new exploits.

Why do we have here an exploits page:

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

What's this:

http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum...ad.php?t=11836

Why is component control an important addition to firewalling, do you
have it, or are you happy to merely police your ports?

Do you rely on something other than windows task manager to inform you
of what processes you are running? It doesn't tell you everything,
believe me.

Yes, don't tell me "yes but".
--
Huss