What does Comodo give me that the Vista x64 firewall cannot?

P

pdawg17

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
173
I want a software firewall to help with outgoing traffic but want to minimize resources at the same time...therefore three questions:

1) As the title says: Comodo vs. Vista firewall

2) Is the Vista firewall lighter on resources than Comodo?

3) Would enabling UAC make the Vista firewall more enticing?
 
1.) Leakage (Google: Firewall Leak Testing)
2.) It's lighter (as MS integrated it with inside knowledge not available by published API"s)...but dumber (which is just fine by me personally).
3.) You should leave UAC on all of the time actually...otherwise you'll have issues with some programs that need manual intervention.
 
If you have a good antivirus such as NOD32 the leaks will be less of an issue. For me I just use NOD32 + Windows Firewall + Router's NAT
 
I have a router running in NAT mode(Not bridge), so would would I need a firewall?

It just uses CPU cycles to no purpose.
 
Atech said:
I have a router running in NAT mode(Not bridge), so would would I need a firewall?

It just uses CPU cycles to no purpose.
Click to expand...


That's up to you, your surfing habits, your level of paranoia and how worried you are about info on your system possibly getting out, how secure your system is (windows updates, what browser, what antivirus you run, admin password left blank or not, etc)

Personally having a well protected computer.and being behind a NAT router (rule of thumb for myself and all my clients)...I'm good with that, I don't feel like the nagginess of a software firewall.
 
To fill in some info I didn't post at the top, I have Kaspersky 7 AV and a Buffalo router running Tomato...Comodo seems fine but it constantly nags about everything I click on or do so I was hoping I would be ok with the hardware firewall + Vista firewall + Kaspersky...

Btw...it seems the Vista firewall isn't great on "default" with outgoing but has anyone tried the free "Vista Firewall Control"?
 
Nat router - Yes
Software firewall - very much so yes!
acts like a proxy server, controlling the programs that can get access out.

there are ways though to circumvent a software firewall, so its a doubled layered defense with the NAT

add an antivirus and its tipple layered.
 
pdawg17 said:
Btw...it seems the Vista firewall isn't great on "default" with outgoing but has anyone tried the free "Vista Firewall Control"?
Click to expand...

What do you have a need to filter outgoing for?

I still to this day do not understand why people make outgoing filtering a big deal. 90% of the people I know that argue for it don't even use the damned thing.
It's mostly an inconvenience, and the ONLY thing it does is prevent malware from communicating outside (it doesn't actually stop the infection).


Any standalone or home machine I always have Windows Firewall enabled. If it's Vista, Windows Defender, and NOD32.
Most routers, even cheap home ones, have NAT as well.

At work I have all the software firewalls disabled internally... Just a main router at the internet connection blocking anything I don't explicitly allow (incoming).
 
TechieSooner said:
What do you have a need to filter outgoing for?

I still to this day do not understand why people make outgoing filtering a big deal. 90% of the people I know that argue for it don't even use the damned thing.
It's mostly an inconvenience, and the ONLY thing it does is prevent malware from communicating outside (it doesn't actually stop the infection).


Any standalone or home machine I always have Windows Firewall enabled. If it's Vista, Windows Defender, and NOD32.
Most routers, even cheap home ones, have NAT as well.

At work I have all the software firewalls disabled internally... Just a main router at the internet connection blocking anything I don't explicitly allow (incoming).
Click to expand...

Until the infection is gotten under control/recognized isn't it good to not let it communicate outside? Or is your point that if you have a good AV/antispyware program malware shouldn't even have a chance to "call out", correct?
 
TechieSooner said:
90% of the people I know that argue for it don't even use the damned thing.
It's mostly an inconvenience, and the ONLY thing it does is prevent malware from communicating outside (it doesn't actually stop the infection).
Click to expand...

I'd say 99%. Most people have gotten so tired of the nagginess from the first day or so of the software firewalls use..that they've already allowed everything plus the kitchen sink to go outbound by hitting "Yes" in their frustration of the prompts.

Most malware is actually allowed out because of the browser already being allowed, and explorer being allowed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top