Iobit Firewall

[exia]

Will iobit make a light firewall for users to combine with Security 360?

[Nnyan]

It would be nice as long as it's tested and does very well at matousec.com. I suggest Online Armor (pretty lightweight and unintrusive once initial setup is complete but I've had some issues on networks) or PC Tools Firewall (not quite as highly rated but fast and lite).

[raven211]

... and I in comparison don't give a thing for Matousec - atleast not the leaktests, which many of those tests actually are. I care about the "real-deal". I want the FW to protect me incase of hackers, DDoS attacks and so on (threats are up to the AM-front) - and I personally put trust in my hardware FW to do that. Configure a hardware FW, since it can't be turned off by threats (not a part of the OS and the software that's on that OS) and will do its job without asking you. I could probably go on more, but that's the basic stuff. My two cents.

[detailer]

Agreed

The hardwall in my router is the only firewall I use.However,there are strong arguments as to why it should be supplemented with a software firewall-outbound traffic comes to mind.

[Tesk]

You could easily run without a firewall - without getting any virus if you disables the windows filesharing. What would hackers anyway do on your computer?

The thing you need to be aware of is, which trojans are communicating out? You antivirus CAN NOT find every single piece of malware. But you firewall can if it is a proper one and configured well and the user behind it can define what software could be a virus and which is not a virus. And that is where most average users fails.

[raven211]

I'll use my own quote... "FW? Use a properly configured hardware FW and save yourself from the hassle and resource usage of a software-one. Outbound protection? Once malware has come into your system, you don't know what it can do. If it really wants to bypass your outbound protection - it eventually will somehow."

That's what applies to me.

[enoskype]

Hardware vs. Software Firewall

Here is a quote from the following article:

The bottom line is that with any home-office broadband connection, a hardware firewall should be considered a bare minimum, and supplementing it with a software firewall on one or more computers (and don't forget anti-virus software) is almost always a good idea.

Firewall Debate: Hardware vs. Software


Cheers.

[detailer]

Thanks Enoskype.I had read that but couldn't find it again to post it here.

[1nvad3r]

It would be nice as long as it's tested and does very well at matousec.com. I suggest Online Armor (pretty lightweight and unintrusive once initial setup is complete but I've had some issues on networks) or PC Tools Firewall (not quite as highly rated but fast and lite).

All Matousec ratings on firewalls are bs. Some security suite firewalls are doing so bad, because they are actually a PURE firewall, and not some HIPS crap. The other thing is that they shut off antivirus and antispyware in suites to test the firewall. Most of these firewalls work AS 1 with their antivirus, so they can detect these kinds of leaks. If you look at the list for "Dynamic Security Agent 2" you should google it, then you'll find out that it is NOT EVEN A FIREWALL. Any HIPS products could get good ratings on that list even something like Prevx. The other thing is that they even call it "Proactive Security Challenge", instead of something like "Firewall Challenge". The last thing is company can get 99% - 100% for their tests if they pay $$$.

[exia]

yeah I was hoping it would be like Look n Stop, but less complicated. It uses like 2mb - 6mb of ram in both virtual and physical.