Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Third part firewall available - Freeware

Reply
Thread Tools

Third part firewall available - Freeware

 
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2006
I have tested several firewalls that are supposed to support Windows XP Pro
x64 with not real success until I stumbled upon Ghostwall. It is a very
small, no frills, little memory and process footprint firewall that runs
under x64. Don't expect popups to ask you if you want to let the program out
but it does have a built in packet/bandwidth monitor. It is very simple to
use if you know what ports and protocals you want to block and let in/out.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2006
Nice topic there DeathNACan, but I have started an older post about
Windows XP x64 Fire Walls, and most professionals suggest using just
the default Windows XP Firewall -- They also tell me that using a modem
and/or a router with a built-in hardware firewall is the best way to
go. But now that I think of it, it is the best way to go. Most Firewall
software does more harm than good (or so it goes..)

Just my two cents -Rob
DeathNACan wrote:
> I have tested several firewalls that are supposed to support Windows XP Pro
> x64 with not real success until I stumbled upon Ghostwall. It is a very
> small, no frills, little memory and process footprint firewall that runs
> under x64. Don't expect popups to ask you if you want to let the program out
> but it does have a built in packet/bandwidth monitor. It is very simple to
> use if you know what ports and protocals you want to block and let in/out.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2006
Yes, running a hardware firewall is the best way to go the problem is that if
you have to open up ports for say, filesharing, games, instant messengers,
steaming media then you want and need a software firewall as an added layer
of protection. The best x86 product I have found (easy to configure, reports
hacking attempts, small not now impact on the system) is McAfee Personal
Firewall. Everything else I have tested was either a pain to configure or
wanted to slow down or crash the machine. The only problem I can see with
Ghostwall is you have to know what ports and protocals you want in and out.
There is now "configure wizard" that will let you let in or out packets by a
given program. Not for the end user, more towards the poweruser. My
problem with Windows Firewall is the lack of pop-up notification when a
hacking attempt comes in and it needs one-click from the desktop to configure
it.

--
Wherever you think you are having a bad day, just remember it could be you
saying over and over again: "Welcome to MacDonalds, may I take your order
please?"



"Robert" wrote:

> Nice topic there DeathNACan, but I have started an older post about
> Windows XP x64 Fire Walls, and most professionals suggest using just
> the default Windows XP Firewall -- They also tell me that using a modem
> and/or a router with a built-in hardware firewall is the best way to
> go. But now that I think of it, it is the best way to go. Most Firewall
> software does more harm than good (or so it goes..)
>
> Just my two cents -Rob
> DeathNACan wrote:
> > I have tested several firewalls that are supposed to support Windows XP Pro
> > x64 with not real success until I stumbled upon Ghostwall. It is a very
> > small, no frills, little memory and process footprint firewall that runs
> > under x64. Don't expect popups to ask you if you want to let the program out
> > but it does have a built in packet/bandwidth monitor. It is very simple to
> > use if you know what ports and protocals you want to block and let in/out.

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2006
Very true, McAfee Personal Firewall (for x86) is one of the best ways
to go in terms of using a software Firewall. But for x64, there is/are
not any "true" firewalls that *work.*

DeathNACan wrote:
> Yes, running a hardware firewall is the best way to go the problem is that if
> you have to open up ports for say, filesharing, games, instant messengers,
> steaming media then you want and need a software firewall as an added layer
> of protection. The best x86 product I have found (easy to configure, reports
> hacking attempts, small not now impact on the system) is McAfee Personal
> Firewall. Everything else I have tested was either a pain to configure or
> wanted to slow down or crash the machine. The only problem I can see with
> Ghostwall is you have to know what ports and protocals you want in and out.
> There is now "configure wizard" that will let you let in or out packets by a
> given program. Not for the end user, more towards the poweruser. My
> problem with Windows Firewall is the lack of pop-up notification when a
> hacking attempt comes in and it needs one-click from the desktop to configure
> it.
>
> --
> Wherever you think you are having a bad day, just remember it could be you
> saying over and over again: "Welcome to MacDonalds, may I take your order
> please?"
>
>
>
> "Robert" wrote:
>
> > Nice topic there DeathNACan, but I have started an older post about
> > Windows XP x64 Fire Walls, and most professionals suggest using just
> > the default Windows XP Firewall -- They also tell me that using a modem
> > and/or a router with a built-in hardware firewall is the best way to
> > go. But now that I think of it, it is the best way to go. Most Firewall
> > software does more harm than good (or so it goes..)
> >
> > Just my two cents -Rob
> > DeathNACan wrote:
> > > I have tested several firewalls that are supposed to support Windows XP Pro
> > > x64 with not real success until I stumbled upon Ghostwall. It is a very
> > > small, no frills, little memory and process footprint firewall that runs
> > > under x64. Don't expect popups to ask you if you want to let the program out
> > > but it does have a built in packet/bandwidth monitor. It is very simple to
> > > use if you know what ports and protocals you want to block and let in/out.

> >
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
EL
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2006

"DeathNACan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have tested several firewalls that are supposed to support Windows XP Pro
> x64 with not real success until I stumbled upon Ghostwall. It is a very
> small, no frills, little memory and process footprint firewall that runs
> under x64. Don't expect popups to ask you if you want to let the program
> out
> but it does have a built in packet/bandwidth monitor. It is very simple to
> use if you know what ports and protocals you want to block and let in/out.


Ghostwall doesn't have any outgoing control - it's strictly an incoming
firewall. They also have a 64bit util called Appdefend ( currently in a free
beta) that has outgoing network control ( and very detailed application
activity control).

I use a router and a very basic app control "firewall" called Extendia
Firewall 2004. It won't block sophisticated leaktests but it works well for
most programs that like to phone home w/o my permission. Only uses 1MB of
ram and has no driver so it works fine in x64 ( except it won't block native
64bit apps).



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jud Hendrix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2006
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:33:51 -0230, "EL" <gluna@notrealcom> wrote:

>Ghostwall doesn't have any outgoing control - it's strictly an incoming
>firewall.


Windows' built-in firewall does the same, so no need to install Ghostwall
as it offers nothing extra.

jud
 
Reply With Quote
 
EL
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2006

"Jud Hendrix" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:33:51 -0230, "EL" <gluna@notrealcom> wrote:
>
>>Ghostwall doesn't have any outgoing control - it's strictly an incoming
>>firewall.

>
> Windows' built-in firewall does the same, so no need to install Ghostwall
> as it offers nothing extra.
>
> jud



Actually, I just checked and the latest version blocks outgoing as well. It
has better logging features than Windows firewall and it only uses 1MB RAM
(You can turn off the app once you have your rules set up and it will use
only what the driver uses). It doesn't have a learning mode however.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Third-Part Cookies blocked by IE Khafancoder ASP .Net 4 03-27-2007 03:45 PM
Third part Flash memory card. AM Cisco 2 05-25-2005 05:34 AM
SP2 & Third party firewall Warwick NZ Computing 11 09-08-2004 04:56 PM
Is Windows firewall a supplement to third party FW? Hem Computer Security 5 06-27-2004 07:36 PM
Is Windows firewall a supplement to third party FW? Hem Computer Support 7 06-27-2004 07:36 PM



Advertisments