Best free firewall

  • Thread starter Thread starter titus12
  • Start date Start date
T

titus12

Witch of the two, Comodo or Zone Labs, is the best free firewall for XP SP3?

Thank you,
David
 
titus12 wrote:
> Witch of the two, Comodo or Zone Labs, is the best free firewall for XP
> SP3?
>
> Thank you,
> David
Define best!

I like zonelabs and have used it for years. I have no experience with
Comodo. I like zonelabs since it blocks outgoing as well. It will
notify you of any outgoing attempt and you can approve it or deny it,
and remember that setting for all future attempts. Its great with you
load a new program and find it accessing the internet and you didn't
think this was an internet program.
 
From a personal viewpoint I prefer Zone Labs.

--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

"titus12" <titus12@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4D226DD6-4534-4A92-9C7E-8C88A049A2FE@microsoft.com...
> Witch of the two, Comodo or Zone Labs, is the best free firewall for XP
> SP3?
>
> Thank you,
> David
 
I don't like either. But if I had to choose it would be Comodo. Zone Alarm
seriously slowed my web browsing.

"titus12" <titus12@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4D226DD6-4534-4A92-9C7E-8C88A049A2FE@microsoft.com...
> Witch of the two, Comodo or Zone Labs, is the best free firewall for XP
> SP3?
>
> Thank you,
> David
 
The 'BEST' and 'FREE' firewall of course is Windows. It never causes
problems like the others do.
"Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message
news:y4f1k.9758$%Z1.7986@trnddc05...
> titus12 wrote:
>> Witch of the two, Comodo or Zone Labs, is the best free firewall for XP
>> SP3?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> David
> Define best!
>
> I like zonelabs and have used it for years. I have no experience with
> Comodo. I like zonelabs since it blocks outgoing as well. It will
> notify you of any outgoing attempt and you can approve it or deny it, and
> remember that setting for all future attempts. Its great with you load
> a new program and find it accessing the internet and you didn't think this
> was an internet program.
>
 
Unknown wrote:
> The 'BEST' and 'FREE' firewall of course is Windows. It never causes
> problems like the others do.

That's because it's Crap.

John.
 
You're letting your stupidity show again.
"John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6aljgkF38nomiU1@mid.individual.net...
> Unknown wrote:
>> The 'BEST' and 'FREE' firewall of course is Windows. It never causes
>> problems like the others do.
>
> That's because it's Crap.
>
> John.
 
Unknown wrote:
> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall is
> crap and your explanation is that it only checks
> one way. What more can I say.

You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
think it's so good.

John.
 
Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
explained it only checks one way.
If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the outgoing
scans.
If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about Windows
firewall.
Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging. Tell us why Windows firewall is
crap.
"John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6aoh3pF37j9qoU1@mid.individual.net...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall is
>> crap and your explanation is that it only checks
>> one way. What more can I say.
>
> You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
> think it's so good.
>
> John.
 
Unknown wrote:
> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
> explained it only checks one way.
> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the outgoing
> scans.
> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about Windows
> firewall.
> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging. Tell us why Windows firewall is
> crap.
> "John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6aoh3pF37j9qoU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall is
>>> crap and your explanation is that it only checks
>>> one way. What more can I say.
>> You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
>> think it's so good.
>>
>> John.
>
>
I've had enough of your repetitive responses about a subject you
obviously know very little about, so I'll leave you in peace to wallow
in your self appointed position within this newsgroup.

John.
 
Also, if one has outgoing requests, it means that your system is already
compromised.

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message news:yKS1k.2865$89.189@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
> explained it only checks one way.
> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the outgoing
> scans.
> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about Windows
> firewall.
> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging. Tell us why Windows firewall is
> crap.
> "John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6aoh3pF37j9qoU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall is
>>> crap and your explanation is that it only checks
>>> one way. What more can I say.
>>
>> You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
>> think it's so good.
>>
>> John.
>
>
 
Good point Frank.
"Frank-FL" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:uebOL2zxIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Also, if one has outgoing requests, it means that your system is already
compromised.

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:yKS1k.2865$89.189@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
> explained it only checks one way.
> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the
> outgoing
> scans.
> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about
> Windows
> firewall.
> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging. Tell us why Windows firewall is
> crap.
> "John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6aoh3pF37j9qoU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall
>>> is
>>> crap and your explanation is that it only checks
>>> one way. What more can I say.
>>
>> You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
>> think it's so good.
>>
>> John.
>
>
 
Crap!
"John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6aqlh4F399podU1@mid.individual.net...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
>> explained it only checks one way.
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the
>> outgoing scans.
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about
>> Windows firewall.
>> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging. Tell us why Windows firewall
>> is crap.
>> "John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:6aoh3pF37j9qoU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Unknown wrote:
>>>> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall
>>>> is crap and your explanation is that it only checks
>>>> one way. What more can I say.
>>> You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
>>> think it's so good.
>>>
>>> John.
>>
>>
> I've had enough of your repetitive responses about a subject you obviously
> know very little about, so I'll leave you in peace to wallow in your self
> appointed position within this newsgroup.
>
> John.
 
By the way since it apparently (although erroneously) is obvious to you I
know nothing about
the subject, tell me precisely why, as you stated, the Windows firewall is
crap..
"John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6aqlh4F399podU1@mid.individual.net...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
>> explained it only checks one way.
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the
>> outgoing scans.
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about
>> Windows firewall.
>> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging. Tell us why Windows firewall
>> is crap.
>> "John" <zen@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:6aoh3pF37j9qoU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Unknown wrote:
>>>> Like I said, you are showing your stupidity. YOU said Windows firewall
>>>> is crap and your explanation is that it only checks
>>>> one way. What more can I say.
>>> You are just mud slinging at the moment. You haven't explained why you
>>> think it's so good.
>>>
>>> John.
>>
>>
> I've had enough of your repetitive responses about a subject you obviously
> know very little about, so I'll leave you in peace to wallow in your self
> appointed position within this newsgroup.
>
> John.
 
Unknown wrote:
> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
> explained it only checks one way.


Exactly. WinXP's built-in firewall is barely adequate at stopping
incoming attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's
firewall does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that
you (or someone else using your computer) might download and install
inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than
to check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the
bad or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any
application you have on your hard drive is there because you want it
there, and therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet.
Further, because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will
also assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Comodo are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Comodo.

Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always
be running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should
not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself.
Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn
how to secure his/her own computer.


> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the outgoing
> scans.


No, he won't. That assertion is completely false.


> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about Windows
> firewall.


Apparently *you've* never read these newsgroups. (Or else you're
deliberately lying.)


> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging.


Again, you've gotten it exactly backwards.


> Tell us why Windows firewall is
> crap.


You've already been told, repeatedly.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
Oh Bruce ... sheesh ...

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:OhpjNI3xIHA.5892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
>> explained it only checks one way.
>
>
> Exactly. WinXP's built-in firewall is barely adequate at stopping
> incoming attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's
> firewall does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you
> (or someone else using your computer) might download and install
> inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to
> check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad
> or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application
> you have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
> therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further, because
> the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also assume that
> any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a Trojan's or spyware's
> out-going signal is also authorized.
>
> ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Comodo are all much better than WinXP's built-in
> firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are free versions
> of each readily available. Even the commercially available Symantec's
> Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far, although it does take a
> heavier toll of system performance then do ZoneAlarm or Comodo.
>
> Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
> anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be
> running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should not
> be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately, it
> is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to secure
> his/her own computer.
>
>
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the
>> outgoing scans.
>
>
> No, he won't. That assertion is completely false.
>
>
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about
>> Windows firewall.
>
>
> Apparently *you've* never read these newsgroups. (Or else you're
> deliberately lying.)
>
>
>> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging.
>
>
> Again, you've gotten it exactly backwards.
>
>
>> Tell us why Windows firewall is crap.
>
>
> You've already been told, repeatedly.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot
 
After using both firewalls for long periods of time, I can't speak from a security point of
view on, what stops what from coming in, going out, echoing, leaking, pinging, ... and the
rest of the firewall speak I don't know all that much about, Comodo seems to run more
efficiently on my PC. ZoneAlarm Pro from into version 6, and 7 was a bit too much on the
system resources for me, quite noticeable too. I didn't mind Kerio either.

ZoneAlarm's influence can easily be seen on your system in task manager, Comodo and Kerio
just aren't that rude.

- WindPipe

titus12 wrote:
> Witch of the two, Comodo or Zone Labs, is the best free firewall for XP
> SP3?
>
> Thank you,
> David
 
Now YOU are showing your stupidity. There is no need to check outgoing if
you don't allow incoming Viruses, Trojans etc.
How many posters were told to shut down outgoing scanning? How many posters
have problems due to output scanning.
Are you deaf and dumb?
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:OhpjNI3xIHA.5892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
>> explained it only checks one way.
>
>
> Exactly. WinXP's built-in firewall is barely adequate at stopping
> incoming attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's
> firewall does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you
> (or someone else using your computer) might download and install
> inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to
> check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad
> or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application
> you have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
> therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further, because
> the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also assume that
> any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a Trojan's or spyware's
> out-going signal is also authorized.
>
> ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Comodo are all much better than WinXP's built-in
> firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are free versions
> of each readily available. Even the commercially available Symantec's
> Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far, although it does take a
> heavier toll of system performance then do ZoneAlarm or Comodo.
>
> Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
> anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be
> running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should not
> be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately, it
> is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to secure
> his/her own computer.
>
>
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the
>> outgoing scans.
>
>
> No, he won't. That assertion is completely false.
>
>
>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about
>> Windows firewall.
>
>
> Apparently *you've* never read these newsgroups. (Or else you're
> deliberately lying.)
>
>
>> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging.
>
>
> Again, you've gotten it exactly backwards.
>
>
>> Tell us why Windows firewall is crap.
>
>
> You've already been told, repeatedly.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot
 
Viewing this objectively, and philosophically, what does MS have to gain
with it's 'freeware' vs. known freeware companies like Zone, AVG, Avast, et
al who must gain something or not be able to continue with software design?

Most/all freeware is not free! The user pays with opening ports, info sent
out (albeit not identified to the buyers [we hope]) but again, our systems
are still captured by those to whom we give complete immunity (and don't pay
for the programs in $$$/pounds/shillings, deutschmarks, rubles, etc). In the
end, IMHO, we have to determine what level of risk we're willing to take
with 'freeware' - it seems to me most of it is malware/grayware/ etc. in the
strict sense of the terms. MS, IMHO, benefits overall from providing
excellent software design to keep consumers up and running safely (as much
as possible) and able to buy new products, and 'watch' us as they do.




"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:zxe2k.3836$N87.183@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Now YOU are showing your stupidity. There is no need to check outgoing if
> you don't allow incoming Viruses, Trojans etc.
> How many posters were told to shut down outgoing scanning? How many
> posters have problems due to output scanning.
> Are you deaf and dumb?
> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:OhpjNI3xIHA.5892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> Showing your stupidity again. You said Windows firewall is crap and
>>> explained it only checks one way.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. WinXP's built-in firewall is barely adequate at stopping
>> incoming attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's
>> firewall does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you
>> (or someone else using your computer) might download and install
>> inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than
>> to check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the
>> bad or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any
>> application you have on your hard drive is there because you want it
>> there, and therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet.
>> Further, because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will
>> also assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
>> Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.
>>
>> ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Comodo are all much better than WinXP's built-in
>> firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are free
>> versions of each readily available. Even the commercially available
>> Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far, although it does
>> take a heavier toll of system performance then do ZoneAlarm or Comodo.
>>
>> Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
>> anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be
>> running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should not
>> be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately,
>> it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to secure
>> his/her own computer.
>>
>>
>>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover everyone turns OFF the
>>> outgoing scans.
>>
>>
>> No, he won't. That assertion is completely false.
>>
>>
>>> If you read these newsgroups you'll discover no-one complains about
>>> Windows firewall.
>>
>>
>> Apparently *you've* never read these newsgroups. (Or else you're
>> deliberately lying.)
>>
>>
>>> Mudslinging?????? You did the mudslinging.
>>
>>
>> Again, you've gotten it exactly backwards.
>>
>>
>>> Tell us why Windows firewall is crap.
>>
>>
>> You've already been told, repeatedly.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>> Help us help you:
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>>
>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> Many people would rather die than think in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
>> Russell
>>
>> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
>> killed a great many philosophers.
>> ~ Denis Diderot
>
>
 
Back
Top