What version of ZOneAlarm fastest with XP SP2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lars-Erik Østerud
  • Start date Start date
L

Lars-Erik Østerud

Today I use 6.1.744, but I often see advices in discussions about
using older version (like 4.5.594) is much faster even with XP and
that the security is just as good (I have a router with a firwall so I
only use ZA to monitor outgoing programs, is there anything else I
could do to speed up things?)
 
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
Today I use 6.1.744, but I often see advices in discussions about
using older version (like 4.5.594) is much faster even with XP and
that the security is just as good (I have a router with a firwall so I
only use ZA to monitor outgoing programs, is there anything else I
could do to speed up things?)
Click to expand...

If you keep your system clean of software that is only a marketing gag
(like personal firewalls) it well be at best speed.
Activate the XP included firewall and that is all you need.
 
Today I use 6.1.744, but I often see advices in discussions about
using older version (like 4.5.594) is much faster even with XP and
that the security is just as good (I have a router with a firwall so I
only use ZA to monitor outgoing programs, is there anything else I
could do to speed up things?)
Click to expand...
Use opera ,and a light av like antivir.
me
 
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
Today I use 6.1.744, but I often see advices in discussions about
using older version (like 4.5.594) is much faster even with XP and
that the security is just as good (I have a router with a firwall so I
only use ZA to monitor outgoing programs, is there anything else I
could do to speed up things?)
Click to expand...
I have used all of the versions since 4.5.xxx or thereabouts. Quite
frankly, I can't see any difference in speed. Mine is the free version.
Jim
 
I have used all of the versions since 4.5.xxx or thereabouts. Quite
frankly, I can't see any difference in speed. Mine is the free version.
Jim
Click to expand...

I also use the freebie and update it frequently. I have never noticed
any slowdown or any other problems with ZA.

If you believe every piece of trash talk you read in this group, you'll
drive yourself weird.


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
 
On 12 Sep 2006 03:05:56 -0000, Anonymous

I also use the freebie and update it frequently. I have never noticed
any slowdown or any other problems with ZA.
Click to expand...

Real malware you would allow to run normally would'nt notice any
significant problems with ZA either.

My guess is, you are a normal cautious user and ZA is'nt really being
put to the test on your machine.

BTW, one of the problems with personal firewalls in general is that
when it blocks something it will let you know (even about the most
harmless things), and you as a user are happy because you think it
works. When it fails however, you most likely would'nt notice. The
perfect product for a salesman, really.
If you believe every piece of trash talk you read in this group, you'll
drive yourself weird.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. It's incredible what is being said in this
group about the effectiveness of personal firewalls running on a
windows platform.

But it is not surprising in any way. The marketing departments of
personal firewall vendors truly are doing a great job.

/B. Nice
 
B. Nice said:
On 12 Sep 2006 03:05:56 -0000, Anonymous


You are absolutely right. It's incredible what is being said in this
group about the effectiveness of personal firewalls running on a
windows platform.
Click to expand...

Does the platform really make a difference when it comes to host based
solutions?

Thomas
 
Ulf said:
Activate the XP included firewall and that is all you need.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would I do that? I have a hardware firewall in my
router. The WIndows firewall will add NO benefits for me.

I mainly use the ZA firewall to monitor what programs try to send data
or act as servers. The optimal solution for me and others with a
hardware firewall would be a small program that just did that
(monitored what programs trying to access internet).

Is there such a program out there?
 
Anonymous said:
If you believe every piece of trash talk you read in this group, you'll
drive yourself weird.
Click to expand...

Well, the 6.1 version use twice as much memory, and the transfer speed
is slightly lower than with the 4.5 versjon (I have compared them now)
 
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
I mainly use the ZA firewall to monitor what programs try to send data
or act as servers. The optimal solution for me and others with a
hardware firewall would be a small program that just did that
(monitored what programs trying to access internet).
Click to expand...

Hi Lars-Eric

Sorry, but this function can't be done by any program (Personal
Firewalls) because malicious software can deactivate this monitoring on
Windows systems without your knowledge.
Please take a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/05/SecurityMyths/default.aspx
in the secion called "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound
Traffic to be Safe." for further information from Microsoft about this
security myth.
 
Ulf said:
Sorry, but this function can't be done by any program (Personal
Firewalls) because malicious software can deactivate this monitoring on
Click to expand...

Well well, I can stop most usual programs (windows services, media
player etc) from accessing or acting as server. That helps a lot (just
stopping all those microsoft services listening or sending info :-)

Of course I have a anti-virus too (and as stated a hardware
firewall/NAT router)...

So I only need the "program access" part of ZA actually
 
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
Well well, I can stop most usual programs (windows services, media
player etc) from accessing or acting as server. That helps a lot (just
stopping all those microsoft services listening or sending info :-)
Click to expand...

You can only stop programs that are so gentle to let them being stopped
by another software.
To stop microsoft services from listening or sending infos why don't you
just stop the service on the system. And if you are not sure, if a
program (eg. media player) sends information over the internet, why
don't you choose an alternative software in what you can trust.
I don't run software, that I do not trust.
 
Ulf said:
To stop microsoft services from listening or sending infos why don't you
just stop the service on the system. And if you are not sure, if a
Click to expand...

Some MS programs always try to send/receive things :-(
And I have to use some of them :-(

I have stopped all services I don't need of course :-)
 
I've been reading this ng for quite a while, and I agree with most
people here that prevention is way better than trying to cure an already
compromised system after the fact. But what about those cases where a
PFW can limit the damage when infected? Doesn't that have _any_ merit at
all, especially for inexperienced users?
Click to expand...

Sure it does, but the idea that you can prevent apps from getting out,
once the system is compromised, is just folly. What you want the PFW to
do is block outbound by port or protocol, not to care about about what
application.
 
Ulf said:
Please take a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/05/SecurityMyths/default.aspx
in the secion called "Myth: Host-Based Firewalls Must Filter Outbound
Traffic to be Safe."
Click to expand...

Although I mostly agree with what's being said there, this little blip
made me wonder:
"Outbound filtering is only useful on computers that are already
infected. And in that case, it’s too late—the damage is done."

The damage is done, but outbound filtering could have prevented the
payload from being delivered. Getting infected and letting info leak
from your system afterwards are two different things IMHO. In cases of
malware that's smart enough to circumvent your PFW, that doesn't do a
bit of good of course. But there's also malware that actually can be
stopped before doing _more_ damage (beside the infection).

People that can't (or won't) understand security, like the grandmother
in that article, could be helped by a PFW that doesn't let anything
connect out that it doesn't have a rule for. That is, when the PFW is
configured to only allow known programs and assuming the malware in
question doesn't hijack another program's connection.

I've been reading this ng for quite a while, and I agree with most
people here that prevention is way better than trying to cure an already
compromised system after the fact. But what about those cases where a
PFW can limit the damage when infected? Doesn't that have _any_ merit at
all, especially for inexperienced users?
 
Leythos said:
Sure it does, but the idea that you can prevent apps from getting out,
once the system is compromised, is just folly.
Click to expand...

Consider that I was talking about the average Joe, who might have
clicked on a shady e-mail attachment, or visited a "bad" website.
Without a PFW he likely wouldn't know he just got infected and
information about his machine got sent to a hacker somewhere, ready to
be exploited. On the other hand, even if he did have a PFW and it
notified him about some funny business going on, he probably would've
clicked "Yes, allow" to get rid of that annoying popup window :-/

I don't know what I'm trying to say here... I'm beginning to think that
the only truly safe system is one that can't be used (and thus can't be
abused). The only case where my example _might_ work, is when someone
knowledgable enough has already configured the machine correctly
(hardened the OS). But even then I have my doubts.
What you want the PFW to
do is block outbound by port or protocol, not to care about about what
application.
Click to expand...

True, but the average user doesn't want to get involved in configuring
his machine. He just wants to turn it on and use it, like he would a
television or microwave oven. PFW companies are cleverly playing into
this. As long as they can sell the idea that security is "easy", they
will be around. Together with people religiously defending outbound
blocking by application.
 
[snip]
I don't know what I'm trying to say here... I'm beginning to think that
the only truly safe system is one that can't be used (and thus can't be
abused). The only case where my example _might_ work, is when someone
knowledgable enough has already configured the machine correctly
(hardened the OS). But even then I have my doubts.
Click to expand...
[snip]

I run a PFW, not windows, on this laptop, and I've run one on every
laptop we own, for years, and always found them to be of great benefit
and of little trouble. We take our laptops to many locations, to
compromised networks of new customers, we watch the port traffic inbound
to look for compromised machines, we also have clients with PFW
solutions on their portable devices, and not one of them has ever been
compromised.

I also know a lot of people using PFW solutions that have been
compromised by not knowing what to block/permit and unknowingly allowing
something they should have blocked. I have not seen any websites take
over a protected computer, not seen any probes take over a computer,
I've only seen users download/install something that has poked a hole or
disabled the PFW solutions - and in most cases the little start item
that flashes a warning about the PFW being disabled was enough to clue
them in.

So, while many people will state that a PFW is a risk, that windows
firewall is the only real solution, that all PFW are bad, the real world
shows that they do offer benefit, but, they don't offer more risk than
any other method (except to disable the computer), in most cases.

I will keep using my PFW on my laptop and all the company laptops and
all our clients laptops, as it give them an indication, which Windows
firewall doesn't even attempt to do.
 
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
Why on earth would I do that? I have a hardware firewall in my
router. The WIndows firewall will add NO benefits for me.
Click to expand...

So why on earth would you use Zone Alarm? It will add NO benefits for
you.
I mainly use the ZA firewall to monitor what programs try to send data
or act as servers.
Click to expand...

As others told you before, this will not work.
The optimal solution for me and others with a
hardware firewall would be a small program that just did that
(monitored what programs trying to access internet).

Is there such a program out there?
Click to expand...

No

Regards
Thomas
 
Thomas said:
So why on earth would you use Zone Alarm? It will add NO benefits for
Click to expand...

Oh yes. It will alert me when some of MS programs try to either send
some data (usually unneeded) or "act as a server" (for something I
don't need or use). I like to keep track of what is happening :-)
As others told you before, this will not work.
Click to expand...

For malware and viruses yes, but I guess they will be caught be the
AV, but for "serious programs" it will. I can deny MS programs access,
I can deny Word access, I can stop "host services" from beeing servers
 
Back
Top