Any plugins for the Windows XP SP2 firewall

[Link19]

Are there any simple plugins that you can install for the Windows XP SP2 firewall that add the ability for it to monitor outbound connections? Because I know the Windows firewall only monitors inbound connections, but not outbound. It would be nice to use it, but it doesn't have monitoring for outbound connections by default.

However, I get the immpression there may be a pluggin that could add this feature because of the Application Layer Gateway Service which says it provides support for thirs party pluggins for the Internet COnnection Sharing Service and the Windows firewall. So, are there any simple light plugins (meaning they use almost no system resources) for the Windows XP SP2 firewall that simply add the ability for outbound traffic monitoring? I'd rather use the Windows firewall rather than a third party firewall because it is integrated into the OS and doens't take up really any resources in the background. But if only it provided Outbound traffic monitoring.

 

[agnitrate]

"plugins+windows"

Your search returned 0 hits.

-silver

 

[BlueWeasel]

Personally, I think Kerio Personal Firewall v215 is MUCH better than Window's FW, uses less system resources, and monitors both inbound/outbound connections.

 

[John]

I am not aware of any Win XP firewall plug-ins. However 'if' I had to use a software firewall I'd run Kerio. Pick up a nice cable/dsl router and you won't need to rely on software and nag screens.

 

[okb]

I personally hate the Windows firewall and agree with John 100%. Get yourself a router and you'll have zero overhead. They can be had pretty cheap especially if you look for deals. Doesn't really answer your question I know, but I just hate the integrated firewall. How much does it actually use resource-wise? I have a very hard time believing it's resource-friendly, but I avoid it like the plague so I don't know.

 

[spyordie007]

Get yourself a router and you'll have zero overhead.

But than he wont be able to monitor outbound connections, and that was the whole point of this post.

I personally hate the Windows firewall

Actually it's a very good inbound firewall and isn't overly resource intensive (because all it does is close inbound ports). I wouldnt call it very feature rich, but it does a good job at what it's designed to do.

Where the windows firewall is lacking is the ability to control and monitor outbound connections.

As for the OP I doubt that there are plugins for it. AFAIK the APIs only exist for controll of inbound connections, so an outbound "plugin" would have to install its own network interface monitor (and to be any good it would have to hook in at a lower level). As was stated before you should probably look into using a differant software firewall alltogether if you want to have this ability. On top of Kerio's firewall I would also reccomend eTrust's.

 

[Link19]

I already have a good hardware firewall in a router. But that doesn't give any ability to monitor any outbound connections, At first, I thought controlling only Inbound connections was important, and a router would be plenty because a router is the best firewall for controlling inbound connections. However, I have heard that various programs will try to connect to certain URLs or send certain information acorss the Internet without you even knowing it, even though these programs don't require an Internet connection for their functions. That really makes me suspcious and annoys me. That is why I want something good for monitoring Outbound connections. What firewall program would be best for this that takes up almost 0 system resources? Does the Windows firewall take up any resources? Because I have noticed that when the Windows firewall is on, there is no extra process running in the background.

 

[Link19]

If you don't use the Windows firewall or Internet Connection Sharing features, can you disable the Windows Firewall/Internet Connection Sharing Service and the Application Layer Gateway Service without any side effects?

And if the Windows firewall doens't have any capability to monitor outbound connections, I guess I will need a third party firewall. Which third party firewall would you say is the best and uses almost no system resources when running in the background? I have heard that Zone Alarm is a drain on system resources. Which uses less system resources out of Kerio and Sygate?

Or is there any software firewall that installs and integartes itself natively into a Windows 2000/XP system, and uses almost 0 system resources. Another words, would a software firewall compatible with only Windows 2000/XP be better than a firewall comptible with Windows 98/ME as well because it would be more native and wouldn't have to support multiple OSs? Just like an AntiVirus program called NOD32 has a native version for all Windows NT based OSs that is NOT compatible with junky Windows 9X based OSs, and NOD32 is by far the best AV program there is when it comes to real time protection and uses the least system resources compared to all other AV programs.

 

[Link19]

BUMP

 

[Alex]

i use ZA free edition... been using it for over a year now... i got a barton2600, nforce2, gig of pc2700 ram and radeon9500 pro...
i hide the icons, along with Norton 2003 and MS Antispyware and i swear i've never noticed a performance hit when gaming, wathcing movies or anything really from having all that stuff running. IMO you gotta have a sh!tbox to complain that ZA drains resources cause my avg. rig handles it just fine

 

[Alex]

my bad double post

 

[Raincity]

I dont think there is any software firewall that takes 0 resources. Outpost, Sygate and Zonealarm are easy to setup and forget firewalls. If you want a rules based firewall then Kerio 2.15 or Look and Stop would suit you better. None of these are perfect. Each one has its own issues and all of them have some sort of leaks.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: franguinho
i use ZA free edition... been using it for over a year now... i got a barton2600, nforce2, gig of pc2700 ram and radeon9500 pro...
i hide the icons, along with Norton 2003 and MS Antispyware and i swear i've never noticed a performance hit when gaming, wathcing movies or anything really from having all that stuff running. IMO you gotta have a sh!tbox to complain that ZA drains resources cause my avg. rig handles it just fine

I tired it back sometime last year, and its service was using about 15-35% CPU when downloading a file at 150k/sec. I uninstalled it once that download was done.

Edit: thats on my XP Barton 2500+ at 2.045Ghz, 512ram, and nForce2 network.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Raincity
I dont think there is any software firewall that takes 0 resources. Outpost, Sygate and Zonealarm are easy to setup and forget firewalls. If you want a rules based firewall then Kerio 2.15 or Look and Stop would suit you better. None of these are perfect. Each one has its own issues and all of them have some sort of leaks.

Does the Windows firewall in XP SP2 take up any resources? Or would you consider it not to because it is integrated into the networking infrastructure of Windows XP SP2? Obviously, I don't think there is really anything that takes 0 resources on your system. But which would you say takes up the least system resources?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Raincity
I dont think there is any software firewall that takes 0 resources. Outpost, Sygate and Zonealarm are easy to setup and forget firewalls. If you want a rules based firewall then Kerio 2.15 or Look and Stop would suit you better. None of these are perfect. Each one has its own issues and all of them have some sort of leaks.

Does the Windows firewall in XP SP2 take up any resources? Or would you consider it not to because it is integrated into the networking infrastructure of Windows XP SP2? Obviously, I don't think there is really anything that takes 0 resources on your system. But which would you say takes up the least system resources?

You have a noticable neurosis regarding resource usage. Is your computer extremely wimpy or something? I use ZoneAlarm on my 1GHz Duron at home here, and when I look at Task Manager, Internet Explorer has eaten a lot more CPU time than ZoneAlarm has. As in, roughly two orders of magnitude more. Granted, I'm on dial-up with no file-sharing monkeyshines that generate lots of network traffic.

Bottom line, if you want to eliminate overhead on your computer, there are probably better things to focus on than the firewall software. Visit AnandTech's front page and see what all that Flash advertising does to your CPU usage, for instance

 

[foxkm]

If you are looking to monitor your XP Firewall, you can use a logreader called Firelog XP

http://www.2brightsparks.com/freeware/freeware-hub.html

I know it works with SP1 but I haven't attempted to try it with SP2.

 

[JackMDS]

Router?s NAT Firewall protects you only from casual Hacking, and DDOS attacks.

Hackers are mainly after big cooperate systems.

Router's NAT Firewall does not protect you from:

Trojans and Programs Transmitting Info. from your computer out to the Internet, Viruses, Spyware, Bad Attachments, Browser Hijackers, Winsock Thrashers, Worms, etc.

More here.

Link to: Basic Protection for Broadband Internet Installation.

Link to: Internet infestation -Or, how you are getting Internet "Junk" in and compromise your Computer/Network?

Link to: Basic Steps in cleaning Internet "Junk".

Currently, as far as my Experience shows (this could be different in the future according to new releases of software and free availability of the current ones).

The Best Free Security suit for Windows might be.

Upgrade your Windows XP to SP2. (and then Disable the Native Firewall).

1. Link to: Kerio v215.

Kerio is very easy to configure, it is light on resources, and does what need to be done.

Kerio has a newer version of the Firewall; do no get tempted stick with the above it is a better product.

2. Link to: AntiVir Personal Edition.

AntiVir has very high rating for detecting Virus, and does better then other Antivirus program blocking Trojans.

3. Link to: Microsoft AntiSpyb1

It was judged by many independent reviewers as the best of its kind.

Example: http://www.windowssecrets.com/050127/

The above three are running active in the Background, and have to be installed on all of the computers.

:sun:

 

[stash]

We've discussed this before but the reason why the Windows Firewall doesn't monitor outbound traffic is because if some malware gets on your system and starts sending traffic out, your machine is already compromised. Once the malware gets on the system, it can do whatever it wants, up to and including disabling the WF or any third-party firewall you have installed.

A machine with malware active on it cannot be trusted. You cannot trust that what your nifty outbound monitoring firewall is showing you is accurate, if it shows anything at all.

The counter-argument is usually "well, if my system gets compromised, I don't want it trying to propagate to the rest of the network" That's all well and good, but monitoring outbound traffic from a compromised client is not the way to achieve this. Instead, you should be monitoring incoming traffic on the rest of the clients on the network for propagation attempts. This is a far more reliable way of showing where the traffic is coming from and what it is trying to do, so that you can take measures to stop it (remove the compromised machine from the network).

Remember the whole idea here is to prevent things from getting on your system that don't belong. Having a firewall that monitors inbound is only one way to accomplish this. But if something does get on your system, you've lost.

 

[mechBgon]

With that in mind, a simple router with its ports locked down, set to email you its logs as it fills them up, could be worth something. I'd still take an ounce of prevention over a pound of tripwires, though... you want security, consider the best antivirus software you can afford and use a Limited account as much as possible.

 

[spyordie007]

outbound firewalls can still be nice to have at times. there are a lot of "legitimate" applications that connect to the internet without user notification and sometimes it's nice to know....

But I absolutly agree with the idea in concept; keeping things clean in the first-place is far more important/effective.