<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Down to One: Windows Software Firewall Evaluation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/</link>
	<description>Operating systems. Broadband. Issues. Reviews ... tech info you can use.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Scot</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator>Scot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-75</guid>
		<description>Ronc: To my knowledge, the ZoneAlarm products do not allow separate install of various components. It's all or nothing. If you most use a ZoneAlarm product, the only one I can come close to recommending is ZoneAlarm Pro, the simplest suite product. Do NOT go with the free firewall. It does not adequately protect outbound. It's hobbled in that direction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ronc: To my knowledge, the ZoneAlarm products do not allow separate install of various components. It&#8217;s all or nothing. If you most use a ZoneAlarm product, the only one I can come close to recommending is ZoneAlarm Pro, the simplest suite product. Do NOT go with the free firewall. It does not adequately protect outbound. It&#8217;s hobbled in that direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scot</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>Scot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-74</guid>
		<description>Evan, funny you should ask. I'm in the midst of one last post right now before I send the next newsletter notification email. I have not fully tested the new 3.0 version of Nod32. I looked pretty extensively at Eset Smart Security in late beta, and I don't think much of the firewall at all. Plus I have no use for Eset's antispam solution. So I am definitely recommending *against* Eset Smart Security (ESS).

However, I did like Nod32 3.0, also contained in ESS, and that product is also now available as a standalone upgrade to Nod32 2.7. I have not had a chance to test the 3.0 version standalone product yet. I've been focused on the firewalls. But testing Nod32 3.0 is very high on my list. From my look at ESS beta, I don't anticipate any serious criticism of Nod32 3.0. I like the UI a little better. I didn't see anything I didn't like. But I still have to test it to be sure.

I don't write final security reviews before I'm sure about the product. So depending on the complexities I encounter when I test Nod32 v.3, it could be 4 - 8 weeks before I'll give you a definitive answer. If you're forced to make a decision before that, I would currently characterize Nod32 3.0 as a good bet.

Hope this helps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Evan, funny you should ask. I&#8217;m in the midst of one last post right now before I send the next newsletter notification email. I have not fully tested the new 3.0 version of Nod32. I looked pretty extensively at Eset Smart Security in late beta, and I don&#8217;t think much of the firewall at all. Plus I have no use for Eset&#8217;s antispam solution. So I am definitely recommending *against* Eset Smart Security (ESS).</p>
<p>However, I did like Nod32 3.0, also contained in ESS, and that product is also now available as a standalone upgrade to Nod32 2.7. I have not had a chance to test the 3.0 version standalone product yet. I&#8217;ve been focused on the firewalls. But testing Nod32 3.0 is very high on my list. From my look at ESS beta, I don&#8217;t anticipate any serious criticism of Nod32 3.0. I like the UI a little better. I didn&#8217;t see anything I didn&#8217;t like. But I still have to test it to be sure.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t write final security reviews before I&#8217;m sure about the product. So depending on the complexities I encounter when I test Nod32 v.3, it could be 4 - 8 weeks before I&#8217;ll give you a definitive answer. If you&#8217;re forced to make a decision before that, I would currently characterize Nod32 3.0 as a good bet.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evan</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-57</guid>
		<description>Now that eset's ESS has been officially released have you had a chance to take another look at it?

They will shortly be offering free upgrades to current Nod32 2.7 customers - is it worthwhile upgrading to ESS, or just to Nod32 3.0?

Would you consider ESS better than nothing?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that eset&#8217;s ESS has been officially released have you had a chance to take another look at it?</p>
<p>They will shortly be offering free upgrades to current Nod32 2.7 customers - is it worthwhile upgrading to ESS, or just to Nod32 3.0?</p>
<p>Would you consider ESS better than nothing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ronc</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>ronc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-51</guid>
		<description>Is it possible to install just the firewall part of the ZoneAlarm Pro or Internet Serurity Suite instead of the whole program?  Emailed ZA asking the same question and they avoided the question by saying just download the FREE firewall.  Also any problems reported about COMODO  firewall hanging or freezing up and you can't even turn off the computer without turning off power? Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it possible to install just the firewall part of the ZoneAlarm Pro or Internet Serurity Suite instead of the whole program?  Emailed ZA asking the same question and they avoided the question by saying just download the FREE firewall.  Also any problems reported about COMODO  firewall hanging or freezing up and you can&#8217;t even turn off the computer without turning off power? Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BJB</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>BJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Sorry, the FVS124G is a Netgear piecenot D-Link</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, the FVS124G is a Netgear piecenot D-Link</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BJB</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>BJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Scot,
Yes, the Linksys router does still have SPI but I was looking for an all-in-one solution before reading your post.
You now have me thinking about going the "separates" route.  I also am now thinking it would be shortsighted to not get gigabit ethernet capability for future-proofing my network.  That rules out almost all the firewalls I was looking at as they would not keep up.

I found the D-link FVS124G that is a 4 port gigabit firewall/switch.  I would have to get another gigabit switch for expansion off it it as you did.  Do I understand correctly if I went this route that all of my port forwarding, port ranges, etc. would just be set on the firwall and then the additional switch would just do HDCP (if needed for certain devices) on the added ports?  So I really would not have to "manage/log into" that additional switch?  I assume a DMZ (which I don't use) would have to go right off the firewall but the other ports would all share my range/trigger settings made on the firewall?  

I am really glad I did not jump on the first solution I saw....
BJB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scot,<br />
Yes, the Linksys router does still have SPI but I was looking for an all-in-one solution before reading your post.<br />
You now have me thinking about going the &#8220;separates&#8221; route.  I also am now thinking it would be shortsighted to not get gigabit ethernet capability for future-proofing my network.  That rules out almost all the firewalls I was looking at as they would not keep up.</p>
<p>I found the D-link FVS124G that is a 4 port gigabit firewall/switch.  I would have to get another gigabit switch for expansion off it it as you did.  Do I understand correctly if I went this route that all of my port forwarding, port ranges, etc. would just be set on the firwall and then the additional switch would just do HDCP (if needed for certain devices) on the added ports?  So I really would not have to &#8220;manage/log into&#8221; that additional switch?  I assume a DMZ (which I don&#8217;t use) would have to go right off the firewall but the other ports would all share my range/trigger settings made on the firewall?  </p>
<p>I am really glad I did not jump on the first solution I saw&#8230;.<br />
BJB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evan</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-47</guid>
		<description>Disappointed that eset's offering hasn't passed muster.  Hopefully by the time it comes out of beta it'll be up to snuff.

Another important aspect I've found regarding firewalls is the delay it can produce in starting programs.  I use a POSIX (UNIX-like) environment called Cygwin, and being UNIX-like, has lots of small programs that do one thing and does it well - so a shell script can run a dozen or more little programs to do little tasks.

I found Zone Alarm when I was last using it to cause a noticeable and unacceptable slowing of scripts run time.  Sunbelt/Kerio was okay with this - although you wanted to turn off the checking of programs spawning other programs (which seemed of limited usefulness and would be confusing for the uninitiated I think).

Comodo so far seems good in this department.

Yet another metric...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disappointed that eset&#8217;s offering hasn&#8217;t passed muster.  Hopefully by the time it comes out of beta it&#8217;ll be up to snuff.</p>
<p>Another important aspect I&#8217;ve found regarding firewalls is the delay it can produce in starting programs.  I use a POSIX (UNIX-like) environment called Cygwin, and being UNIX-like, has lots of small programs that do one thing and does it well - so a shell script can run a dozen or more little programs to do little tasks.</p>
<p>I found Zone Alarm when I was last using it to cause a noticeable and unacceptable slowing of scripts run time.  Sunbelt/Kerio was okay with this - although you wanted to turn off the checking of programs spawning other programs (which seemed of limited usefulness and would be confusing for the uninitiated I think).</p>
<p>Comodo so far seems good in this department.</p>
<p>Yet another metric&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scot</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Scot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-24</guid>
		<description>Hi, I've been using the D-Link products the last few years. But I bought one a few months ago that kept dropping off. They may have fixed the firmware, but it's definitely an issue.

Does the Linksys firewall router not have SPI (stateful packet inspection)? It used to, I know. I agree with your thinking, fwiw. I'm still using an older D-Link firewall/router, it's a four port. I have it connected to a 24-port gigabit switch -- so that's another option for you. Buy a router that works and then get a separate high-quality switch.

Hope that helps. A refresh article is a good idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I&#8217;ve been using the D-Link products the last few years. But I bought one a few months ago that kept dropping off. They may have fixed the firmware, but it&#8217;s definitely an issue.</p>
<p>Does the Linksys firewall router not have SPI (stateful packet inspection)? It used to, I know. I agree with your thinking, fwiw. I&#8217;m still using an older D-Link firewall/router, it&#8217;s a four port. I have it connected to a 24-port gigabit switch &#8212; so that&#8217;s another option for you. Buy a router that works and then get a separate high-quality switch.</p>
<p>Hope that helps. A refresh article is a good idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BJB</title>
		<link>http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>BJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scotsnewsletter.com/2007/09/29/down-to-one-windows-software-firewall-evaluation/#comment-21</guid>
		<description>I looked back at your prior article on hardware firewalls with SPI and NAT from last year.  I am currently in the market for one (8 port as my old SMC can't keep up with my broadband) and was surprised how few in a reasonable price range had SPI.  Lots of NAT routers but the SMC Barricades are long gone. And many others I saw just had NAT.  Anyway, the two 8 port routers I found with a firewall/SPI are the D-Link DIR-130 and the Netgear Prosafe VPN firewall FVS338.   The FVS338 has not had great reviews and the initial firmware of the DIR-130 locks you out of the interface without rebooting after an hour.  So waiting until they ship it with the new firmware as upgrading the firmware has also been an adventure.  Am I missing a lot of different options somewhere?  There are of course enterprise level firewalls but that is overkill for my needs.  Perhaps a refresh article on hardwire firewalls is in order????Thanks, BJB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I looked back at your prior article on hardware firewalls with SPI and NAT from last year.  I am currently in the market for one (8 port as my old SMC can&#8217;t keep up with my broadband) and was surprised how few in a reasonable price range had SPI.  Lots of NAT routers but the SMC Barricades are long gone. And many others I saw just had NAT.  Anyway, the two 8 port routers I found with a firewall/SPI are the D-Link DIR-130 and the Netgear Prosafe VPN firewall FVS338.   The FVS338 has not had great reviews and the initial firmware of the DIR-130 locks you out of the interface without rebooting after an hour.  So waiting until they ship it with the new firmware as upgrading the firmware has also been an adventure.  Am I missing a lot of different options somewhere?  There are of course enterprise level firewalls but that is overkill for my needs.  Perhaps a refresh article on hardwire firewalls is in order????Thanks, BJB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
