Eval anyone using Privatefirewall 7

Since PC Tools Firewall Plus support has ended (apparently)
and since the latest matousec test of PCT FW Plus 6.0.0.88 are not very good,
I'm wondering how Privatefirewall 7 is working out for anyone currently using it.

The matousec rating for Privatefirewal 7.0.21.1 is much better.

Don't know how they compare in terms of resource use?

Any comments please?

 

I've been using PF for about 3 months or so now, it seems pretty good, alerting me as I would expect it to, never seen it cause any problem or allow anything blocked. It's pretty talkative, like Comodo.

Resources used are very low on Windows 7 32-bit with a 2.4GHZ P4 w. 2GB RAM, less than 3MB RAM used and about 20MB Swapfile, CPU % negligible, Disk I/O is much less than eg., NTFS logging.

 

Thanks for your info., Satrow.

I'm running Windows XP with 1GB RAM, but 128MB used for onboard graphics.

Checking Windows Task Manager, I see two items which seem to be the PC Tools firewall:

• FirewallGUI.exe 3,828K
• FWService.exe 3,728K

The second item may be something in the OS and not the actual firewall app.

 

Thanks mjnc, for linking to the Matousec findings, and reminding us that all Firewalls are not the same. :-D.

I have attached a thumbnail listing some of their findings.
Some "big names" rate pretty poorly. :cry

COMODO is still #1 and FREE.

Check out Comodo Internet Security 5.1.37755.1159
MG link is http://majorgeeks.com/Comodo_Internet_Security_d6234.html

Bazza

 

Read this link about Matousec: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=281529 and make up your own mind about the ratings. Not sure if it's all true what is being written about Matousec.

I used to like Online Armor FW and still do.

 

I used to trust Matousec's site but at least 6 months ago, I read a report, no not at Wilder's, that mentioned he is no longer unbiased.
I stopped looking there for his recommendations/test results.

I find better answers of what works and doesn't by reading posts of actual users here. I see the problems or lack of problems with different programs, then decide what is safe and effective for me to try.

 

Thanks for the heads up on this, Oma.

I didn't read the entire thread but the gist of it is this:

Although I had not read anything to shed doubt on Matousec's firewall tests,
some things looked suspicious to me and I had commented on this in an
earlier post.

 

I don't know who is right and who is wrong in this bunfight, but here is Comodo's responses to various releases of their product, from 2008 to 2010.

Me, I'm just hoping Matousec has not pulled the wool over Comodo's eyes for the last 3 calendar years as I switched from ZA free to Comodo FW after reading these ratings.

Bazza