Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Tim Stobb » Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:00:00



I bought Conseal PD a few months ago and am not running it for some
reason. It seemed to take a lot of system resources. I also remember
reading CPD will not work with win98SE. I'm going to be trying SE
soon. I have DSL with a static IP. Anyone like one of the other
software firewalls better?

ts

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Shado » Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:00:00


I am running Conseal firewall with BlackICE.......they don't take up too
many resources.....I have 70% free......with all the other *I
load.....(DSL/Network/virus-software/scanner and others!)  I am running a
200MHz Pentium II with 96Meg of RAM
What system do you have?

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Bre » Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:00:00


Hi Tim,
I run CPD with Win98SE without any problems.  You may be referring to
the fact
it didn't work with internet connection sharing. I am not sure if the
latest version 2.04
works with it or not.
CPD takes up very few resources on any system.  I run it on several
different computers
from an old 486 with 16mb of ram to a PII 350 with 64mb of ram and there
isn't any noticable difference in  performance on any machine.  I ran a
progam to check the resources it was using and it was using less than 1%
of system resources.

What program were you using to check the amount of resources it was
using?

Bre


> I bought Conseal PD a few months ago and am not running it for some
> reason. It seemed to take a lot of system resources. I also remember
> reading CPD will not work with win98SE. I'm going to be trying SE
> soon. I have DSL with a static IP. Anyone like one of the other
> software firewalls better?

> ts

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Tim Stobb » Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:00:00


I'm going to try the new version of CPD. the hard part is figuring out
how to get the new key since i don't have any receipt from
digitalriver for some reason. I tried calling Conseal, and get sent to

memory.

thx!


>Hi Tim,
>I run CPD with Win98SE without any problems.  You may be referring to
>the fact
>it didn't work with internet connection sharing. I am not sure if the
>latest version 2.04
>works with it or not.
>CPD takes up very few resources on any system.  I run it on several
>different computers
>from an old 486 with 16mb of ram to a PII 350 with 64mb of ram and there
>isn't any noticable difference in  performance on any machine.  I ran a
>progam to check the resources it was using and it was using less than 1%
>of system resources.

>What program were you using to check the amount of resources it was
>using?

>Bre


>> I bought Conseal PD a few months ago and am not running it for some
>> reason. It seemed to take a lot of system resources. I also remember
>> reading CPD will not work with win98SE. I'm going to be trying SE
>> soon. I have DSL with a static IP. Anyone like one of the other
>> software firewalls better?

>> ts

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Bill Crocke » Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:00:00


Tim:

Try contacting Signal9, they are the company that sells Conseal.  Conseal is
just a product, it will never answer the phone!

http://www.signal9.com/

Bill Crocker


> I'm going to try the new version of CPD. the hard part is figuring out
> how to get the new key since i don't have any receipt from
> digitalriver for some reason. I tried calling Conseal, and get sent to

> memory.

> thx!

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by James Gran » Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:00:00



> I bought Conseal PD a few months ago and am not running it for some
> reason. It seemed to take a lot of system resources. I also remember
> reading CPD will not work with win98SE. I'm going to be trying SE
> soon. I have DSL with a static IP. Anyone like one of the other
> software firewalls better?

> ts

ConSeal Private Desktop is very sparing with resources,
around 0.5% when idle and around 3% when active.
WinTop is the only resource monitor I know of that
measures it correctly, however. Others give a false
reading. WinTop is part of the Kernel Toys by
Microsoft. If you have trouble finding it, let me
know.

CPD also works well with Windows 98SE. The issue there
is that it does not support the NAT feature called
ICS (Internet Connection Sharing). This feature
allows several computers on a network to gain access
to the Internet through a single computer.

Support for ICS will be added to CPD in the near future.

James Grant
Signal 9 Solutions

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by James Gran » Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:00:00



>I'm going to try the new version of CPD. the hard part is figuring out
>how to get the new key since i don't have any receipt from
>digitalriver for some reason. I tried calling Conseal, and get sent to

>memory.

The new version 2.04 uses the same license as the 1.3x versions.
If you still have the original license program, use it.
The demo download is the same software bundled with a 15-day
license, so you can install the demo and license with your
original license program.

James Grant
Signal 9 Solutions

 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Henry R. Linnewe » Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:00:00


Yeah but it does such a wonderful job in keeping the phone connected
I have used it since the beginning even helped beta test it....

No it won't answer the phone, but then on the other hand when someone
tries to call you with internet phone and hack into your box through that
it stops that too :)


> Tim:

> Try contacting Signal9, they are the company that sells Conseal.  Conseal is
> just a product, it will never answer the phone!

> http://www.signal9.com/

> Bill Crocker



> > I'm going to try the new version of CPD. the hard part is figuring out
> > how to get the new key since i don't have any receipt from
> > digitalriver for some reason. I tried calling Conseal, and get sent to

> > memory.

> > thx!

--
Thank you;
|--------------------------------------------|
| Thinking is a learned process so is UNIX   |
|--------------------------------------------|
Henry R. Linneweh
 
 
 

Conseal PD vs. AtGuard vs. Blackice

Post by Jerry Trudea » Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:00:00


James,

Are you aware that CPD seems to disable the Auto-Disconnect feature in
IE5. I have seen this happen on two different machines, both running
Windows98 original version, both machines otherwise function correctly.
When CPD is exited before the Internet Explorer shutdown then the
auto-disconnect feature reappears and operates as normal.

This is not a huge deal except for people who rely on the
auto-disconnect to remind them to disengage from the internet- like me
: ) Also, I'm curious to know what process causes this.

Thanks,

--

Jerry T



> > I bought Conseal PD a few months ago and am not running it for some
> > reason. It seemed to take a lot of system resources. I also remember
> > reading CPD will not work with win98SE. I'm going to be trying SE
> > soon. I have DSL with a static IP. Anyone like one of the other
> > software firewalls better?

> > ts

> ConSeal Private Desktop is very sparing with resources,
> around 0.5% when idle and around 3% when active.
> WinTop is the only resource monitor I know of that
> measures it correctly, however. Others give a false
> reading. WinTop is part of the Kernel Toys by
> Microsoft. If you have trouble finding it, let me
> know.

> CPD also works well with Windows 98SE. The issue there
> is that it does not support the NAT feature called
> ICS (Internet Connection Sharing). This feature
> allows several computers on a network to gain access
> to the Internet through a single computer.

> Support for ICS will be added to CPD in the near future.

> James Grant
> Signal 9 Solutions


 
 
 

1. Conseal PD vs. AtGuard: Questions

Hi all,
I've been lurking here for a while trying to decide on a personal firewall
to use with Win98.  I think I have narrowed down my choices to the two in
the subject line.  It seems both offer relatively good protection and are
easy for the relative novice to configure and use.  However, I have a few
questions that I was hoping some of you could answer.  I checked on deja.com
and on the websites for these two products and haven't found the answers.

1) Is the new version of AtGuard (3.21) now considered a 'true' firewall--in
other words, does it now have the ability to block all the same types of
data packets that Signal 9 says Conseal can (TCP, UDP, ICMP, NetBEUI, IPX,
ARP, IMGP, etc.)?

2) Can AtGuard be run with IE5 without conflict?  The AtGuard tech FAQ
indicates there is an error accessing the settings in AtGuard when running
IE5. Or is this only a problem under Win NT?

3) Can Conseal PD be set to block refer fields and pop-up scripts like
AtGuard?  (can I write or establish rules to do this?)  If not, does anyone
know of an app that will block refer fields? (I know there are many that
block popups)

4) Do either of these products have the ability to use two separate rule
sets (one more and one less restrictive)?

5) Will there be any conflicts running either of these with AVP (antiviral
toolkit pro)?

Thanks for any help you can give on these questions.  It will help me make
my final decision.  I would choose Conseal PC Firewall over these two, but
until I know more about firewalls and rule sets, I think I would prefer to
use AtGuard or PD.

--
Terrance Rusnak
remove "--nospam--" to reply by e-mail.

2. DOS/BIOS direct Floppy access

3. BlackIce Defender vs ConSeal PD

4. comp.lang.c Answers (Abridged) to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

5. AtGuard vs. Conseal vs. ZoneAlarm for outgoing data

6. database connection error

7. AtGuard vs Black Ice vs Conseal ...??

8. EASTERN BLOC Mail Order Bride 14: NO TELL HOTEL (International Dating)

9. LockDown 2000 vs AtGuard vs Conseal PC FireWall

10. Guard Dog vs. Conseal PD and Black Ice Def?

11. www.secure-me-net vs. ConSeal PD

12. Conseal PD vs. Firewall

13. ConSeal PD vs. Firewall?