Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Outpost free vs Pro...?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Billermo

Billermo

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:23 PM

Posted 29 March 2009 - 12:33 AM

I'm looking into using Outpost's firewall now -- considering using the free one.

Are there some severe restrictions with this one, ones that would make it not worth considering? Or is it a good free option?

The price for the Pro version is apparently $40 a year, which seems huge for a firewall. What I see in that one as its features are other components like anti-spyware and program monitoring that aren't thought of as part of what a firewall does anyway (and which I don't really need). But maybe the core firewall component of the Pro version is much better than what the free version offers.

Does anyone know about this?

thanks

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 01d5od

01d5od

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 29 March 2009 - 12:35 PM

Outpost 1 is considered dated although this will still perform proper packet filtering and application filtering along with the extra functioning plugins.
Is it a good free option?
Yes and No.
Unsupported and it may have a few bugs, such as system or firewall crash will delete all your rules so it is neccessary to constantly backup the configurations.
Some of the bugs in version 1 were worked out in the version 2.x and later versions such as 3 which introduced the spyware scanner (not really needed) and version 4 which brought in newer and extended program monitoring controls (also considered by some people as not needed).
Also when using the update feature in any of the older outpost versions, it will immediately download and install the latest version and immediately become payware.
So if using older outpost versions, then do not update the firewall if the newer version is not wanted or needed.
If needing just packet and program filtering, then yes it is okay. And if using a router or hardware firewall in front of the computer for extra inbound protection, then it is safe.

An alternative for a 'free' outpost version, is the version 2.7 is seen here:

http://www.tipandtrick.net/2008/agnitum-ou...ense-key-codes/

Not cracked or illegal as this is a free offer by Outpost. But it is a chance to get a more "updated" outpost version, albeit still dated.
Probably the 2.7 is a better choice over the version1.


Alternatively the ZA offers a free 'no bells and whistles' version and so does Sunbelt with their free version (paid trial reverts to the freeware version after the expiration of the trial period).
Both of these two free options are more current or up to date and have more security for the firewall itself, such as better self protection for the driver and prevention of shutdown by malware for example.

Richard.

Edited by Orange Blossom, 29 March 2009 - 04:03 PM.
Remove unnecessary quote. ~ OB

ZA Pro & Avira antivirus & SSM Pro & Privoxy & Protowall & Opera for security. Topped off with a limited user account on fully updated XP HE SP3.

#3 Orange Blossom

Orange Blossom

    OBleepin Investigator


  • Moderator
  • 37,011 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bloomington, IN
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 29 March 2009 - 04:11 PM

Actually, you can get a current free version from the program developers. That is available here: http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpostfree/index.php I always think it best to go to the developer's page for the sake of authenticity and security.

That said, from what I read on their home page, at present you can get a lifetime license for the pro firewall for $59.95, but this is not always the case.

The pro version contains:

* Advanced firewall for secure connections
* Antispyware to keep your PC spyware-free
* Host protection to block zero-day threats
* Web control to protect your PC from web-borne threats


http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/

The free version contains:

* Basic Firewall Protection
Standard packet and application filtering safeguard your computer from unwanted communications.
* Connections Monitoring
Lets you see network activity in real time, to help define inappropriate connections and close them right away.
* Surfing Protection
Maintains your privacy on the Internet, keeps browser protected from Internet dangers.


http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpostfree/index.php

So, the pro version contains functions that are not strictly related to firewall action. I believe there are other standalone applications that provide that other protection. The absence of those things should not affect the quality of the firewall proper.

That said, I have not used Outpost.

Orange Blossom :thumbsup:

Edited by Orange Blossom, 29 March 2009 - 04:11 PM.
Spelling. ~ OB

Help us help you. If HelpBot replies, you MUST follow step 1 in its reply so we know you need help.

Orange Blossom

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

SpywareBlaster, WinPatrol Plus, ESET Smart Security, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, NoScript Firefox ext., Norton noscript

#4 01d5od

01d5od

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 29 March 2009 - 07:42 PM

Oh yes, the vendors own web site is the correct source for downloading files and installers.

The correct download link for the Outpost 2.7 from Agnitum is

http://www.agnitum.com/download/support/Ou...all_2.7_493.exe

I have used Outpost both old and new, and the Sunbelt Personal Firewall and the older Kerio 2.15.
Both Outpost and Sunbelt should meet your needs.
So will maybe many others.
It really is a matter of needs and likes to which firewall to use.
Trying a few different firewalls helps to reach a conclusion.

Richard
ZA Pro & Avira antivirus & SSM Pro & Privoxy & Protowall & Opera for security. Topped off with a limited user account on fully updated XP HE SP3.

#5 Billermo

Billermo
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:23 PM

Posted 10 April 2009 - 04:09 AM

Great info here, thanks so much.

I wonder, are most firewalls about the same in quality?

So does it mainly come down to UI as the determiner of what's 'better'?

With Anti-virus programs, it seems as if there are certain categories to examine in order to decide if the program is good or not (like detection rates, heuristic detection rates, success rates at removing infections, etc.). Nobody seems to cover the aspects of firewalls in the same way. Or conduct head-to-head lab tests pitting them against each other, for example.

What makes a 'good' firewall? Or a bad one ?

#6 Platypus

Platypus

  • Global Moderator
  • 15,187 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:08:23 PM

Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:05 AM

Matousec have had a long-standing firewall challenge:

http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/
Top 5 things that never get done:

1.

#7 Platypus

Platypus

  • Global Moderator
  • 15,187 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:08:23 PM

Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:20 AM

And another viewpoint (which doesn't necessarily reach greatly differing conclusions):

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/ma...ts-analyzed.htm

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-firewall.htm
Top 5 things that never get done:

1.

#8 01d5od

01d5od

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 18 April 2009 - 10:02 AM

"What makes a 'good' firewall? Or a bad one"

Other than a few real differences most firewalls are bascially the same when looking at the actual inbound security and packet filtering. Additional features and extra usually seperate one type of firewall from the next one...such as additional scanners, email filters, web filtering, extra or enhanced security from HIPs or NIPs, port filters, more alerts for unwanted IPs or port attempts, or even simple things as approaches to the GUI layout or how the firewall is interepting some things or explaining certain things to the owner/user ...all differ from one firewall to the next.

What makes a 'bad' firewall and a 'good' firewall?
A bad firewall is misconfigured or badly configured whereas a good firewall is properly configured.

The actual configurations could be the direct responsibility of the firewall owner/user or by the way the firewall is constructed by default or by the default settings/presets of that firewall.
As a general rule, the user should have a good look at the working of the firewall, understand it's quirks and details and it's strengths and weaknesses, then make solid rules to help 'tighten' up the rules to enhance security and the filtering. But the final rule set should be practical and efficent and not a clumsy rule set - and at the same time enhance security and streamline the networking.

Richard.
ZA Pro & Avira antivirus & SSM Pro & Privoxy & Protowall & Opera for security. Topped off with a limited user account on fully updated XP HE SP3.

#9 01d5od

01d5od

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:19 AM

Update!

There is a new free version of Outpost released.
This apparently includes proactive protection but has a few features removed.

Comparision and details are seen here:

http://free.agnitum.com/#

See download.com for the download file.

http://download.cnet.com/Agnitum-Outpost-F...4-10913746.html

Richard.
ZA Pro & Avira antivirus & SSM Pro & Privoxy & Protowall & Opera for security. Topped off with a limited user account on fully updated XP HE SP3.

#10 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:04:23 AM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 12:41 PM

Matousec have had a long-standing firewall challenge:

http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/


After viewing that challenge I removed Zonealarm and installed Comodo Firewall :thumbsup:
Thanks for the link :flowers:

#11 tos226

tos226

    BleepIN--BleepOUT


  • Members
  • 1,577 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:LocalHost
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 01:38 PM

The subject of matousec tests is, IMO, totally off topic in an Outpost thread.
That said, please don't take those tests seriously and don't ditch a good product just based on that.

#12 tos226

tos226

    BleepIN--BleepOUT


  • Members
  • 1,577 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:LocalHost
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 01:41 PM

Update!

There is a new free version of Outpost released.
This apparently includes proactive protection but has a few features removed.

It appears to be the 2009, current version.
The installer is smaller than the 2009 Outpost Firewall Pro, so likely few features were removed.
It'll be interesting to see it work, as Outpost is nice.

#13 Platypus

Platypus

  • Global Moderator
  • 15,187 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:08:23 PM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:32 PM

The subject of matousec tests is, IMO, totally off topic in an Outpost thread.

It's billermo's topic, and the matousec tests are offered as a direct answer to his request:

Nobody seems to cover the aspects of firewalls in the same way. Or conduct head-to-head lab tests pitting them against each other, for example.

I really don't see how it could be more on topic. :thumbsup:

As to the validity of the tests, that's why my following post is a balancing viewpoint critical of the methodology, although not necessarily all the actual conclusions, of Matousec.

Thanks to you and 01d5od for the Outpost Free update. As a long-time appreciator of Version 1 Free for Win98, I'll investigate the new version for XP.
Top 5 things that never get done:

1.

#14 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:04:23 AM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:42 PM

Update!

There is a new free version of Outpost released.
This apparently includes proactive protection but has a few features removed.

It appears to be the 2009, current version.
The installer is smaller than the 2009 Outpost Firewall Pro, so likely few features were removed.
It'll be interesting to see it work, as Outpost is nice.


I am surprised to see only 12 downloads for this on download.com. I am making 13th.

#15 tos226

tos226

    BleepIN--BleepOUT


  • Members
  • 1,577 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:LocalHost
  • Local time:05:23 AM

Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:47 PM

The subject of matousec tests is, IMO, totally off topic in an Outpost thread.

It's billermo's topic, and the matousec tests are offered as a direct answer to his request:

Nobody seems to cover the aspects of firewalls in the same way. Or conduct head-to-head lab tests pitting them against each other, for example.

I really don't see how it could be more on topic. :thumbsup:

As to the validity of the tests, that's why my following post is a balancing viewpoint critical of the methodology, although not necessarily all the actual conclusions, of Matousec.

Thanks to you and 01d5od for the Outpost Free update. As a long-time appreciator of Version 1 Free for Win98, I'll investigate the new version for XP.

OK. I'll concede that martousec was dragged into this thread. The problem is when the comparisons aren't done with the same features and the same settings, the tests are flawed. And matousec makes money off the security companies who will to pay, which is one reason I find the tests unacceptable. But this being and Outpost thread, that's all I'll say.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users