Verdict, Firewalls: yay or nay?

For an XP machine, with it's weak firewall that doesn't protect outgoing packets, a third party firewall is a good idea.

Vista/W7, just use the built in one. Pretty obvious.

/thread

 

Windows firewall + router.

 

I use a third party firewall for the reasons stated in this thread -- outbound protection and application control. If I were simply at home the whole time behind my hardware firewall then I'd make do with the Win7 firewall on my computer. But my laptop and I regularly travel and have to use unsecure public or hotel hotspots, so I want to know I have full control in those situations.

 

I have just instaled Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit and I'm finding that there's a shortage of 3rd party 64 bit firewalls. Is the built in Windows firewall sufficient or should I either try a freebie or pay for one and ,if so, which?
Thanks!

 

I use Gizmo for recommendations he has seldom been wrong. He likes freebie Outpost 09. Works fine for me. Less intrusive than others I have tried. Important to me that it does not interfere with network connections.

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-firewall.htm

 

windows firewall is integrated into the network driver, to be non-resource-using, and available the moment network is available. this is unlike any other products. and the windows firewall is good enough for important servers to be exposed directly to the internet, so it should be good enough for everyone for ordinary tasks.

all others are mainly placebo-better. they might show additional information, but not additional uses. but people like placebos.

 

^One could argue that about most 3rd party applications that Windows also does such as registry cleaning, anti-viruses, disc defrags, spyware & malware management etc. no?

 

If one somehow defines 3rd party firewalls as just firewalls, which they usually are not, I can see why a point is made like daveperman's.
However, 'firewalls' like from Online Armor, Comodo or Outpost, all have an integrated HIPS/whitelist/application behaviour monitoring etc.

Disregarding these features as non-existant or describing them as placebo's is ridiculous though.
Are you for real, Dave?
A HIPS only offers information? And doesn't provide any additional use? A laughable pov.
Or are you just a Libyan agent-provocateur or something merely posing to be Swiss?

 

hehe, you're not provoking in any form no?

well, yes, those are mostly placebo features that get sold you for good money. that's the idea. make you fear, then sell you stuff. whole continents have their political, and economical systems built upon this.

but if you have actual technical knowledge on how something can happen to your system, you realize how much bull all of those tools are. but to each it's own. people love placebos (check out all sort of swine-flu helper medicaments and tools out there right now to buy).

about the rest of you, well, i take it with humour, but it's actually a stupid rasistical attack that is very platonic.. anyways.

 

LOL, okay ON topic, software firewalls are a PITA, turn them off, and setup a nice little linux firewall on your network if you are paranoid, NAT firewalls in routers will stop a great deal of issues to start with unless you open up a load of ports and allow ping requests

 

well,
registry cleaning, while mostly unneeded, ccleaner does the job well.
antivirus? microsoft security essentials handles that (but haven't used antivir for years on vista, never needed one).
disk defrags are os-handled (and else, defraggler for some quick things) and not needed on an ssd anyways.
spyware & malware is big marketing bull, but if, then it's handled by mse or windows defender.

so, uhm, no, i don't need duplication of any of those by some "suite". no use.

 

I use the firewall that comes with Internet Security Suite. It's there already so why not use it.

 

I use the Windows built in firewall + hardware SPI firewall on my router.