Zone Alarm

Discussion in 'Windows Live Mail' started by IT05, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. IT05

    IT05 Guest

    1. I'm using ZA with WLM. Dialogue boxes keep popping up showing this
    heading: Zone Alarm Branding. Followed by: We will rename Matador folders to
    Zone Alarm folders.

    2. Is there a need to run ZA eMail filters with Windows Liive Mail. If not,
    I will turn the filterss off.

    3. If it is suggested to run ZA, how can the dialogue box be turned off?

    THANKS FOR THE HELP !!!!
     
    IT05, Aug 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I will go further and suggest that there is no need for ZA.
    Windows Firewall does a pretty decent job.

    Gary VanderMolen
     
    Gary VanderMolen, Aug 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. WTF

    GO AWAY.

    Windows Firewall can not even be compared to Zone alarm... as much as i hate
    ZA, its a much better firewall then the built in crap.
     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Buenas tardes: *Squall Leonhart* escribió:
    I am wondering that, too, every now and then I read one of your posts.
    Is it really necessary to use such language?
    That depends on what you want to accomplish with the firewall. When it
    comes to make sure that no threat from outside reaches your system, the
    Windows Firewall is perfectly right for that job.

    When you want to control software that you installed on your machine in
    the first place to make sure it doesn't "call home", then yes, you would
    want a firewall that filters outbound traffic, which the Windows Firewall
    (in Vista: by default) does not. Thus, the Windows Firewall _never_ causes
    problems in any other application's functionality because it never blocks
    traffic from that app to the internet. A problem that _frequently_ arises
    with third-party firewalls ...

    If you ask for my point of view, I fully agree with Gary.

    Saludos
    Roland
     
    Roland Bierlein, Aug 8, 2007
    #4
  5. heh, sorry, but using the built in firewall is a deathwish, its already been
    proven weak by the known hacker groups.
     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #5
  6. oh, and i use the words WTF to work around swearing, if it bothers you,
    don't read it after the WT.
     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #6
  7. I have not heard anything like this. Any sources, please?

    Saludos
    Roland
     
    Roland Bierlein, Aug 8, 2007
    #7
  8. IT05

    Peter Foldes Guest

    You know what. You seem to act like you all about Firewalls. I got news for you . ZA is not he one that you want . The built in Firewall in Windows is as good if not better than ZA when it comes to WLM.
    BTW. I agree with Gary also
     
    Peter Foldes, Aug 8, 2007
    #8
  9. lol, considering the fact that the firewall engine in ZA is based off of the
    one in Kaspersky, i doubt that greatly.

    ZA just doesn't have as many functions exposed as the others do, but any
    third party firewall is better then the built in one. it seems all the
    idiots are agreeing with Gary, yet aren't posting any obvious proof of thier
    own to state thier reasons as to why the windows fire wall is better, hence,
    i have to state, and only by pure fact due to the spate of recent risings in
    Corporate and personal pc's being hacked by little groups attempting to get
    names for themselves, that the Windows Firewall, is nothing more then a
    condom with a hole in it.


    You know what. You seem to act like you all about Firewalls. I got news for
    you . ZA is not he one that you want . The built in Firewall in Windows is
    as good if not better than ZA when it comes to WLM.
    BTW. I agree with Gary also
     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #9
  10. OK, that's done it. I shall refrain from further communication with you.

    Saludos
    Roland
     
    Roland Bierlein, Aug 8, 2007
    #10
  11. Having a firewall that is the ultimate at stopping hackers is not
    the only consideration. Usability plays a big factor.
    I have tried Zone Alarm a few times, and was always appalled
    at the many false alarms it threw up. The average user will not
    put up with that, and will shut it off.
    Windows Firewall, on the other hand, is well integrated into the
    OS, and doesn't send up an alarm every time the SVCHOST
    process tries to do something legitimate.

    I have been on the Internet daily since before there was a
    worldwide web, and have never been hacked.
    I also use a router with built-in NAT and SPI security.
    I think I'm pretty safe!

    Gary VanderMolen
     
    Gary VanderMolen, Aug 8, 2007
    #11
  12. I'm afraid your intemperate language is not helping your credibility.

    Gary VanderMolen
     
    Gary VanderMolen, Aug 8, 2007
    #12
  13. IT05

    Julian Guest

    That you reply to Peter, with more hearsay, but ignore a post,
    nearly an hour earlier, where Roland asks you to provide a source
    for your allegations, is illuminating.
     
    Julian, Aug 8, 2007
    #13
  14. Roland is on my ignore list.


     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #14
  15. thats different in itself, having both a nat/firewall and a third party
    software firewall is not needed, in fact most companies urge users to only
    get an AV, but in the case that the router does not have a nat/firewall then
    the windows firewall is very lacking in control.

    and no, actually, the general user would rather have 100 notifications,
    whether it be false or not, then use something that gives nearly no
    indication its doing anything.

    its the more advanced users that would get annoyed with these messages,
    when an IS program is not setup properly, it normally does throw up alot of
    false positives, in fact, this was one of the reasons for switching from the
    old engine ZL' used to use, to the KIS based engine,.. it has fixed alot of
    issues that used to exist.

    having a firewall that is integrated into the OS though, can throw up some
    other issues.
    if the SVCHOST is compromised by a virus then it can drop the firewall and
    prevent its use permanently, another problem is if a malicious amout of data
    is sent, the firewall can actually force the svchost to process leak and eat
    up max cpu time,... which quite recently Automatic updates had such an
    issue.

    for anyone that i have installed KIS for, they've been able to learn it
    without much issue, as its pretty straight forward in its setup.
    there was only one real reason i dropped ZA and that was due to it blocking
    something that prevented WLM 8.0 from signing in when Yahoo! Interop beta
    was enabled.

    i believe they've since fixed that.
     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #15
  16. IT05

    Julian Guest

    Yes, dear.
     
    Julian, Aug 8, 2007
    #16
  17. IT05

    N. Miller Guest

    I have not run a third party firewall since before I got a Windows XP
    computer. I only run the Windows firewall because the Windows Security
    Center barks when I turn it off. My router is sufficient protection for
    inbound. *NO* personal firewall, running on the machine is it ostensibly
    protecting, is guaranteed "hack proof". It you don't know that, you don't
    know firewalls at all.
     
    N. Miller, Aug 8, 2007
    #17
  18. IT05

    N. Miller Guest

    Heh. That isn't a "work around". When used in place of, it becomes. You are
    still using crudeness, no matter how much sugar you are using to coat that
    crudeness. And most people see right through it.

    Hmmmm. The same can be said (seeing through the FUD) about your knowledge of
    firewalls.
     
    N. Miller, Aug 8, 2007
    #18
  19. IT05

    N. Miller Guest

    There is no need for ZA email filtering, so turn that off.

    The best way to avoid ZA dialogues it to not use ZA. As with most such
    applications, it takes a conservative approach to application calls to the
    Internet. So, unless you know your applications, and the TCP/IP process
    sufficiently well to customize your permissions in order to avoid the
    dialogues, you just have to deal with them. It is for this reason that I
    have not installed any third party firewall applications on computers I help
    to maintain; I don't want to get a telephone call for every PFW false
    positive; for applications which are barking at the moon.
     
    N. Miller, Aug 8, 2007
    #19
  20. no, but the 100 hackers who were asked to hack Vista's built in firewall to
    prove it was possible gave a few good reasons not to use it.
     
    Squall Leonhart, Aug 8, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.