Re: Less secure? -- Re: Tiny Personal Firewall - which version?
From: harry wong (wong_at_aol.com)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:26:45 GMT
"Piotr Makley" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> donutbandit <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Piotr Makley <email@example.com> wrote in
> >> Now I want to try another firewall. I have come across Tiny
> >> Personal Firewall. I installed the free version 2.0.14. I
> >> this the latest free version?
> > No - in fact, it's quite old.
> > That firewall has been known as Kerio Personal Firewall for over
> > 2 years now.
> > The latest version is 2.1.5 and can be gotten here:
> > http://kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win.exe
> > It's the same firewall but improved over the version you have. I
> > also think it's the best free firewall there is.
> Is the free version 2.1.5 of Tiny/Kerio any less secure than the paid
> version 5.0 of Tiny? http://www.tinysoftware.com/
> Is the difference mainly due to additional features?
> If so then are any of these additional features really worth having?
I think you should also seriously consider Outpost Pro. I have been trying
different FW's for the past few months as a supplement to a hardware
firewall (I want something that would prevent any Trojans that I may get to
dial out- although with Symantec Corporate, a stand alone Trojan scanner and
common sense I don't think that this is likely- and to prevent java scripts
and activeX controls to be downloaded and run on my computer).
I've found that the new version of Kerio (4.0.13) is very good but Outpost
has the best record against most of the firewall tests that are available.
They both take up an equal amount of resources (about 15,000). As to Tiny-
it is a pain to set up. The former 2 already have very good pre-configured
rules so personally I don't see any point in using it.