Zonealarm

[Flight]

"Mick Murphy" schreef in bericht
news:7165530D-02CC-49C6-8556-11F62455C8D2@microsoft.com...
> "I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe. Try Avira"
>
> I think that is a very dangerous statement by you.
> I hope that you are prepared to back it up.
> Companies don't appreciate statements like the above.
>
> "Avira": install to get NAG screens!
> --
> Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia
>
>
> "Flight" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Mick Murphy" schreef in bericht
>> news:A35534B3-7451-4219-942C-8613819B83C3@microsoft.com...
>> > Vista own Firewall is very good, and quite sufficient for what you
>> > need.
>> >
>> > Below are some compatible security Programs you might want to use with
>> > Vista.
>> >
>> > http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
>> >
>> > Avast Anti-Virus is Vista compatible (32bit and 64bit Versions), FREE,
>> > auto-updating, and a low resources user of your computer.
>> > And, only have 1(one) Anti-Virus installed / running on your computer
>> > at
>> > any
>> > one time..
>> > Conflicts may occur if you have more than 1(one).
>> >
>> > http://www.spybot.info/en/index.html
>> >
>> > Spybot Search & Destroy 1.6 is a very good, FREE Anti-Spyware Program.
>> > Download, install, update, and immunize your System with it.
>> > Then SCAN with it.
>> > Update it, and scan your System once a fortnight.
>> >
>> > http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
>> >
>> > SpywareBlaster 4.1 is a non-intrusive, FREE Anti-Spyware Program that
>> > runs
>> > in the background (no scanning by you!).
>> > SpywareBlaster prevents the installation of many so-called spyware,
>> > adware
>> > and malware programs by disabling the CLSIDs of popular spyware ActiveX
>> > controls, and also prevents the installation of any of them via a
>> > webpage
>> > Update it once a fortnight, and let it do its work in the background!
>> >
>> > http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php
>> >
>> > Malwarebytes is as the name says, a Malware Remover!
>> > Download, then update, the FREE version from one of the sites listed
>> > below:
>> >
>> > Download from Download.com
>> > Download from MajorGeeks.com
>> > Download from GT500.org
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia
>> >
>> >
>> > "Dajan" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default
>> >> programs
>> >> enough
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe. Try Avira.
>>
>>

Look at the test results from many antivirustesters. What's wrong with that?
But do whatever you want, I stop with comments on this subject.

 

[The Bee]

Paul Montgomery wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:54:51 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Montgomery" wrote in message
>> news:m693b45tfhgcvvcc0qv91jc3eindb8o7l9@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:59:44 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>>>>
>>>> Looks pretty safe to me.
>>>>
>>>> Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>>>> unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>>>> even though that is actually what you wrote.
>>>>
>>>> I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>>>> many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>>> I just spent the past week looking at McAfee (it's free for Comcast
>>> customers), AVG 8 (I've used AVG in the past), Avira and Avast (I've
>>> been using Avast since AVG 7.5 passed on).
>>>
>>> I rejected McAfee because it produced false positives a couple times,
>>> because it is something of a resource hog compared to the others, and
>>> because it placed a warning icon in my tray to remind me that I'd shut
>>> off email scanning (it uses a proxy for email).
>>>
>>> I rejected AVG because it constantly popped up false-positive messages
>>> about a couple files on my system. Plus I've lost confidence in AVG
>>> because of recent reports of problems with several Windows updates.
>>>
>>> I rejected Avira because of the very irritating nag screen trying to
>>> get me to go with the pro version. Otherwise, it seemed OK.
>>>
>>> So I'm sticking with Avast. - even though it's impossible to stop all
>>> of its operations (if needed) without uninstalling it.
>> You sorta hit the nail on the head there - they all suck one way
>> or another and you have to find which one sucks the least at
>> what you want it to do.
>>
>> I understand there is a way to disable AntiVir's nag screen, but
>> I haven't tried it because I haven't installed AntiVir yet. Both
>> the program and the anti-nag wait in the wings.
>
> Just Googled "disable AntiVir's nag screen".
>
> First hit:
>
> http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm
>
>
>

 

[The Bee]

Flight wrote:
>
>
> "Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
> news:5ee3b45e5ht6mhjhtgqek7j7bk55vbsi6m@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:24:18 -0600, Bruce Chambers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Flight wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
>>>> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
>>>> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
>>>> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!
>>>
>>> Who is "Gizmo," and why should anyone take anything posted on the site
>>> as credible?
>>>
>>> I, for one, certainly wouldn't trust anything found there. They
>>> actually recommend snake-oil products such as memory optimizers and
>>> registry cleaners. Whoever runs that sirte is a very dangerous and
>>> irresponsible person.
>>
>> "Flight" also looks to MythBusters for technology info.
>>
>> "Gizmo"/MythBusters... hey. It don't git no bettah...
>
> They just showed for everyone watching it, that fingerprints can be so
> easily cheated. Nothing else, blundering idiot!

I am telling you now don't get the old man's nose open, because he is
sick in the head, and he doesn't have anything going on in his,
otherwise, old, lonely and loony tune life but Usenet. He is some kind
of kin to Ringmaster Albright. He is just out here attacking people for
no apparent reason, with a lot of lip dribble service. At least with
Ringmaster, he has a mission statement of get Frank, get Microsoft and
get anyone that talks pro on Microsoft, while old man Montgomery is just
loosy as a goosy and out here.

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Flight" wrote in message
news:%23RJ5B8oBJHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "FromTheRafters" schreef in bericht
> news:eno3RWlBJHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Paul Montgomery" wrote in message
>> news:m693b45tfhgcvvcc0qv91jc3eindb8o7l9@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:59:44 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>>>>
>>>>Looks pretty safe to me.
>>>>
>>>>Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>>>>
>>>>Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>>>>unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>>>>even though that is actually what you wrote.
>>>>
>>>>I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>>>>many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>>>
>>> I just spent the past week looking at McAfee (it's free for Comcast
>>> customers), AVG 8 (I've used AVG in the past), Avira and Avast (I've
>>> been using Avast since AVG 7.5 passed on).
>>>
>>> I rejected McAfee because it produced false positives a couple times,
>>> because it is something of a resource hog compared to the others, and
>>> because it placed a warning icon in my tray to remind me that I'd shut
>>> off email scanning (it uses a proxy for email).
>>>
>>> I rejected AVG because it constantly popped up false-positive messages
>>> about a couple files on my system. Plus I've lost confidence in AVG
>>> because of recent reports of problems with several Windows updates.
>>>
>>> I rejected Avira because of the very irritating nag screen trying to
>>> get me to go with the pro version. Otherwise, it seemed OK.
>>>
>>> So I'm sticking with Avast. - even though it's impossible to stop all
>>> of its operations (if needed) without uninstalling it.
>>
>> You sorta hit the nail on the head there - they all suck one way
>> or another and you have to find which one sucks the least at
>> what you want it to do.
>>
>> I understand there is a way to disable AntiVir's nag screen, but
>> I haven't tried it because I haven't installed AntiVir yet. Both
>> the program and the anti-nag wait in the wings.
>>
> "We" want everything for nothing and complain if someone tries to get
> something back for all the work. Ever looked what it really costs? If
> someone rejects a very good working program only because that "nag screen"
> then go on, I won't help you any more.

I am neither complaining nor requiring help. I migrated to free AV
after having used paid-for products in the past. None of the ones
I have used has ever caught malware except Norton 5.0 - which
caught kakworm coming from a microsoft helpdesk after I had
already applied the scriptlet typelib / eyedog patch.

I don't think it is a bad thing to pay for software, and I believe the
free ones are adequate for my low risk data. People with high
value (and hence high risk) data should get payware and make use
of the support it helps pay for.

 

[Paul Montgomery]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:37:44 -0500, Paul Montgomery
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:54:51 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
> wrote:
>>
>>I understand there is a way to disable AntiVir's nag screen, but
>>I haven't tried it because I haven't installed AntiVir yet. Both
>>the program and the anti-nag wait in the wings.
>
>Just Googled "disable AntiVir's nag screen".
>
>First hit:
>
>http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm

The methods to disable the nag screen and the splash screen work.

 

[DDW]

"Flight" wrote:

>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.

When asked whose ass he pulled that one out of, he replied:

>Look at the test results from many antivirustesters.

Didn't cite any, because there aren't any that call Avast "not so
safe".

DDW
--
Reply via this group only
All email will be rejected

 

[jhnlmn]

I cannot figure out what that built-in Vista FW is good for.
All incoming connections are blocked by the router anyway,
and, I heard, that software FW are not as secure as hardware.
But what I really need is control over outgoing connections.
I hate when applications connect to the Web behind my back,
gobble up my net bandwidth, report on my usage patterns,
download and install upgrades without my approval, etc.
So, I used ZoneAlarm for years, but, alas, it is not available
on Vista 64. For now I switched to Comodo. It is much harder
to configure, but appears to be more flexible.


--
jhnlmn

 

[FromTheRafters]

"jhnlmn" wrote in message
news:521a1a20fea2789effd702b9bd29aa98@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> I cannot figure out what that built-in Vista FW is good for.
> All incoming connections are blocked by the router anyway,
> and, I heard, that software FW are not as secure as hardware.

Makes sense for a laptop - where you might not
always be behind *your* router - or I suppose
a desktop setup when *your* router isn't *yours*
anymore due to intrusion.

> But what I really need is control over outgoing connections.

More a want than a need. Outgoing connections come
from software already executing on the machine you
are "protecting" - this is not really a firewall's function.

 

[jhnlmn]

> when *your* router isn't *yours* anymore due to intrusion.

Well, if they managed to hijack your router, then all is lost
and software FW will not help either (neither built-in nor third
party).

But, as I already said, my problem is not with viruses
(the last time I had a real damage from a virus was back in 92),
but with "legitimate" software, such as Acrobat reader,
Media player and many others, which connect to Internet
behind my back without my permission and send who-knows-what
about me to their headquarters. For that reason I never run
a PC without outgoing firewall, which significantly improves
my network connection speed by blocking unwanted connections. It would
be nice if MS will build outgoing FW
into the Windows and protect it from being disabled
the same way as MS protects Vista internal modules from
being overwritten. Until then I have to rely on third party solutions.


--
jhnlmn

 

[FromTheRafters]

"jhnlmn" wrote in message
news:34401be2b7dd8a265f05befca5e6926c@nntp-gateway.com...
>
>> when *your* router isn't *yours* anymore due to intrusion.
>
> Well, if they managed to hijack your router, then all is lost
> and software FW will not help either (neither built-in nor third
> party).

Why do you say that? Just because they have your
router does not mean they have your computer too.
That's a good part of what makes a router a firewall.

> But, as I already said, my problem is not with viruses

Of course not, we were talking about the usefulness of
Windows Firewall if a *real* firewall in the form of a
router was also used. Viruses are not really a firewall
issue - but a network worm may well be thwarted by
the presence of the Windows Firewall in case you find
yourself no longer shielded by the router or other true
firewall appliance.

> (the last time I had a real damage from a virus was back in 92),
> but with "legitimate" software, such as Acrobat reader,
> Media player and many others, which connect to Internet
> behind my back without my permission and send who-knows-what
> about me to their headquarters.

Hmmm...okay... yeah, some people are real sensitive
about that sort of thing.

[snip]

 

[jhnlmn]

> > > >
> > > Well, if they managed to hijack your router, then all is lost
> > > and software FW will not help either (neither built-in nor third
> > > party). > > Why do you say that? Just because they have your
> router does not mean they have your computer too.
> That's a good part of what makes a router a firewall.
>
Well, I am not an expert. My thought was that in order to
reconfigure my router someone should get access to the
password, which is only possible by hijacking my PC
or getting a physical access to both. But if they hijacked
my PC, then they also compromised my software firewall
as well, which is much easier to do than to record a password
for the router. Of course, I ignored the fact that a router
may be buggy and intruder may take advantage of it.
But I didn't hear so far about intruders attacking home
routers, while there is endless stream of attacks on home PCs.
>
> Of course not, we were talking about the usefulness of
> Windows Firewall if a *real* firewall in the form of a
> router was also used.
>
The original question was whether one still needs a third party
firewall in Vista. So, I just tried to explain why I still need one.

>
> Hmmm...okay... yeah, some people are real sensitive
> about that sort of thing.
>
I guess that most of the people simply not aware why their
PCs (and Web browsers) keep slowing down to a crawl.
I have dozens of programs installed and most of them are trying
to check for updates and download huge files behind my back,
install them and reboot my PC - all the time interfering with
my work. I just cannot use PC without an outgoing firewall anymore.


--
jhnlmn

 

[FromTheRafters]

"jhnlmn" wrote in message
news:28e6f9f1411b084de8e1b080c4c2c37c@nntp-gateway.com...
>
>> > > >
>> > > Well, if they managed to hijack your router, then all is lost
>> > > and software FW will not help either (neither built-in nor third
>> > > party). > > Why do you say that? Just because they have your
>> router does not mean they have your computer too.
>> That's a good part of what makes a router a firewall.
>>
> Well, I am not an expert. My thought was that in order to
> reconfigure my router someone should get access to the
> password, which is only possible by hijacking my PC

Generally, routers still have the default user and password.

Mine was user and user.
My neighbors was (okay..still is) user and admin.

http://www.routerpasswords.com/

> or getting a physical access to both. But if they hijacked
> my PC, then they also compromised my software firewall
> as well, which is much easier to do than to record a password
> for the router. Of course, I ignored the fact that a router
> may be buggy and intruder may take advantage of it.
> But I didn't hear so far about intruders attacking home
> routers, while there is endless stream of attacks on home PCs.
>>
>> Of course not, we were talking about the usefulness of
>> Windows Firewall if a *real* firewall in the form of a
>> router was also used.
>>
> The original question was whether one still needs a third party
> firewall in Vista. So, I just tried to explain why I still need one.

I was refering to your first contribution, not the original
post for the thread,

You said in part:

"I cannot figure out what that built-in Vista FW is good for.
All incoming connections are blocked by the router anyway,
and, I heard, that software FW are not as secure as hardware."

Which is correct.

What the software firewall is good for is when you find
yourself *not* behind a real firewall for whatever reasons.

>> Hmmm...okay... yeah, some people are real sensitive
>> about that sort of thing.
>>
> I guess that most of the people simply not aware why their
> PCs (and Web browsers) keep slowing down to a crawl.
> I have dozens of programs installed and most of them are trying
> to check for updates and download huge files behind my back,
> install them and reboot my PC - all the time interfering with
> my work. I just cannot use PC without an outgoing firewall anymore.

Outbound sniffing and filtering would be better applied in an
environment that is not the same environment as that that is
being "protected" by such filtering. It goes for inbound too.

As you said - "...software FW are not as secure as hardware."

Application control and internet access control are nice, but
are not a good security move because malware will be written
to tunnel within the programs that are allowed access. Your
filter software won't alert to them and you will think it is not
happening. So - you will end up in the same situation with the
added overhead of the filtering software running and finding
nothing.

 

[jhnlmn]

>
> Generally, routers still have the default user and password.
> OK, I agree, if someone is so lazy and don't bother to
change the router password, then built-in Vista FW would give some
protection.

>
> Application control and internet access control are nice, but
> are not a good security move because malware will be written
> to tunnel within the programs that are allowed access.
> But who said that app control and FW are for security only?
I already wrote that my biggest problem is not with viruses
but with "legitimate" apps, such as Acrobat, WMP, iTunes, etc,
which manage to slow down my PC and Web connection
almost to a halt. Luckily, these apps are not so devious
and do not perform any tunneling.

>
> So - you will end up in the same situation with the
> added overhead of the filtering software running and finding
> nothing.I admit that I didn't ran any formal benchmarking,
but my feeling is that my PC is running faster with an outbound
FW - at least CPU and network activity indicators do go down
each time I block a third party app from connecting.


--
jhnlmn

 

[FromTheRafters]

"jhnlmn" wrote in message
news:70730a171ea4274724267046147d4783@nntp-gateway.com...
>
>>
>> Generally, routers still have the default user and password.
>> OK, I agree, if someone is so lazy and don't bother to
> change the router password, then built-in Vista FW would give some
> protection.

My broadband cable provider's setup instructions make no
mention of passwords or usernames. I believe that to be the
normal situation. If so, there are many people out there that
fit into your "so lazy" category. I suppose those laptop users
that are too lazy to drag around their personal router/firewall
could also benefit from what you call "built-in Vista FW"?

>> Application control and internet access control are nice, but
>> are not a good security move because malware will be written
>> to tunnel within the programs that are allowed access.

> But who said that app control and FW are for security only?

Nobody, why do you ask? I will say that firewalls *are* for
security and not just 'nice to have' functionality. The features
that became associated with firewalls have become computer
hosted applications that attempt to mimic true firewalls. The
features are okay, but shouldn't be confused with what a real
firewall is.

> I already wrote that my biggest problem is not with viruses

Again, viruses are not addressed by firewalls. Lets not talk
about viruses. I did mention malware though - I suppose that
having unwanted actions by legitimate programs monitored is
a good enough reason for such features as internet access
control. You may not want consent.exe to access the internet
just as you are typing your credentials into the box. But it is
not a firewall thing. It's like saying one word processor is
better than another because it plays music while you type.

> but with "legitimate" apps, such as Acrobat, WMP, iTunes, etc,
> which manage to slow down my PC and Web connection
> almost to a halt. Luckily, these apps are not so devious
> and do not perform any tunneling.

By all means use outbound filtering - especially when you feel
such benefit from it. But it is a shame to have to trade the FW
that came with Vista away just because of that feature. What
Zonealarm should do is make an outbound filtering application
that *isn't* glued to their firewall so that users can keep the
Windows Firewall *and* have the features from Zonealarm
if they value them.

>> So - you will end up in the same situation with the
>> added overhead of the filtering software running and finding
>> nothing.

> I admit that I didn't ran any formal benchmarking,
> but my feeling is that my PC is running faster with an outbound
> FW - at least CPU and network activity indicators do go down
> each time I block a third party app from connecting.

A feeling is good enough for me - benchmarking is overrated.

)

If you can set your router firewall up for logging, see how often
Zonealarm phones home. Does it phone home more often than
the major offender of your legitimate irritations? Block one -
send two of its own?