Best Free Firewall
No other single product class seems to cause as much angst to average users, in their installation and day-to-day use, as Firewalls.
For such users, Sunbelt-Kerio Personal Firewall is our top recommendation, as it seems to cause the fewest problems yet also manages reasonable protection.
Kerio dropped the product in late 2005 but, thankfully, Sunbelt Software, the makers of the excellent CounterSpy anti-spyware scanner, picked it up and continue to make it available. The free and paid versions of Sunbelt Kerio are the same. If you don't buy the product, some advanced features are automatically turned off after 30 days. The product will also nag you every time you start it. For some, this is a small price to pay for a great free firewall. For others, it's a real turnoff.
If performance rather than ease of use is your criterion, then the Comodo firewall is the top contender. The firewall itself is very robust, and the just-released version 3 includes a well-designed intrusion detection system and Vista compatibility. Comodo also supports internet connection sharing, whereas the free versions of Kerio and ZoneAlarm do not. On the minus side, the IDS is initially rather talkative, and this may unnecessarily alarm inexperienced users. There have also been reports that the new version 3 has some bugs, so it may be better to wait a couple of months until it's stabilized. Additionally, Comodo has been known to conflict with some other security products. However, for the technically initiated who can cope with these annoyances, this is an outstanding free product and an easy first choice. Make sure that you install it in "Advanced" mode, because the "Basic" installation has the HIPS, which includes the leak test protection, disabled.
A recent contender is the free version of Online Armor Personal Firewall V3, which has been getting praise for its outstanding leak-test performance and ease of use. We were impressed with the full commercial version, but as we've yet to test the cut down free version, we're reluctant to make a recommendation. The feedback we've been getting from users has been very positive.
Also technically impressive is the Jetico Firewall. It rates highest on the leak tests of all firewalls, but I find it awkward to use. It may, however, suit you.
Another tricky product is NetVeda Safety.Net firewall. It's performance is quite outstanding and it also offers application control and content filtering. This highly capable product deserves to be better known, and experienced users should definitely put it on their short list.
We no longer recommend the free version of the ZoneAlarm firewall. First, it is a very basic product compared to the commercial ZoneAlarm Pro version. The leak-test performance of the latest free version is extremely poor, whereas the Pro version is excellent. The download also includes the large commercial ZoneAlarm suite, so be careful not to install it. ZA free does have the advantage of working with Vista.
Product Details
Sunbelt-Kerio Personal Firewall
Website: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Home-Home-Office/Sunbelt-Personal-Firewall/
Download link: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Home-Home-Office/Sunbelt-Personal-Firewall/
Author: Sunbelt Software
Current version: 4.5.916
Version date: April 26, 2007
Download file size: 6.27MB
License: Freeware
Operating systems supported: Windows 2000/XP, Vista
Additional software required: None
64 Bit capable: No
Portable version available: No
Non-English languages supported: Yes
Comodo firewall
Website: http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
Download link: http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/download_firewall.html
Author: Comodo Group
Current version: 3.0.25.378
Version date: May 30, 2008
Download file size: 18.6MB
License: Freeware
Operating systems supported: Windows Xp/Vista
Additional software required: No
64 Bit capable: Yes
Portable version available: No
Non-English languages supported: Yes
Other relevant information: Version 2.4 is available for Windows 2000
Online Armor Personal Firewall V3
Website: http://www.tallemu.com/product_overview.html
Download link: http://www.tallemu.com/downloads.html
Author: Tall Emu Pty Ltd
Current version: 3.0.0.190
Version date: October 9, 2008
Download file size: 12.67MB
License: Freeware
Operating systems supported: Windows NT/2000/XP; Vista Support in near future
Additional software required: None
64 Bit capable: No
Portable version available: No
Non-English languages supported: No
Other relevant information: Free version doesn't include Mail Shield (spam filter) or automatic updates; could cause conflicts with F-Secure AV
Jetico Firewall
Website: http://www.jetico.com/jpfirewall.htm
Download link: http://www.jetico.com/jpfirewall.htm
Author: Jetico, Inc.
Current version: 1.0.1.61
Version date: July 19, 2005
Download file size: 2.7MB
License: Freeware
Operating systems supported: Windows 98/Me/NT/2000/XP
Additional software required: None
64 Bit capable: Yes
Portable version available: No
Non-English languages supported: Yes
Other relevant information: Free Version has become outdated; No Development or Support seen in the near future to upgrade this version
NetVeda Safety.Net firewall
Website: http://www.netveda.com/consumer/safetynet.htm
Download link: http://www.netveda.com/downloads/index.htm
Author: NetVeda
Current version: 3.8.1
Version date: October 7th, 2007
Download file size: 4.31MB
License: Freeware
Operating systems supported: Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP
Additional software required: None
64 Bit capable: No
Portable version available: No
Non-English languages supported: No
Other relevant information: Email Address required as registration
ZoneAlarm free firewall
Website: http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/catalog/products/sku_list_za.jsp
Download link: http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/company/products/znalm/freeDownload.jsp
Author: Check Point Software
Current version: 8.0.020.0
Version date: September 10, 2008
Download file size: 206KB, 26.05MB
License: Freeware
Operating systems supported: Windows 2000/XP/Vista
Additional software required: None
64 Bit capable: No
Portable version available: No
Non-English languages supported: Yes
This software category is maintained by volunteer editor Clint Morissette.
Delicious
Digg
Technorati
Hi Clint , are you going to test Online Armor V2 free firewall ? There are plenty of people , like me , who want to get rid of Norton , but would like to hear what you think of Oa ? Thanks Geoff
What do others think of Oa free,as opposed to Sunbelt ?
What happened with Comodo? Is the last, may version rock stable or what?
I use Norton 360's firewall however if you want a good free firewall, I suggest using Sygate.
Not updated since February 2005...
Out of interest which Firewall does everyone use for Vista??
I use Comodo, tried Online armour but that mucked up the laptop. So have kept to Comodo
Tony
There are several choices right now. You can use Comodo, Vista Firewall with Advanced Security, PCTools Firewall, or Webroot. Mcafee from AOL is also a solution (they provide you a security suite for free, screen name might be difficult to get) and Online Armor Vista edition is also comming out of beta. I read somewhere Kerio for Vista is no good, not sure if that still stands. I'm using Comodo 3 for 1 year now, only early versions had driver compatibility issues. No complaints.
I've only just got around to testing the last free version of Tiny Personal Firewall on my system because my original file was corrupt and with the arrival of the latest 'junk' from China and the new versions of PCTools & Comodo to play with I just didn't get round to downloading a clean copy until now. This I have now done and quite frankly I can see why Steve Gibson (GRC) rates this little gem so highly. OK, so you need to run some additional protections alongside to provide an optimum layered solution but if like me you are not into a StarTrek firewall then this is in fact a bonus! Instalation was a breeze and at only around 8m Ram usage in operation a tidy footprint too. It took me 30 seconds to specify my ISP's two DNS server addresses (to prevent any Trojan abuse of this service), another 30 seconds to disable the Loopback, NetBios and some other unwanted entries, then about 5 minutes to write the block rules for the various Microsoft muck that I don't want phoning home, Bill or anyone else! After that the minimal pop-ups soon wrote the rest of the application rules for me with just the need to edit the odd ones I wanted to log. I then threw every online test at it I could find, plus my own stuff, and couldn't find a single flaw. The log is nicely laid out (unlike Jetico), cycles in real time and is colour coded by default making monitoring almost a pleasure rather than a definite chore. I actually found the visual aspects of this firewall quite comforting. As a psychologist even I can't fully explain this - but no strange comments please! All in all I am now preferring this to NetVeda, and it's operational simplicity over Jetico means that I will leave it on this machine for extended use running alongside DSA and Avira.
My other opinions?.... NetChina is still rubbish and PCTools is solid enough but doesn't offer as much as it's fancy GUI would suggest. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to babysit a Comodo on their system for very long, but if you do then this latest release along with their as yet untested Beta 3 of CAVS seems to have addressed the majority of the outstanding bugs from previous issues. It did send me cross-eyed with navigational fatigue but (this time) remained 100% stable throughout. You may or course disagree with all of this but then this is what I think these sections should be used for, i.e. the sharing of experiences and opinions to enable others to perhaps make a slightly better informed choice (or just have a laugh). The choice as they say is yours!
MIDNIGHTCOWBOY
I'm on the verge of having to -reluctantly- uninstall my Comodo Firewall Pro. It's served me well until recently, but for large chunks of my keyboard time, it's process, cmdagent.exe, uses up to 92% of the CPU and a huge slice of memory. This all makes my old laptop unusable for significant periods of time.
It's only started doing this recently and I can't pinpoint the reason why. I've reinstalled the entire system and all third party software TWICE this summer so I'm pretty confident that there is nothing on there which shouldn't be. I.E. The few programs I run are all legally acquired (as they have always been).
According to the forums I've looked at, my cmdagent.exe issue is not an isolated event.
specs & security software:
Celeron M Processor
WinXP Pro (SP3)
1.5GHz
1.28GB RAM
Comodo Firewall Pro v3.0.25.378
Webroot Spy Sweeper v5.8.1 (build 55)
Avast! A/V Home Edition v4.8.1229
Curiously, the COMODO folder (along with the Uninstaller) had vanished from my All Programs list and the app didn't appear in the Add or Remove Programs list. I eventually managed to force a shut down, started up in safe mode and reinstalled CFP3. Hurrah! Everything is running sweetly again.
I read somewhere that there may also be an issue with Mozilla cache items listed in Defense+ > Common Tasks > My Pending Files. Having purged the offending entries (as suggested), Firefox now quits without a huge lag and it also launches a lot quicker.
As to a possible conflict between Spy Sweeper shields and Comodo's Defense+ .... They've always played together without a problem. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Maybe there's a conflict between Comodo's Defense+ and Spy Sweeper's Shields?
Some people cannot stand an opinion which is different from their opinion!
As a result, they delete posts accordingly...
It's extremely unlikely that your post was deleted because of the opinion you expressed. We do however, delete some posts because they break our rules ... most often because of obscenity. Unfortunately on threads that are indented, it's impossible to protect "innocent" posts if they are preceded by one that we wish to delete. Sometimes our editors actually copy the text of an "innocent" post, and repost it if the point made was sufficiently important. The best current solution is simply to avoid indentation.
Soon we'll implement a new Forum, and then we'll move all debate to that. In the meantime, please repost.
Online Armor is the great performer in all kind of todays firewall for me praise for it
-mark, "the poor"
Hi
For those who might still be interested in my private research I have now completed evaluation of DSA on my test PC. After trialing with various firewalls have found it and Jetico (free) to be the perfect combination. Of course DSA won't work very happily with the likes of Comodo or OA but if you prefer on of these "all-in-one" solutions then you won't really need DSA anyway. You will need to be patient with DSA in the early stages as it builds memory during the "training period" and some applications will need to be added manually to avoid involuntary reboots (modem dialer, CD Burner XP from my line up) other than that an excellent performer. Jumps in first time to block all the leak tests too. So, I now have just about the best "true" free firewall in Jetico partnered with all the additional protection I need from DSA without having to navigate my way through the extra "Comodo" of bells and whistles!!
MIDNIGHTCOWBOY
So you paired DSA (a Free HIPS)with Jetico Personal Firewall v.1.0 (a Free Firewall)to get a Free Firewall+HIPS combination.
Matousec's Latest Results
[http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php]
-Dynamic Security Agent (DSA) 2.0.11.22 is a -Poor- Performer.
-The -PAID- version of Jetico (=Personal Firewall 2.0.2.4.2264)
***NOT the Free version (=Jetico Personal Firewall v.1.0)***
scores lower than BOTH
a) Comodo Firewall Pro 3.0.22.349
and
b) Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.131 Free.
If you don't like the
(many users don't like it, too)
then,
Online Armor Personal Firewall 2.1.0.131 Free is an ideal option.
With the friendliest Free HIPS ever made,
it offers a better protection than your combination: DSA + Jetico Firewall v.1.
Sorry, but if ever there was proof about just how useless the Matousec ratings were then their recent classification of Netchina says it all! Of course everyone should try different combinations of security programmes to suit their individual needs as usage and surfing habits will ultimately affect performance but to give this rubbish a 'very good' rating is wasting our time. The fact about Jetico (and Netveda come to that) is thet these are stable tools with 100% reliability. I have yet to communicate with ANY Comodo or OA user who has not encountered some sort of problem over time with their instalation, Comodo being worse, the forums will point you to many who have had to reinstall Windows.
I use the net for both business and pleasure and have never had a 'virus' in the true old context of the word. I have encountered the odd trojan from time to time through my own fault which also demonstrates that the best security apps in the world will not protect you if your right finger wanders aimlessly around the net. Protection is as much about common sense and configuration as it is about loading a hundred protect-me-alls onto your PC. Just as a matter of general information my local PC tech support guy sees more Comodo users with infections they cannot clean themselves than any other firewall, so it is not just the apps you have or don't have but ultimaely how you install them, configure them and use them.
MIDNIGHTCOWBOY.
Yeah, yeah...
Netchina S3 HIPS 3.5.5, EQSecure 4.0 and other Chinese Crapware!
Sorry, Cowboy,
But I'll stay with the well-established products of the Western world.
I know many people who destroyed their PCs when testing these Chinese
"fireworks"...
Hi
I don't know about NetChina but EQSecure and ProSecurity (now bought and renamed as Real-time Defender) are excellent HIPS. Every program has a chance of conflict with one's computer.
Thumb up.
I think some guys' opinion are impaired by the matousec.com's chart. Also some pay too much attention to rank. Some guy draw some conclusion before he really put hand on it.
Jetico 1 is a pretty good piece of firewall. But it is noisy already. Combine with another noisy HIPS will some wear you off. I don't know if DSA is noisy or quiet, but I tried SSM free 2.0 with jetico free ---- it is disastrously noisy.
Jetico 1 takes normally 8M on my system. The CPU time used depends on the usage of the system. In a browsing/game/video watching status, that can be about the same cpu time used by winpatrol.
Compare to EQsecure, SSM, or DSA, I would rather choose winpatrol as partner for jetico.
http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php
-Why should I use Jetico Free (v1.0)
(a Poor performer; even Jetico v2.0 -the Paid version- scores only 'Good' Imagine how Jetico Free v1.0 would score...)
and combine it with
a HIPS (most of them give you Stupid alerts even for Trusted programs)?
Just to have a 'Low impact' on Resources?
-What if you have a 'Low impact' on your Imbound/Outbound protection?
-WinPatrol does Not offer the protection a HIPS, like EQSecure, SSM, or DSA.,
offer to your system. WinPatrol has some nice features (mostly useful to the average user), but it cannot replace a Pure HIPS (EQSecure, SSM, or DSA.)
-Many people find Comodo or Even Online Armor Free
annoying products (i.e. giving them frequent Alerts etc. etc.)
And What do these people select? (I'm always referring to -FREE- products)
*A Free 'Light' Firewall which offers lower protection than the one
offered by Comodo or Online Armor Free (based on Matousec's Results).
And
*A Free HIPS which offers lower protection than the one
offered by Comodo or Online Armor Free (based on Matousec's Results).
The funniest thing:
Apart from the Low overall protection,
the problems these users get, like
-frequent Alarms even on Trusted files/Programs by the 'noisy' free HIPS
and
-conflict between the individual Firewall and the HIPS, since they are seperate programs; not impaired inside the same program like the way Comodo and Online Armor,
are Worst than the ones they faced when using a FREE Integrated solution (=Firewall + HIPS) like the one offered by Comodo and Online Armor Free.
O.K. maybe, a FREE Light Firewall and a seperate Free HIPS
have a Lower Resource consumption compared with Comodo and Online Armor Free.
-Do they (a FREE Light Firewall and a seperate Free HIPS) offer
equal protection with Comodo and Online Armor Free?
-Are they (a FREE Light Firewall and a seperate Free HIPS)
easier to use (i.e. less noisy, less stupid alerts etc.)
than Comodo and Online Armor Free?
Most of my clients, friends etc,
who replaced Comodo and Online Armor Free
with a FREE Light Firewall and a seperate Free HIPS
went back to Comodo and Online Armor Free sooner or later.
That has been no longer a surpise to me...
Hi
Matousec shouldn't be the only factor of deciding whether to use an application. You need to try it and see if it conflicts, if you can deal with the amount of alerts, etc.
DSA is relatively "smart", and gives less "Stupid alerts even for Trusted programs" than, for example, Comodo.
"Just to have a 'Low impact' on Resources?" This is very important if you have an old computer.
"What if you have a 'Low impact' on your Imbound/Outbound protection?" I don't think the inbound will have any problems. You might have slightly less outbound protection, but the separate HIPS should cover most gaps.
I think the poster was just comparing WinPatrol as a reference.
You have to bear in mind, if a product gives excellent security but a huge amount of pop ups, most users would prefer a product or two which gives very good security and a small amount of pop ups. Even if they choose the first option, there's a large chance they'll just automatically click "allow" if there are too many pop ups.
"A Free HIPS which offers lower protection" If it is much easier to use and provides slightly less protection, I think it'll be worth it.
"frequent Alarms even on Trusted files/Programs by the 'noisy' free HIPS" This simply depends on the program you choose. Comodo and Online Armor also is quite noisy. But if you get a behavioural blocker such as ThreatFire, there's very few false positives.
"Do they (a FREE Light Firewall and a seperate Free HIPS) offer equal protection with Comodo and Online Armor Free?" I believe they'll offer a similar amount of protection.
"Are they (a FREE Light Firewall and a seperate Free HIPS) easier to use (i.e. less noisy, less stupid alerts etc.) than Comodo and Online Armor Free?" It depends on what programs you choose, e.g. I think Sunbelt Firewall with ThreatFire will be very quiet.
Thanks
You cannot compare an Integrated solution of Firewall & HIPS,
A 'light' Firewall + a Pure HIPS (e.g. EQSecure, SSM, former ProSecurity etc.)
have, by far, more Frequent popups than Comodo and Online Armor Free.
Sorry, but DSA gave me more Alerts than the last version of Comodo!
Believe me, I've tried all HIPS!
Now, I am trying Malware Defender...
Pure HIPS require a Lot of Configuration (Custom Rules; not ideal for the average user), and they still cannot reach the protection Level offered by
Comodo and Online Armor Free (If you accept Matousec's Results).
Not to mention the conflicts between the Pure HIPS and the 'light' Firewall.
It would be a lie to ignore them...
HIPS, like Neoava, Winpooch, Prosecurity, CoreForce etc. are no longer supported. The rest ones, which are still alive (e.g. SSM, Process Guard etc.), are slow their development.
A light Firewall + ThreatFire (which is Not a Pure HIPS, but mainly a -Behavioral Blocker-) offers a quiet function (no frequent popups/alerts) but the overall protection (especially the Outbound one) is much lower than the one
offered by a light Firewall + a Pure HIPS.
A light Firewall + WinPatrol (which is the quiest HIPS even less noisy than ThreatFire offers the least protection.
If you have an old computer, it is better to replace it instead of using
programs that offer you -No- or -Weak- protection just because you need a
low impact on resources. Security has to be the No.1 Priority!
Only if two products offer you -Exactly the Same- Protection,
you will select the one with the lowest impact on resources!
I believe that Comodo and Online Armor Free
offer the best combination (Firewall & Intelligent HIPS)
that quarantees a Solid protection (especially Outbound)
within a friendly use (especially Online Armor Free).
All other combinations offer
More Alerts, conflicts, and Lower protection (especially Outbound):
(light Firewall + a Pure HIPS)
-Significantly Lower protection:
(A light Firewall + ThreatFire)
-Lowest Protection:
(A light Firewall + WinPatrol)
It is Not Only Matousec's Results.
Every day Testing against Malware makes me to
believe that Comodo and Online Armor Free
are the ideal -Free- Firewalls.
Hi
EQSecure, SSM and ProSecurity all have learning modes. Also, you could just use ThreatFire which will give virtually no alerts.
I just tried DSA today and Comodo definitely has more alerts than DSA.
"Pure HIPS require a Lot of Configuration" For most products, this is only if you want extra protection. I think EQSecure with the default rules is quite weak, but ProSecurity has great protection with default settings (I think).
"cannot reach the protection Level" Like you said yourself, Matousec is testing the outbound. If the HIPS have good process, registry, file, etc protection, malware would not be able to activate anyway.
"Not to mention the conflicts between the Pure HIPS and the 'light' Firewall. It would be a lie to ignore them..." There's no definite chance of conflicts, and every software has a chance of conflicting with another software. So I don't see your point.
"The rest ones, which are still alive (e.g. SSM, Process Guard etc.), are slow their development." Well Process Guard is discontinued too. But SSM is being worked on, and I think I read it's going to have file protection in a few months. ThreatFire is also being regularly updated. But most of these products are excellent anyway, so constant updates is not so important.
"offers a quiet function (no frequent popups/alerts)" For most users, this is very important.
"the overall protection (especially the Outbound one) is much lower" How is it much lower? I know it's probably be slightly weaker, but not by a huge amount.
"If you have an old computer, it is better to replace it" That's only if you have the money, not everyone can afford it.
I don't think ThreatFire + Sunbelt/Jetico 1 would offer weak protection. Matousec only tests the outbound, which is only one part of the security.
"Significantly Lower protection" How did you find this?
Thanks
It has been a common practice:
All the -Poor- performers in Matousec's Leak Tests
accuse Matousec's Leak Tests of being useless, meaningless etc. etc.
On the contrary, firewalls,
which enjoy High-rankings at Matousec's Leak Tests
(e.g. Agnitum Outpost, Comodo, and OnlineArmor),
very Proudly advertise their success in Matousec's Leak Tests.
-Is there another Firewall-Testing site
equally OR more Reliable than Matousec's?
-Can we find better Testing Methods and Results than
the ones published by Matousec?
I guess that also excludes this set of tests: http://www.testmypcsecurity.com/view_results_xp.html; IMHO, these are even more problematic, they also compare firewalls with and without HIPS, and they have no problem recording a straight fail when the firewall blocks the tests. This is not a good method and it could also be a lot more transparent, providing that you never know what firewall/HIPS settings are being tested. Personally I tried to contact them, but I was given no feedback.
Hi
Just because currently there seems to be no test better than Matousec's, doesn't necessarily make Matousec's test accurate.
What I think is - Comodo, Online Armor, Outpost, etc are excellent products if you want a Firewall + HIPS.
If you just want a light, stable firewall and use a separate HIPS, Matousec's test is practically meaningless.
Matousec tests HIPS, too.
Why having a Light firewall? Most of them are very weak in protection compared with Comodo and OA Free.
From the HIPS, only ProSecurity 1.43 (now called Real-time Defender) had excellent status BUT this not a Freeware.
Netchina was below OA Free.
Hi
Yes, that's the point, Matousec is a HIPS test.
I said, "If you want a light ... firewall and use a separate HIPS" So the HIPS would also have termination protection.
Post new comment