Third part firewall available - Freeware

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=, Aug 13, 2006.

  1. 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.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=, Aug 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=

    Robert Guest

    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.
     
    Robert, Aug 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=, Aug 13, 2006
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=

    Robert Guest

    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.

    > >
    > >
     
    Robert, Aug 13, 2006
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=

    EL Guest

    "DeathNACan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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).
     
    EL, Aug 16, 2006
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    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
     
    Jud Hendrix, Aug 17, 2006
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?=

    EL Guest

    "Jud Hendrix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    EL, Aug 17, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. AM
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    360
    Hansang Bae
    May 25, 2005
  2. Hem
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    463
    Mhzjunkie
    Jun 27, 2004
  3. Hem
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    504
    Mhzjunkie
    Jun 27, 2004
  4. Warwick

    SP2 & Third party firewall

    Warwick, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    530
    Fishb8
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. jollyjimpoppy

    Easy part done, now the hard part!!

    jollyjimpoppy, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    469
    jollyjimpoppy
    Sep 10, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page