If you don’t like to pay (shame on you), there is a LuLu
Sure but it’s far less featured. Bit of topic for this thread too
2 Likes
I personally think, LuLu should be considered a more privacy-oriented firewall for macOS compared to Little Snitch, despite being less polished and feature-rich. It is fully open-source and does not require registration. LuLu performs basic firewall functions as effectively as Little Snitch. However, Little Snitch should be recommended for users requiring more advanced functionalities, as it offers additional benefits. It is important to mention both options to provide a comprehensive recommendation.
The topic of application firewalls receives limited attention in PG. Currently, firewalls are briefly mentioned in the Router Firmware [1] and macOS [2] sections, as well as in some blog posts [3]. To adequately recommend software like Little Snitch, PG might benefit from a dedicated category in the recommendation section. This category should not solely focus on macOS but also include other OS.
It should be discussed whether firewall software is a recommended privacy tool, especially highlighting its benefits and disadvantages compared to DNS-based firewalls [4], such as NextDNS [5].
2 Likes
Couldn’t disagree more. Lulu is far less featured, doesn’t have good user control, no option to add multiple blocklists, no option to do secure DNS, to name something.
Being open source isn’t better for privacy, this has been discussed extensively in the past and the community has already concluded on that before. We prefer it when possible but it in no way justifies settling for less privacy features.
Anyway for my part both can be recommended but your comment and this one are completely off topic. You can open a different topic about the differences and one about adding Lulu.
2 Likes