I haven’t completely studied this yet but it seems interesting.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/avc_fw_201403_en.pdf
Not interesting at all.
They are testing software firewalls, while hardware ones are better.
They are testing software firewalls, while hardware ones are better.but it may be a bit cumbersome to take with you in your laptop bag......
and Win7 firewall does exactely what it should do…according to the test
Since this is about Firewall Protection In Public Networks - and is more specifically about laptops
Firewall Test 2014 Firewall protection in public networks. These days, laptops are very popular as home computers, as they take up little space and can easily be moved from room to room. Many home users will enable file sharing, in order to e.g. stream digital music to their hi-fi systems or digital photos to their TVs.Many of these users take their laptops to a public location, e.g. their local coffee house, and connect to the Internet using the establishment’s WLAN. They will reasonably expect that if they define the network as public when prompted, that
their computers will be secured against intrusion by other users in the public network. Business users who use a laptop as their one and only work computer may find themselves in a similar situation, with the additional possibility that their machines may have been configured to allow remote control using Microsoft’s Remote Desktop.The purpose of this test is to determine whether common third-party firewalls, both standalone and integrated into Internet security suites, actually provide basic inbound access control for laptop users who switch between private and public networks. Please note that the scope of the test is obviously very limited, and that a good score here does not by any means indicate that a product provides perfect network security.
Hardware firewall on a laptop ???
Windows 8.1’s firewall also works well and becomes even better when combined with
Windows Firewall Control. 
yepp … also see this
Six out of the seven manufacturers whose suites fail to provide complete protection make a standalone antivirus program without firewall, which can usually be purchased more cheaply than the corresponding full Internet security suite. However, most manufacturers claim in their advertising that the more expensive suite will protect the user’s computer better than the simple antivirus program. This test indicates that half of the security vendors are actually charging more money for a product that may provide significantly less security in some situations, and that users would do better to buy the simple antivirus program and rely on Windows Firewall to prevent unauthorised intrusion. [b]We note that a number of major vendors are nowadays not including their own firewalls in their security suites, but relying on Windows Firewall instead, as this provides suitable protection and is easy to configure.[/b]
I’m wondering why some third party firewalls were “not” tested. The three that came to my mind are the three most
obvious ones, Comodo, Online Armor and Private Firewall. ???
Emsisoft Online Armor was tested.
Some were and pulled out as they failed so miserably , Online Armor proved to be rather useless.
There is a thread at Wilders with some comment.
:-[ :-[ :-[
Do you have a link to the source of this info? Thanks.
Thanks Bob.