Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: MikeBCda on February 28, 2007, 09:42:16 PM
-
I suspect ZoneLabs will find they've pulled a major blunder with their new all-in-one approach -- I for one will not upgrade my ZA any more unless and until they back off and once again offer ZA by itself, and I'd bet they lose a lot of other faithful users too.
I'll stick with my 6.5.737 as long as it stays functional, but I'm fairly sure its days are numbered.
I know there's been suggestions here and there for other free firewalls, but it would be handy to see a nutshell summary here of the more popular ones along with a comparison of their respective pros and cons.
Thanks and best,
Mike
-
^,
Many of the old timers on the ZA forum think that 5.5.094 was the last good version of the "pure" firewall. If you remember correctly, the majority of the vsmon problems started with version 6.
After trying 6.something, which was an absolute mess, I reverted back, and have been using it ever since. It does it's job, no more, no less. If you're interested, you can find it here:
http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/information/znalm/zaReleaseHistory.html
-
Comodo makes a good free firewall. Here's a review.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1969207,00.asp
-
Hi marc57,
My ZA free functions fine, but I have added some goodies into the proggie: fwconwatch, ipfilter, paranoid_conf, secure router, and a personal flaw of IPF WADM of a ZAL-O-FIREWALL inside ZoneAlarm free as it comes by default. So I have some extra protection in the lower realms. No problems or hick-ups,
polonus
Just a taste:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# fwconwatch.pl - Monitor FireWall-1 connection table
#
# www.sabernet.net
#
#
# By default this script checks the status of the connection table every
# 60 seconds. The administrator will be notified by page/email if the
# connection table has reached the warning percentage.
#
# The -f switch causes an output line to be displayed for each check.
# The -F switch causes an output line to be logged via syslogd.
#
# Distributed under the terms of this General Public License
# http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
#
# Revision History:
# 11-Jun-2000 1.3 Added switch info for fwtable.pl ver1.1beta
# 08-Sep-1999 1.2 Added features provided by masato@mulan.aero.org
# 30-Jul-1999 1.1 Added cpu utilization check (SunOS 5.x)
# 30-Jul-1999 1.0 Script completed
#
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# TARGET : Target FW host
#
# LIMIT : Number of slots in the connection table. Details can be found
# in PhoneBoy's FW1 FAQ: http://www.phoneboy.com/fw1/faq/0289.html
#
# WARN : Percentage at which a page/email will be sent
#
# SRC_MAX : Number of connection sources to report on
#
# SCRIPT : Path to Lance Spitzner's fwtable.pl script
# http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/fwtable.html
#
# PAGE : Address to send warning page to
#
# EMAIL : Address to send connection report to
#
# SLEEP : Number of seconds to sleep between checks
#
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$TARGET = "localhost";
$LIMIT = 25000;
$WARN = 20;
$SRC_MAX = 100;
$SCRIPT = "/etc/fw/bin/fwtable.pl -c $LIMIT"; # < ver 1.1beta
#$SCRIPT = "/etc/fw/bin/fwtable.pl -s -c $LIMIT"; # >= ver 1.1beta
$PAGE = "pager\@example.com";
$EMAIL = "infosec\@example.com";
$LOGGER = "/usr/bin/logger -p local1.info -t FWD";
$SLEEP = 60;
# main
{
while(1)
{
$conns = get_conns();
$percent = ($conns / $LIMIT) * 100;
if ($ARGV[0] eq '-f')
{
$date = `date`;
chop($date);
print "$date $percent% $conns\n";
}
elsif (($ARGV[0] eq '-F') && defined($LOGGER))
{
system("$LOGGER connections=$conns $percent%");
}
if ($percent >= $WARN)
{
`echo \"fw conn $percent%\" | mailx $PAGE`;
report_top();
}
check_cpu();
sleep($SLEEP);
}
}
#
# get_conns : returns the number of slots filled in the connection table
#
sub get_conns
{
$_ = `/etc/fw/bin/fw tab -t connections -s $TARGET | tail -1`;
chop();
$_ =~ /(\d+)$/;
$1;
}
#
# report_top : reports the top n connection sources
#
sub report_top
{
my ($top, %table);
open(DATA, "$SCRIPT |");
while(<DATA>)
{
if ($_ =~ /^(\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+)/)
{
$table{$1}++;
}
}
close($DATA);
my($i) = 0;
foreach $key ( sort { $table{$b} <=> $table{$a} } sort(keys %table) )
{
if ($i < $SRC_MAX)
{
$top .= sprintf(" %-20s %-8d\n", $key, $table{$key});
$i++;
}
}
open(MAIL, "| mailx -s \"FW Connection Table $percent%\" $EMAIL");
print MAIL "Top $i connection sources:\n\n$top";
close(MAIL);
}
#
# check_cpu : checks the cpu stats and sends an alarm if warranted
#
sub check_cpu
{
$_ = `iostat -c 5 2 | tail -1`;
my(@stats) = split;
if ( ($stats[0] > 85) || # user
($stats[1] > 85) || # kernel
($stats[2] > 70) ) # iowait
{
`echo \"fw cpu us:$stats[0] ke:$stats[1] io:$stats[2]\" | mailx $PAGE`;
}
}
-
ZoneAlarm isn't Vista ready or compatible.... :'(
-
ZoneAlarm isn't Vista ready or compatible.... :'(
Wow, I didn't know that. I haven't paid any attention to ZA for ages. I think the last time I was on their forum is when you and I tag teamed, and went after them...
So, to get up to speed, I just cruised through several pages on their forum. What a mess. It seems to go from bad to worse for Check Point doesn't it? Well, if you're on XP or 2000, 5.5.094 is still the best choice in my opinion (All firewall - All the time).
-
***
I stopped upgrading ZA Free at version:6.1.744.001 which has worked perfectly since I installed it. I have no plans to upgrade ZA until all the junk is taken out of it. This version works well for me. :)
***
-
Outpost pro isn't Vista compatible either, not that that concerns me, but it is a poor excuse they are saying it takes time to make the firewall compatible with a new OS, I guess a 5 year run up isn't enough for them to start planning.
Outpost Pro is a good firewall but many users are very disappointed at this Vista compatibility, pathetic I call it.
Vista Support Plans
The current version of Outpost Pro 4.0 and the first version of the upcoming Outpost Pro Security Suite 2007 will not be Vista-compatible. Converting security products to run smoothly on Vista is a long a complex task, and we will keep you posted via this newsletter and blog postings as we move towards beta versions of both products.
Vista compatibility is a huge challenge for the entire information security industry. Vista is a completely new operating system with a significantly different and more complex architecture. This means that Outpost Pro Firewall and the Security Suite for Vista must be completely new applications, with new engines and a user interface to provide the level of protection and usability you’ve come to expect from Agnitum.
I think they have really shot themselves in the foot, spending time in developing a new product to the detriment of Vista Compatibility, who is going to but a product that isn't Vista compatible ?
-
I suspect ZoneLabs will find they've pulled a major blunder with their new all-in-one approach -- I for one will not upgrade my ZA any more unless and until they back off and once again offer ZA by itself, and I'd bet they lose a lot of other faithful users too.
I'll stick with my 6.5.737 as long as it stays functional, but I'm fairly sure its days are numbered.
I know there's been suggestions here and there for other free firewalls, but it would be handy to see a nutshell summary here of the more popular ones along with a comparison of their respective pros and cons.
Thanks and best,
Mike
I recommend Comodo Firewall, 2.4 is currently working very well, and 3.0 which will be released in a couple months will be Vista compatible.
What do you mean by offering ZA by itself, they still seem to be offering Zone Alarm Pro, and Free as standalone products.
-
The new ZA Free now comes encumbered with an number of extras on a trial basis in the hope you will purchase the upgrade.
-
ZoneAlarm isn't Vista ready or compatible.... :'(
Come to think of it, Neither is Comodo. Does anyone have any experience with Vista's firewall? I've read that it's hard to configure it to block outbound traffic.
To justin, do you know that your e-mail address is being shown?
-
No idea if its Vista-compatible but another contender is R-Tools at: http://www.r-firewall.com/
BTW, their 'R-Drive Image' is better (and cheaper) than latest Symantec 'Ghost'.
-
Hi folks,
The really irritating thing with ZoneAlarm is that TrueVector will collaps when using the Torpark anonimity browser, and I haven't read the cause of this anywhere on the net. Bad point for ZA there.
polonus
-
As for me I'm get used to Comodo, it works fine with Win xp, more over I don't have money & don't want to swich on Vista.
Besides I've tried ZA & it sloweddown my PC very much :(
-
Hi guys.
I have good experiences with a chinese firewall called Filseclab 3.0
Works well and has a "don't nag me" option to block any new progs without asking permission.
It can be found at www(dot)filseclab(dot)com
Bye,
Fast
-
Interesting article found this morning on Computerworld regarding security programs for Vista. Read here:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=windows&articleId=9012002&taxonomyId=125
-
I really can't understand why people are so quick to jump on New OSes, it takes time before software and driver support catch up.
Nice article though, just what were all these software vendors doing during the alpha, beta and consumer trial RC versions of Vista, just amazing.
-
...just what were all these software vendors doing during the alpha, beta and consumer trial RC versions of Vista, just amazing.
Agreed. I don't know what the other vendors were doing, but I think in Check Point's case, they were desperately trying to get their arms around the products they already have. Many problems with ZA.
To your first comment, I wouldn't touch a new Windows operating system until at least SP1. As far as I'm concerned, you're just an unpaid beta tester until they issue the first service pack.
-
Many problems with ZA.
Try Comodo 8)
-
ZoneAlarm isn't Vista ready or compatible.... :'(
Come to think of it, Neither is Comodo. Does anyone have any experience with Vista's firewall? I've read that it's hard to configure it to block outbound traffic.
To justin, do you know that your e-mail address is being shown?
That is correct, Comodo does not support Vista, however when 3.0 is released (within the next month or so) it will support both 64 bit XP/Vista along with 32 bit Windows XP and Vista.
No I didn't, thank you very much for that, I believe its fixed now though :).
-
Hey justin, Glad to help and yes your e-mail is hidden now.
To Tech: Welcome back, you were missed.
To David: The only reason I'm going to try Vista is because I'm getting a free upgrade. If it doesn't work out I'll go right back to XP. If I had to buy Vista I'd just stay with XP.
-
The new ZA Free now comes encumbered with an number of extras on a trial basis in the hope you will purchase the upgrade.
That's one of the reasons I continue to suggest 5.5.094 - All firewall, all the time.
-
Many thanks to all. I'm one more who's not exactly in a rush to switch over to Vista, so compatibility isn't really an issue for me.
As you can see from my sig, I've now switched over to Comodo. Probably the nicest thing about it is that there's almost no learning-curve involved making the change from ZA. Many of the advanced settings are beyond me, but the default auto-setup when installing should work just fine.
-
Many of the advanced settings are beyond me
There is a free forum and some of us use Comodo too... so, feel free to ask.
Do you use any P2P application (they need special firewall configuration)?
-
Many thanks to all. I'm one more who's not exactly in a rush to switch over to Vista, so compatibility isn't really an issue for me.
As you can see from my sig, I've now switched over to Comodo. Probably the nicest thing about it is that there's almost no learning-curve involved making the change from ZA. Many of the advanced settings are beyond me, but the default auto-setup when installing should work just fine.
Glad you are happy with Comodo, there is a support forum the link is below.
http://forums.comodo.com
Justin
-
Thanks for the info about their forums, although I'd already found them myself, same as I found the forums here after first getting avast. Whether I'll be active there is a who-knows, but at least I'm registered and bookmarked it.
And no, I don't touch P2P (took out avast's P2P provider for that reason) -- probably the only thing I might be interested in it for would be videos, but not on dialup. And I infer from Tech's comments that without P2P, the default settings should be just fine.
-
MikeBCda,
I see in your signature that you only have 256mb RAM, so I think PC Tools Firewall Plus would be a better choice for your computer as Comodo too much RAM.
I have 2.2ghz Celeron with 512mb RAM, but Dell Hell reserves 64mb for video. PC Tools Firewall Plus doesn't slow me down as it only uses 4mb RAM (4096kb RAM). Comodo is a drag.
http://www.pctools.com/firewall http://www.pctools.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30
-
pc tools firewall free is a very lame firewall-fails the shields up test big time-advise-stay away from it ;)
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
click on proceed...then next page-all service ports to test 8)
-
pc tools firewall free is a very lame firewall-fails the shields up test big time-advise-stay away from it ;)
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
click on proceed...then next page-all service ports to test 8)
Every time I do Shields Up, PC Tools Firewall Plus passes Sheilds Up with default settings. I wouldn't use it if it didn't pass. That includes "click on proceed...then next page-all service ports".
-
Every time I do Shields Up, PC Tools Firewall Plus passes Sheilds Up with default settings. I wouldn't use it if it didn't pass. That includes "click on proceed...then next page-all service ports".
GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2007-03-03 at 12:48:13
Results from scan of ports: 0-1055
0 Ports Open
0 Ports Closed
1056 Ports Stealth
---------------------
1056 Ports Tested
ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH.
TruStealth: PASSED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.
-
do you have the free version or the paid version(if they have one) ???
cause when i checked the free version about a month ago it failed and i talked to a pc tools rep. on the phone about a question on spyware doctor full version which i use-he said the free version at that time did not have a stealth mode ::)
unless they changed it since then ???
if it works for you-that's fine-i'm gonna stay away from it-since i want better protection from one that is more reliable and sound(on my hp laptop xp home-not my quad desktop-not much out for vista yet i've seen)
http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/PC-Tools-Firewall-Plus-Review-44948.shtml
-
do you have the free version or the paid version(if they have one) ???
cause when i checked the free version about a month ago it failed and i talked to a pc tools rep. on the phone about a question on spyware doctor full version which i use-he said the free version at that time did not have a stealth mode ::)
unless they changed it since then ???
when you run the test...are they all green???
I have the free version (there is no paid version), I believe my first download was the first version of PCT fw, I tried it after you first reported it in this forum under Updates. It has always passed Shields Up for me. I am now using the newest version.
It was easier for me to post the text summary from Shields Up, all ports that pass are green. Yes, all ports were green. The "passed" stamps on Shields Up are green also. I could go through the trouble of a screen capture of Shields Up, but it wouldn't give anymore info than the text summary.
-
ok- was just wondering my friend-use it-if it works for you-just was trying to help on my end-that's what this forum is for ;)
-
pc tools firewall free is a very lame firewall-fails the shields up test big time-advise-stay away from it ;)
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
click on proceed...then next page-all service ports to test 8)
There was a problem with filter rules being turned off when booting up. Sometimes mine were off, other times on. Others the were off everytime. I think it has been fixed through Smart Update. Mine is always on now.
This may explain why some couldn't pass Shields Up.
drhayden1,
With 2gig RAM on your laptop & 4gig RAM on your 4 proccessor computer you have the resources to run Comodo, I'm not pushing PC Tools Firewall Plus on you. :) I recommended it to MikeBCDa because he has only 256mb of RAM. I wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't meeting my needs. I take my laptop places with me. I use it on unprotected WIFI & haven't been compromised. I have heard some horror stories of computers being compromised on public unprotected WIFI. PC Tools Firewall Plus has stealthed me from whatever. Plus with the great avast! av & my layered resident anti-spyware, I'm not afraid. If the unthinkable ever happens, I have avast forums to bail me out! ;) ::) ;D
-
MikeBCda,
I see in your signature that you only have 256mb RAM, so I think PC Tools Firewall Plus would be a better choice for your computer as Comodo too much RAM.
I used to have only 128mb of RAM and comodo used to work fine.
-
PCTools is also not ready for Vista.....
-
PCTools is also not ready for Vista.....
For what I've heard and read, PCTools is in a very beginning level of development even for XP...
Maybe I'm biased... maybe I'd like Comodo that much... who knows...
-
tech....can you explain maybe what basic support means....i use spyware doctor and registry mechanic(full versions) on my hp laptop and think of getting them for vista on my quad piece of junk....but on pc tools website both say they have basic support for vista ???
any help would be appreciated my friend ;)
Operating System: Designed for Windows 98, Me, 2000 and XP, with basic support for Windows Vista™
don't use the firewall :(
-
tech....can you explain maybe what basic support means
Basic support for what? PCTools on Vista?
I just use Vista on virtual environmments for tests (VMware).
I never tested PCTools for a lot of problems I've heard so.
Basic support seems to mean that not all features are available or fully working. Almost a beta... or an alpha version...
-
or they aren't supporting it yet or what ???
thanks.....i'll wait or don't get it at all ::)
when you say pctools-are you are referring to the firewall or the whole line of software ??? :o
later my friend-take care of yourself :)
-
when you say pctools-are you are referring to the firewall or the whole line of software ??? :o
The firewall only.
-
Tech, thanks but so far no indication of any problems with 256 megs.
Only one oddball behavior I've noted, and while that could be just a coincidence of timing (started right after installing Comodo) I don't believe in such things, at least not on computers.
Now when I download JPGs, especially relatively large ones, they progressively display fairly large "chunks" at a time, as much as 1/4 or even 1/2 of the image, with long waits in between additional portions. I've been accustomed over the years to JPGs loading and displaying a few additional lines at a time.
But total download time for the image seems to be about the same as always, so it's a curiosity thing rather than a speed problem. Over at Comodo, they suggested a problem with Firefox setup, but I haven't touched that in ages and it's been a while since the last update (to 2.0.0.2). The timing certainly seems to point at Comodo.
My ISP (unfamiliar with Comodo) suggested that one possibility is that Comodo "sits on" a large number of packets while checking and releases many to the system at once. Over at the Comodo forums, they don't even seem to understand what I mean when I raised that suggestion.
-
My ISP (unfamiliar with Comodo) suggested that one possibility is that Comodo "sits on" a large number of packets while checking and releases many to the system at once. Over at the Comodo forums, they don't even seem to understand what I mean when I raised that suggestion.
Do you have copy of the email that you've changed with your ISP?
Maybe someone from Alwil (maybe pk or vlk) could give us some light about firewall behavior... 8)
-
No, sorry Tech - this was by phone discussion. I've got one of the rare ISP's whose help desk is actually knowledgeable, usually helpful, and 24/7. :)
-
Hi All
Today's Special - new release PC Tools Firewall http://www.pctools.com/firewall/
"Released: March 5, 2007
Size: 3,734 KB
Platforms: Designed for Windows Vista, XP, 2000 and 2003 server"
more details: http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45618
and definitely check their forum before trying it! http://www.pctools.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30
Vlad
-
I up graded to the new version of PC Tools Firewall Plus 2.0.0.9. Now 2 problems I was having are fixed in this new version. It keeps getting better, although this new version uses more RAM, 10mb vs 4mb.
-
N.B. small but significant change in spec.
"Platforms: Designed for Windows Vista 32-bit, XP, 2000 and 2003 server"
Apparently Vista 64-bit was never actually supported.
-
PCTools Firewall Pro v. 2.0.0.12 (FREE) is working like a charm on my Vista Installation.
As easy to use as ZoneAlarm but, can also be rule based for those of you smarter than me... ;D
Thanks Dan for the heads-up :)
-
it is a great simple easy to use firewall...i replaced the za free on my hp laptop with the pc tools firewall pro and also put it on my quad vista machine....both are working great-glad i could inform you of this firewall bob and now you don't have to wait for a za vista firewall whenever that will be ??? ::)
-
PCTools Firewall Pro v. 2.0.0.12 (FREE) is working like a charm on my Vista Installation.
As easy to use as ZoneAlarm but, can also be rule based for those of you smarter than me... ;D
Have you run it by the usual firewall tests. grc.com 'shields up' and firewallleaktester.com, etc.
-
davidr-it did paste the shields up test here on my end-all green on the all service ports test :D
-
Shields Up is fine the other key area is outbound protection and currently the only way to test that is the leak tests.
It would be nice if this would prove to be a competent user friendly freeware firewall to take over from ZA free (if it also supports win9x), which had a great user friendly interface. Unfortunately ZA free is becoming a bit of a bloat-ware monster installing lots of trial applications, not to mention the various issues with the later updates and lack of support for the win9x OSes.
-
...Unfortunately ZA free is becoming a bit of a bloat-ware monster installing lots of trial applications...
Which is exactly why I continue to recommend 5.5.094 as the ZA Free version to use.
http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/information/znalm/zaReleaseHistory.html
And, it does work on Win98:
http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?p=943453
And finally, a good site to bookmark:
http://www.oldversion.com/
-
David the leaktest only works on XP it's not Vista compatible....
-
David the leaktest only works on XP it's not Vista compatible....
Well, why not? ;D
-
@ OrangeCrate
I generally don't like recommending Old versions of Security software, especially if the updates were security related, rather than adding more bells and whistles, unfortunately it is many years since I used ZA.
For me some of these issued that were fixed may have improved things rather than just bells and whistles.
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.744.000
* Fixed - Service stability issue
* Fixed - Communicate with the centralized server issue
* Fixed - Overlapped text in support and update information
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.737.000
* Fixed - Compatibility issues with Adaptec USB driver
* Fixed - Nortel VPN can not connect
* Fixed - Compatibility issue when System Mechanic Startup Guard is enabled
* Fixed - PdaNet can't connect
* Fixed - VSNET 2003 issues
* Fixed - TrueVector application error in event viewer log
* Fixed - High vsmon CPU usage
* Fixed - "Deny" Button in program alert pushed off the edge
* Fixed - Icons lost in program list after upgrade
* Fixed - PC Cillin 2006 issue
* Fixed - System stability issues
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.667.000
* Fixed - POP email not working when co-existing with NAV
* Fixed - Free ZA blocking some Remote access software from accessing ZA Alert notifications
* Fixed - Propel compatibility issue
* Fixed - Multiple 'loopback' entries in firewall zones after upgrade
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.631.003
* Fixed network detection issue.
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.0.631.002
* Routine maintenance items
Thanks Bob, my concerns were also if it is compatible for older OSes as I couldn't find a system requirements on the PCTools site
-
Version 1.2 of leaktest is Vista compatible and
PC Tools Firewall Passed the test
Enlarge picture for a full view
-
@ OrangeCrate
I generally don't like recommending Old versions of Security software, especially if the updates were security related, rather than adding more bells and whistles, unfortunately it is many years since I used ZA.
For me some of these issued that were fixed may have improved things rather than just bells and whistles.
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.744.000
* Fixed - Service stability issue
* Fixed - Communicate with the centralized server issue
* Fixed - Overlapped text in support and update information
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.737.000
* Fixed - Compatibility issues with Adaptec USB driver
* Fixed - Nortel VPN can not connect
* Fixed - Compatibility issue when System Mechanic Startup Guard is enabled
* Fixed - PdaNet can't connect
* Fixed - VSNET 2003 issues
* Fixed - TrueVector application error in event viewer log
* Fixed - High vsmon CPU usage
* Fixed - "Deny" Button in program alert pushed off the edge
* Fixed - Icons lost in program list after upgrade
* Fixed - PC Cillin 2006 issue
* Fixed - System stability issues
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.667.000
* Fixed - POP email not working when co-existing with NAV
* Fixed - Free ZA blocking some Remote access software from accessing ZA Alert notifications
* Fixed - Propel compatibility issue
* Fixed - Multiple 'loopback' entries in firewall zones after upgrade
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.631.003
* Fixed network detection issue.
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.0.631.002
* Routine maintenance items
So David, would you care to point out to me on that list, what exactly improves those upgraded versions' ability to be a firewall?
It looks like system stability issues and bug fixes to me... Right?
Edit:
By the way, virtually all of their changes since being acquired by Check Point have been "bells and whistles". It's been the same basic firewall engine since 4.whatever.
-
Platforms: Designed for Windows Vista™ 32-bit, XP, 2000 and Server 2003
davidr-does this help at all-this is all it said for system requirements
and the leaktest passed on both of mine too ;D
-
Sorry OrangeCrate,
I hate to disagree but IMHO, security programs of any type should always be as up-to-date as possible.
-
Sorry OrangeCrate,
I hate to disagree but IMHO, security programs of any type should always be as up-to-date as possible.
Not if the engine remains the same. It's like newer models of cars that use the same platform. Looks nice, but it's still the same car. Same engine, same transmission, same drive train, etc.
There is a new engine with version 7, but nothing changed to the guts of the ZoneAlarm firewall, with any version from 4.something to 6.1.744.000. The firewall functions were the same no matter what the version was.
It was all "bells and whistles", and the change list that David posted reflects that.
Here's a review of the new engine...
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/downloads/2128997/zonealarm
But, I would advise a long-slow-read through the ZA forums before anyone would think about upgrading to version 7.
-
To me OrangeCrate, a good test of a product is how it performs on a system.
I've had the latest version of ZA running on my other (XP-2) system with out any problems or
hick ups since the day it was released.
I don't need a written review. We all work and evaluate things differently. A program has to work for me and with
my operating system. No company will ever please every one. Just look at Microsoft. ;D
I will however replace ZA on that computer with PC Tools Firewall since it's as good as ZA has been and, is much less
system intensive.
-
@ OrangeCrate
I generally don't like recommending Old versions of Security software, especially if the updates were security related, rather than adding more bells and whistles, unfortunately it is many years since I used ZA.
For me some of these issued that were fixed may have improved things rather than just bells and whistles.
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.744.000
* Fixed - Service stability issue
* Fixed - Communicate with the centralized server issue
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.737.000
* Fixed - Compatibility issues with Adaptec USB driver
* Fixed - Nortel VPN can not connect
* Fixed - Compatibility issue when System Mechanic Startup Guard is enabled
* Fixed - VSNET 2003 issues
* Fixed - High vsmon CPU usage
* Fixed - System stability issues
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.667.000
* Fixed - Free ZA blocking some Remote access software from accessing ZA Alert notifications
* Fixed - Propel compatibility issue
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.631.003
* Fixed network detection issue.
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.0.631.002
* Routine maintenance items
So David, would you care to point out to me on that list, what exactly improves those upgraded versions' ability to be a firewall?
It looks like system stability issues and bug fixes to me... Right?
When I cut and pasted I didn't select anything, I have edited the above and any and all would make me concerned at what you say is the same engine has multiple issues, which have been reportedly fixed.
Another thing are the generalisations like, Fixed - Various other bug fixes and Routine maintenance items, these things could mean anything and is almost microsoft language/speak in it could mean absolutely anything.
System stability is only one issue but like Bob said when it comes to security products I tend too recommend the latest up to date version. This is especially true if it is advice for someone else, you Bob or I are big enough to take care of and make decisions for ourselves. So I have no problem if you want to use 5.5, knowing its possible failings, but it is entirely different for advising a novice user.
-
I will however replace ZA on that computer with PC Tools Firewall since it's as good as ZA has been and, is much less system intensive.
I think that's a great idea. From what you've said, and what I've read in this thread, that program sounds like a real winner. I'll probably just leave my Windows setup the way it is, only because it's the guest OS now, and I seldom use it. 5.5.094 has worked fine for me.
-
So I have no problem if you want to use 5.5, knowing its possible failings, but it is entirely different for advising a novice user.
Agreed, but if you go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll notice that the advice I gave was to MikeBCda, not some novice user. Unless of course, you're calling Mike a novice... :)
-
I believe you well know the answer to your own question. Neither you or I can say how much research MikeBCda might do to see what the differences between the 5.5 version and any later version. However, it a mute point why go back to 5.5 when he is using 6.5.737 that is working for him and incorporating all of the points I raised and then some.
I'll stick with my 6.5.737 as long as it stays functional, but I'm fairly sure its days are numbered.
-
I believe you well know the answer to your own question. Neither you or I can say how much research MikeBCda might do to see what the differences between the 5.5 version and any later version. However, it a mute point why go back to 5.5 when he is using 6.5.737 that is working for him and incorporating all of the points I raised and then some.
I'll stick with my 6.5.737 as long as it stays functional, but I'm fairly sure its days are numbered.
To answer your question directly...
In my opinion, any version after 6.0 (after Check Point purchased ZoneAlarm) is inferior to ZoneAlarm's own products.
5.5.094 is a superior firewall to any version that has come after. The long list of bug and stability fixes to the bloat that was introduced by Check Point to the product, that you posted, just confirms that to me. Changes for the better, are normally listed in release notes. I don't see anything that tells me that is so with their revisions that you posted.
Sometimes what was, is better than what is. Check Point's changes to the ZoneAlarm products were marketing driven, not technical driven.
The advice and information that I gave to MikeBCda and to anyone else who read my post, still stands. In threads here, there are many times opposing views and suggestions. As said, it's then up to the OP to make up his mind as to which suggestions to adopt.
As I've tried to point out in this thread on my discussion on ZoneAlarm, sometimes updates to programs don't necessarily make them better. In fact, many times, they just compound the problems, as I believe the case is with ZoneAlarm. Sometimes stepping backwards to an earlier version might be a person's best bet, and was the suggestion I made to MikeBCda.
-
Maybe I should jump in and clarify. In an earlier posting which might have been overlooked, I said I'd ditched my ZA and replaced it with Comodo (and thanks for numerous recommendations for that) since the latter works quite well and doesn't suffer from the new bloatware that's been added to ZA. I do agree that security software should be kept as up to date as possible, but I ain't gonna stay with ZA since CheckPoint seems to have abandoned the wants of users who've faithfully used it and recommended it for years.
CheckPoint apparently still has to learn one of the most critical parts of marketing: abandonment is a two-way street, which is essentially what I'd said in my first posting here.
As for my level of "expertise", sure, I've been on computers for something like 20 years now. But while I was considered an expert back in DOS days, since Win became the actual operating system I'm just another point-and-click-and-pray user. ;)
-
Hi MikeBCda,
Cheer up, my good friend, your knowledge of Dos is still welcomed during various occasions, especially when Win 98Se users are concerned. I still have a MS DOS 5.0 bible on the shelf. Windows is not running on it anymore, but it is still hanging there. Buddha does not have point - click and pray methods.
polonus
-
I lose faith on ZA when I see the level of protection achieved.
http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php#firewalls-ratings
http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
http://www.thefreecountry.com/security/firewalls.shtml
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=22742.0;topicseen
Why don't common users move to Comodo? It's free!
I'm just another point-and-click-and-pray user. ;)
We're all learning-praying-blaming-users eh eh...
-
...
...
...
Why don't common users move to Comodo? It's free!
...
...
...
Well, maybe because Comodo for Vista at this stage (Beta) is too buggy... nothing works as it should on some systems. Even on Windows XP I experienced few problems with suddenly losing internet connection... also with Home Networking... sometimes it works, sometimes you can't access your network computers even though you were able to do that 2 minutes prior your second attempt... Also, it seems like they included so many options inside that Comodo became everything but simple for some beginner user profile. Another bad thing - It became little too heavy on system resources too.
-
Sasha,
To be fair, this is a 7 month old thread. Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo. :)
-
Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo. :)
Unfortunately, but true.
-
Sasha,
To be fair, this is a 7 month old thread. Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo. :)
Oh yeah, sorry Tech... I have no clue how this thread popped-up in my browser so I instantly answered it, didn't even pay attention to the date when last reply was posted.
What's even worse... I am not that happy with Comodo as I was back then...
-
Sasha,
To be fair, this is a 7 month old thread. Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo. :)
What does Tech think about comodo now?
-
As for me, I'm quite happy with Comodo and am sticking with it (for now, anyway - more on that below). While I agree that the "Advanced" settings and options are probably way beyond the ken of the average user, in most cases they can just be left at the defaults.
My only concern is with the upcoming new version, which from comments on their forums sounds like it will be an entirely new application, having only the name in common with the current one. Hopefully it will continue to be user-friendly for most users even with the drastic changes.
-
What does Tech think about comodo now?
A very good firewall. Support could be better (most of the times, just from users and not from the programmers themselves).
But I couldn't manage to install any of the betas on my Vista Business 32 bits system.
I do not try on XP but I've kept the version 2 (stable).
-
I guess nobody wants to know what Lusher thinks of Comodo firewall?
-
Testing ZA 7.1.078.000 version on Vista 32bits.
The delays are present... I can't browse easily.
It was not detected, at first, by Windows Security Center.
I'll let it until tomorrow, testing.
I can't stand for the delays... I can't install Comodo...
What a pain in Vista (http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7072/dry4hz.gif)
-
It was not detected, at first, by Windows Security Center.
Corrected.
I can't stand for the delays...
Still present :'(
-
I can't stand for the delays... I can't install Comodo...
What a pain in Vista (http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7072/dry4hz.gif)
Have you tried the latest version? They just released Release Candidate 1.
-
Have you tried the latest version? They just released Release Candidate 1.
Sure. The problem is with it :'(
By the way, ZoneAlarm installs perfectly in my Vista computer.