PDA

View Full Version : NOD32 and compatible free Firewall



Gordon62
13-02-2007, 04:51 PM
I recently installed NOD32-very pleased with it by the way-much better than Norton and very unobtrusive. Having read a number of posts on this forum many people appear to have a strong liking for the Comodo firewall. However when reading the posts on the Comodo site many people seem to have had a number of problems with it, even the latest edition. A number of posts were of the opinion that Outpost was more compatible with NOD32 than Comodo and caused few if any problems. I certainly need a better firewall than M/S supplies but compatibility issues with my anti-virus programme need to be looked at also. Any input would be appreciated.

CliveM
13-02-2007, 04:56 PM
I use both without problem!

Gordon62
13-02-2007, 05:10 PM
Hi CliveM-do you mean you use both of these firewalls (Comodo & Outpost) with NOD32 or have I got it wrong? I only really want one firewall as from what I have read one can interfere with the other.

Misty
13-02-2007, 05:57 PM
I am using NOD 32 and Kerio (which is free) without any probs
Misty :)

Murray P
13-02-2007, 06:20 PM
Have used NOD32 with Kerio until recently, now I use it with Comodo. No problems either way.

Only have one AV and one firewall installed at a time.

CliveM
13-02-2007, 08:06 PM
Hi CliveM-do you mean you use both of these firewalls (Comodo & Outpost) with NOD32 or have I got it wrong? I only really want one firewall as from what I have read one can interfere with the other.

I use Comodo + NOD32
2 firewalls at the same time is not a good idea.
CliveM

sarel
14-02-2007, 06:23 AM
Any one using NOD and ZA?

sarel

pctek
14-02-2007, 08:27 AM
Any one using NOD and ZA?


me

FoxyMX
14-02-2007, 08:55 AM
Any one using NOD and ZA?

sarel


me

An older version of ZA you might have added, not the latest version. ;)

Neil McC
14-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Using Nod and Comodo, after using ZoneAlarm for years.
Some help on setting up Nod 32

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=37509

dolphinJuice
14-02-2007, 12:22 PM
Wow why do so many of you even have a software firewall for??
They are unnecessary and worthless, such a scam, if you have a router then you dont even need a firewall just a good av program.

Speedy Gonzales
14-02-2007, 12:45 PM
Wow why do so many of you even have a software firewall for??

They are unnecessary and worthless, such a scam, if you have a router then you dont even need a firewall just a good av program.

Because not all of us are on broadband, (so you won't have / need a router, and since its so crappy).

It isn't worth getting it. So, you need some kind of software firewall.

pctek
14-02-2007, 03:16 PM
Wow why do so many of you even have a software firewall for??
They are unnecessary and worthless, such a scam, if you have a router then you dont even need a firewall just a good av program.

Really.
Show me a router that alerts you to outgoing programs.

dolphinJuice
14-02-2007, 04:29 PM
Obviously a router wont do that but if you have a router and AV why would you need to know outgoing programs except out of pure interest?

Software firewalls are worthless. And if you want to know outgoing connections you dont need a software firewall you can use netlimiter or tcpviewer or whatever you like. They cause more problems than they solve and are a waste of system resources. They also give a load of false or misleading reports and about how they have supposedly prevented various types of attempts to get access to your system.

Gordon62
14-02-2007, 04:42 PM
OK-it seems Comodo gets the nod. A couple of final questions, should you disable the Windows firewall before installing Comodo or disable it at all? Is there anything I should know as to setting it up in relation to NOD32? I have had enough problems in the last month or so with b******d up programmes due (I suspect) to IE7 being installed. Running XP with SP2 installed.

bob_doe_nz
14-02-2007, 05:47 PM
Wow why do so many of you even have a software firewall for??
They are unnecessary and worthless, such a scam, if you have a router then you dont even need a firewall just a good av program.

Oh gosh, not this argument again. :groan:

FoxyMX
14-02-2007, 06:01 PM
Oh gosh, not this argument again. :groan:

Why not? Are you out of popcorn? :p

Murray P
14-02-2007, 06:09 PM
Dolphin Juice, if it stills your beating heart, think of software firewalls as primarily for the PBKAC factor. Tech savvy cool people need not bother with a software firewall, which is why I feel I need one.

dolphinJuice
14-02-2007, 06:13 PM
Oh gosh, not this argument again. :groan:

well excuse me :p

Sorry to bring this subject up but never ceases to amaze me why people are still buying into the need to have a software firewall. As mentioned they are useful if you dont have a router and using dial up.
If you are running a router with NAT and firewall setup then nothing will get past that that your norton or comodo will detect in any case. Hence why only a good AV program like NOD32 is necessary. Some argue the need to monitor outgoing connections but there are other better options to do this.

FoxyMX
14-02-2007, 06:15 PM
Like?

Murray P
14-02-2007, 06:40 PM
Some argue the need to monitor outgoing connections but there are other better options to do this.

Prevent unwanted/unnecessary outgoing connections, are the operative words.

No NAT router can protect against all random attacks. They're useful to defend against hacks, but let's say a new improved sasser type nasty gets out there, just bouncing around the interweb.....

dolphinJuice
14-02-2007, 10:22 PM
What the heck is your firewall going to do against a trojan or worm?
Its your antivirus that will protect you against viruses.
If for some strange reason you feel the need to monitor outgoing connections then google for tcp/ip monitors and go for your life. If you think you might have spyware or other crap on your system run ad-ware and spybot but seriously, people are deluding themselves if they think they are better protected using a software firewall. Its a gimmick plain and simple.

Murray P
14-02-2007, 10:56 PM
You're not getting it are you. I don't want to monitor every damn programme or script that wants to access the net or my lan, I want to limit that capability to do so to the ones I want to give access to. i.e. STOP IT as opposed to monitor it, although I concede that monitoring can be useful and fun if you like reading logs.

I also don't want a worm or trojan communicating from my machine while some security geek in a foreign country is furiously trying to write a definition file for it so I can update my AV to protect against it. See.

I also don't like, otherwise good and useful software, from using my bandwidth because some blimmin marketing dork who works for said software's' company thought it would be a good idea to surreptitiously install a little routine on my machine to do business on their behalf.

I'd also like to be informed somehow, the day my AV and other anti-malware products fail to work properly. It's called.... redundancy and, on that note I end this little rant.

Edit: I apologise for my tone, I've just noticed you're brand new here... by definition a noob.

Speedy Gonzales
15-02-2007, 10:13 AM
OK-it seems Comodo gets the nod. A couple of final questions, should you disable the Windows firewall before installing Comodo or disable it at all? Is there anything I should know as to setting it up in relation to NOD32? I have had enough problems in the last month or so with b******d up programmes due (I suspect) to IE7 being installed. Running XP with SP2 installed.

It should turn XP's firewall off, it'll ask u or tell u anyway to turn it off anyway, when u go to install it. You shouldn't run more than 1 firewall at the same time.

FoxyMX
15-02-2007, 10:40 AM
Although they are good at dealing with a lot of trojans, AVs do not detect all of them. Their job is to detect viruses. My firewall has more than once alerted me to trojans that somehow sneaked on and were undetected by my AV.

And, even though I also have a NAT router, I like having control over everything my PC does and a firewall assists with that.


Murray: No need to apologise for your tone. You know, an eye for an eye and all that guff.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 11:37 AM
Murray: No need to apologise for your tone. You know, an eye for an eye and all that guff.

Satire ain't your strongest point is it Foxy... oh well, mine neither obviously :rolleyes:

dolphinJuice
15-02-2007, 03:16 PM
Seems I have ruffled a few feathers here :eek:

1. Use windows firewall if you want to stop programs from accessing the net.

2. A tcp monitor can alert you to outgoing connections.

Yes software firewalls do all of that but many of them are obtrusive, resource whores and nowadays they are redundant except to monitor bandwith.


Although they are good at dealing with a lot of trojans, AVs do not detect all of them. Their job is to detect viruses. My firewall has more than once alerted me to trojans that somehow sneaked on and were undetected by my AV.

lolol :p

Speedy Gonzales
15-02-2007, 03:50 PM
Use windows firewall if you want to stop programs from accessing the net.

It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't block outgoing connections, only incoming.

Then people wouldn't have to use software based firewalls.

So, if u get a trojan, or a worm, or something else, XP's firewall won't stop it.

Why would people on dialup want to monitor bandwidth?

There's not much to monitor.

Agent_24
15-02-2007, 04:12 PM
Nod32 and Comodo work together for me fine.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Seems I have ruffled a few feathers here :eek:

1. Use windows firewall if you want to stop programs from accessing the net.

2. A tcp monitor can alert you to outgoing connections.

Yes software firewalls do all of that but many of them are obtrusive, resource whores and nowadays they are redundant except to monitor bandwith.



lolol :p

"Ruffled feathers"!!, don't flatter yourself kiddo. All we're trying to do is help prevent you utterly destroying any credibility you may have had. Up to this point it's been a thankless task and abject failure, but we're dedicated folk around here, so listen up.

1. What Speedy said.

2. It may well do that very nicely, but then you have to rummage around and find out what it is and why if it's not immediately obvious, then decide what to do about it and how that doing might be achieved. Especially pertinent to the average user one would think, eh!. No far better to have that all in the one, dedicated for the task, place.


A firewall being a resource whore there's no excuse, simply go and get one that isn't, there are plenty of good ones around. If you really do adhere to that sort of logic, you'll be advising people to get rid of their AV and not replace it because Nortons is chewing through their resources like a great white on acid.



Although they are good at dealing with a lot of trojans, AVs do not detect all of them. Their job is to detect viruses. My firewall has more than once alerted me to trojans that somehow sneaked on and were undetected by my AV.


lolol :p

What's so funny, why is your tongue flapping around like that? I'm sure it's nothing to do with you not having a plausible answer readily at hand for this one.

Gordon62
15-02-2007, 06:04 PM
Thanks for all the feedback. I have installed Comodo and it is doing the job well and no conflicts with NOD32. As I mentioned in a previous post I still have trouble with some programmes not starting automatically (taskbar or toolbar I'm not sure about). Normally in the right hand bottom of the screen those programmes that would normally start automatically by customising them via the Taskbar & start Menu Properties such as Comodo, NOD32 etc. refuse to obey no matter what I do. Using the customise, "always display"/OK/Apply does not solve the problem when I restart. Any advice would be appreciated. BTW I have a suspicion that this may have occurred after a M/S update and it seemed just too much of a coincidence. The update I believe was to IE7 but I can't see how this would have affected the ability to configure startup programmes?

Speedy Gonzales
15-02-2007, 06:16 PM
So, what programs are you talking about?

If u can post a screenshot of your desktop / these programs upload it here (http://imagef1.net.nz/)

dolphinJuice
15-02-2007, 06:21 PM
What Speedy said is misleading, a program sending packets will need a response to establish a connection which is when the basic windows firewall can alert you.

As i said a good AV program like NOD32 is essential for windows and it makes a firewall redundant in terms of protection.

The only point i was trying to make is that firewalls dont offer any protection that your router and AV dont already give you i.e they are worthless.

And i was laughing at the comment by Foxy because it was ridiculous. I ran Zonealarm to see what it reports as a test for a fews days and its logfile showed dozens of apparently denied attempts to gain access to my system. It was running behind a smoothwall linux box so it was really a load of rubbish, probably just internal MS processes listening on various ports for connections.

Speedy Gonzales
15-02-2007, 06:48 PM
What Speedy said is misleading, a program sending packets will need a response to establish a connection which is when the basic windows firewall can alert you.

Since u think u know more than most of us, tell us or give us a link saying the Windows XP firewall can BLOCK outgoing connections, to prove us wrong.


As i said a good AV program like NOD32 is essential for windows and it makes a firewall redundant in terms of protection

Wrong, it doesnt matter if u have just an AV program.

I bet you'll get hit by something without a firewall of some kind. Read some of the posts here with hijackthis logs. The ones with no mention of a firewall in them. Most of them were infected, because they didn't have a firewall, or they couldn't be bothered keeping windows up to date.

Give up, while u can.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 07:07 PM
The update I believe was to IE7 but I can't see how this would have affected the ability to configure startup programmes?

Unfortunately MS have deemed that IE is essential to the orderly [sic] behaviour of Windows, i.e. they have given a mere application, and one that accesses the net on a regular basis at that, the ability and authority to do tasks that would ordinarily be given to the OS itself to do. What this has done to enhance the misery of computer users all over the world does not bear thinking of.

Have you looked in the programmes options/preferences rather than via the System Tray?

If that doesn't work, odds are even more favourable that it's a Windows (& poss it's buddy IE) issue, not an app issue.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 08:01 PM
The only point i was trying to make is that firewalls dont offer any protection that your router and AV dont already give you i.e they are worthless.

And i was laughing at the comment by Foxy because it was ridiculous. I ran Zonealarm to see what it reports as a test for a fews days and its logfile showed dozens of apparently denied attempts to gain access to my system. It was running behind a smoothwall linux box so it was really a load of rubbish, probably just internal MS processes listening on various ports for connections.

A NAT router is not a firewall. Smoothwall does have that capability as it's name suggests, but why were you using Smoothwall with it's firewall capabilities configured if you don't believe in firewalls? Seem to me that that's a bit peculiar, why not test ZA with only your NAT router between you and the net?

Anyway, once again your logic [sic] is flawed. One instance (using a firewall many wouldn't touch with a barge pole, I might add. See what I did there, heh heh!) does not make for irrefutable evidence, just as seeing one black swan does not prove all swans are black (but it certainly proves that not all swans are white).

Given those pearls of wisdom, perhaps you're not as good at configuring Smoothwall as you think you are orrrr, perhaps Smoothwall is not as good as you think it is. Damn, there's a quandary, which one, you or Smoothwall? Hang on though, before you get too comfortable, perhaps you don't know anything about firewalls and thus botched the configuration of ZA.

Enjoy.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 08:48 PM
The only point i was trying to make is that firewalls dont offer any protection that your router and AV dont already give you i.e they are worthless.

And i was laughing at the comment by Foxy because it was ridiculous. I ran Zonealarm to see what it reports as a test for a fews days and its logfile showed dozens of apparently denied attempts to gain access to my system. It was running behind a smoothwall linux box so it was really a load of rubbish, probably just internal MS processes listening on various ports for connections.

A NAT router is not a firewall. Smoothwall does have that capability as it's name suggests, but why were you using Smoothwall with it's firewall capabilities configured if you don't believe in firewalls? Seem to me that that's a bit peculiar, why not test ZA with only your NAT router between you and the net?

Anyway, once again your logic [sic] is flawed. One instance (using a firewall many wouldn't touch with a barge pole, I might add. See what I did there, heh heh!) does not make for irrefutable evidence, just as seeing one black swan does not prove all swans are black (but it certainly proves that not all swans are white).

Given those pearls of wisdom, perhaps you're not as good at configuring Smoothwall as you think you are orrrr, perhaps Smoothwall is not as good as you think it is. Damn, there's a quandary, which one, you or Smoothwall? Hang on though, before you get too comfortable, perhaps you don't know anything about firewalls and thus botched the configuration of ZA.

Enjoy.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 08:49 PM
Christonabike, haven't managed a double in a while. :D

FoxyMX
15-02-2007, 09:04 PM
Well done Murray, that's a really rare feat these days, especially when the posts are 47 mins apart. :p

dolphinJuice
15-02-2007, 09:45 PM
A NAT router is not a firewall.

Yes and most NAT routers have separate firewall functionality built in dont they?? :groan:


Smoothwall does have that capability as it's name suggests, but why were you using Smoothwall with it's firewall capabilities configured if you don't believe in firewalls? Seem to me that that's a bit peculiar, why not test ZA with only your NAT router between you and the net?

I used to use Smoothwall to do my all my NAT and act as a firewall as a personal preference because my modem/router it was getting overloaded with too many concurrent connections with bittorrent. Now im using a modem in halfbridge mode with a separate router.

A linux box acting as a firewall is a hardware firewall, can use smoothwall, pfsense, monowall whatever takes your fancy. Anyway from your comments its pretty clear to me you dont know what you are on about.

Murray P
15-02-2007, 10:45 PM
Yes and most NAT routers have separate firewall functionality built in dont they??

?? Umm, actually no, no they don't.

You pay a truck load more for a stand-alone hardware firewall and more for one with router. The, apparent, cloaking of the LAN that NAT achieves is an incidental bonus to it's function of translating your network addresses. Vendors who call a NAT (only) router a firewall or, "with firewall" are telling marketing fibs and there are quite a few who are doing it.


A linux box acting as a firewall is a hardware firewall, can use smoothwall, pfsense, monowall whatever takes your fancy. Anyway from your comments its pretty clear to me you dont know what you are on about.

It can only be classed hardware if that is where the code resides and you cannot write to it without going to some effort. You may have had Smoothwall set up like that, running it off CD will do. But it's disingenuous to make a sweeping statement that a Linux box set up with firewall software on it is a hardware firewall, it's just a box running software, if you get my drift.

Gordon62
16-02-2007, 09:08 AM
Unfortunately MS have deemed that IE is essential to the orderly [sic] behaviour of Windows, i.e. they have given a mere application, and one that accesses the net on a regular basis at that, the ability and authority to do tasks that would ordinarily be given to the OS itself to do. What this has done to enhance the misery of computer users all over the world does not bear thinking of.

Have you looked in the programmes options/preferences rather than via the System Tray?

If that doesn't work, odds are even more favourable that it's a Windows (& poss it's buddy IE) issue, not an app issue.

Hi Murray-I think you may very well be right in that IE7 could be the culprit. I can't be absolutely certain but I noticed the problem shortly after the IE7 update. The IT teckie who accessed my computer to diagnose the problem was of the opinion that there was some bug that was preventing configuring things properly and suspected M/S was the culprit.Will try your suggestion tonight. Many thanks for all your suggestions. BTW would reinstalling IE6 fix the problem?

dolphinJuice
16-02-2007, 09:36 AM
?? Umm, actually no, no they don't.

Actually they do. A quick look at adsl modems available from Ascent tells me nearly all of them have a firewall and they dont cost a "truckload".
http://www.ascent.co.nz/Category.aspx?majorcatID=6

It can only be classed hardware if that is where the code resides and you cannot write to it without going to some effort. You may have had Smoothwall set up like that, running it off CD will do. But it's disingenuous to make a sweeping statement that a Linux box set up with firewall software on it is a hardware firewall, it's just a box running software, if you get my drift.
No i dont get your drift actually. Why would a dedicated PC acting solely as a firewall not be a hardware firewall?

Murray P
16-02-2007, 10:38 AM
Marketing mumbo jumbo, they have NAT and stateful packet inspection on the router so the marketdroids say wow, it's a true firewall (as opposed to a mere NAT router). Your getting into the proper hardware firewalls/routers when you're hitting the $4-500+ range.

What the hell is a true firewall anyway, the $98.10 Linksys blurb doesn't even mention "firewall" in the spiel but rate it as a "true" firewall as do many of the others. Is it a network or application level firewall, low or high??? Pure puffery.


My point re a Linux box being called a hardware firewall simply because it sits between the Wan and LAN does not by definition make it a hardware firewall. I could throw a windows box in the same location and have firewall software running on it and claim the same thing. Smoothwall, M0n0Wall or somthing like that running off CD or protected memory would make me think, but the main point was that you made a sweeping statement which was unsupportable in general Remember the swans?) Ok, so I'm being picky.

Besides, how does that support your original assertion that a firewall is unnecessary. You yourself have found the need for a dedicated box, which I might add is far harder to configure that a software firewall and the average Windows user doesn't have a hope in hell of setting up plus the average user is never going to consider using one. Most in NZ bung a cheap modem/router, supplied by their provider, on the connection and forget it for ever after unless they have a problem.