Firestarter or gufw or does it matter?
 

Thanks to the fine LQ member salasi, I now have a firewall up and running: almost perfectly.

When I use nmap and perform the most comprhesive scan I can think of, it cannot detect any wide open ports (unless bittorent is running) and cannot fingerprint the OS.

My last 2 questions about my firewall (I am very happy now) are:

It seems as though Firestarter has been "abandoned" by the developers, and that gufw is more current.

Does it really matter which firewall I use because don't they all do the same thing? I like firestarters system tray icon alot.
Anyways, what would you recommend/use?

2nd question is I have two open|filtered ports. Are these still pretty well protected?

Thanks for any replies; it is very pleasing to see that I have no open ports, because if you were an experienced Windows user like I was, you got used to the fact you were going to have open ports no matter what. Linux's builtin firewall completely destroys the expensive and useless scams they call Norton and McAfee. Linux officially rocks now:)

Both firestarter and gufw use the linux kernel's built-in iptables firewall; the biggest difference between those two programs is mainly the interface used to change firewall rules etc., and its respective ease of use.

That's quite different from the Windows world, where most firewall programs operate on their own--which can stir up all sorts of trouble. Indeed... Windows did not have a standardized, built-in firewall until XP service pack 2.

Most WAN-/internet-based portscans only scan up to port 1000. In theory, so long as you attempt to limit your exposure by opening the smallest overall number of ports, and by using nonstandard, greater-than-port-1000 numbers, you should be pretty safe.

Naturally, however, in the world of security, nothing is 100%.

Many of us like to think so. :D