Norton vs Zone Alarm firewalls
in [Firewalls]
|
From: Gerald Vogt on 24 Nov 2007 22:48 On Nov 25, 10:34 am, "Poprivet" <popri...(a)devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: > Gerald Vogt wrote: > > On Nov 24, 8:31 pm, "Luis Ortega" <lort...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > ... > > > It is actually also a bad idea to install more then one software > > firewall on a computer. > > No, it's a bad idea to RUN more than one firewall at a time. Have fun > removing XP's firewall if that's how you operate. Why do you want to remove the XP firewall? Installing more then one (i.e. two or more) software firewall on a computer (i.e. in addition to the XP firewall) is not really useful. > The software firewall to do its "job" deeply > > > integrates/messes with the Windows system. > > Actually, what it does is sit and monitor what goes in/out (sometimes only > in), compare it against its rules, and send messages appropriately to/from > the system. It does not "integrate" into the OS. Exactly. It does not integrate. That's why it is so difficult to uninstall that stuff afterwards??? A software firewall wants to provide security. For that it must establish itself somewhere deep in the OS to prevent evasion or the ability to turn it off quickly. > In general, the only way to > > > get properly rid of an installed (single) software firewall on a > > Windows system is to reinstall the system. > > Blatantly untrue and misinformed information here. It occurs to me that you Why exactly do you need additional tools available from Symantec to uninstall Norton completely from your computer?? Is that untrue? > are doing no more than parroting what you think you have read and have > little to no experience in such matters. OR, you refuse RTFM and can not, > will not do things correctly. All the good ones come with perfectly > readable, understandable, concise information and instructions, including > removal instructions. Failing that, you can always go online to their site > and get the information again should you lose track of it. There is an uninstaller available. That does something but not everything. Why again does it happen to so many people that there networking still does not work correctly after they have uninstalled ZoneAlarm? The stupid uninstaller forgot to remove the proxy setting in the internet settings... Hic. It was just not built to be uninstalled. > Otherwise you may see all > > > kinds of issues after the uninstallation plus usually not everything > > is gone after the standard deinstallation from the software wizard. > > Not "everything" is "gone" after almost ANY uninstall of almost ANY > software. There are some good and some not so good reasons for that but > I'll not go into them because I can feel the hardness of your skull from > here. O.K. What was exactly the good reasons why some uninstallers forgot to remove the proxy setting in the internet options which prevented people to use the internet after uninstallation? > > Now make the math: you have already installed two firewalls on your > > computer. (The Windows XP firewall is part of the OS that's why it > > does not cause issues here). > > That's not what you said earlier, and it's not correct. You have little to > no knowledge of the SP firewall and/or other software firewalls and probably > even less on hardware firewalls. What is your problem? Do you have anything else to say except personal insults? > Twice you have messed up the system with > > > an installation of a software firewall. Both try to hook into the > > system to do their job and to make them fixed into the system so that > > other malware does not accidentally removes the firewall software. > > Patently untrue. Your misinformation is outdone only by your ignorance of > reality. Please adjust your brain. If it does not fix itself deeply in the OS as they do they can obviously very easily circumvented. > > It is even now impossible to say whether any of those two firewalls > > operates correctly if turned on. Norton may well have removed some of > > the hooks which ZoneAlarm installed which ZoneAlarm did not notice. Or > > well, maybe ZoneAlarm noticed some of those changes and reverted them > > back removing Norton hooks... > > Again you have no idea what you're talking about but love the little > buzzwords you found somewhere and are trying to parrot here. Do you have any arguments except personal insults? > > learn a little about computer security and how to keep your computer > > secure by what you DO instead of what you INSTALL. It is not so > > complicated and still human beings are more intelligent than some > > piece of software. It is possible to run a computer without any > > firewall running and without getting infected with malware. But > > obviously, this last statement does not sell good that's why you find > > a lot of opposite (well sponsored) statements. > > Wow, that's so full of misinformed content and reasoning that even your > attempt at rationalizing failed to anyone with even a modest idea of the > reality of this situation. No argument. Personal insult. What are you trying to say: * A software is more intelligent than a human being? * It is more effective to use some security software then to learn something about security and to be careful while in the internet? * It is not possible to run a computer securely connected to the internet without any antivirus and firewall? .... > > At the current stage I doubt you will be able to get any of those > > firewalls removed from your system without damage to the system... > > It's very obvious that what you think is irrelevant to anything, probably in > most of your life in fact, not just this one circumstance. First you have > to learn to recognize reality, then you need to get some education about > things you wish to profess, acquire a few interpersonal skills, and then > gain some experience. Then you might be close to getting ready to respond > to the OP's question, which you have not answered clearly. The amount of personal insults and the lack of argument in your post makes me thinking your lack a few interpersonal skills and some experience. > Thanks for the entertainment; I needed the break. But I meant what I said > here; you really aren't ready to respond to questions on newsgroups. Quit > being a parrot and face reality; only then will you actually understand the > pros and cons of what you've been attempting to make others think you know. You are the parrot here. You just write what everybody else repeats all the timing withing thinking. "You must install AV. You must install PFW." That of course is not entertaining but boring. Face reality. It is possible without AV and with PFW. Gerald
From: Luis Ortega on 25 Nov 2007 05:46 "Gerald Vogt" <vogt(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message news:1e07da14-2fc4-452d-a98c- > The amount of personal insults and the lack of argument in your post > makes me thinking your lack a few interpersonal skills and some > experience. > >> Thanks for the entertainment; I needed the break. But I meant what I >> said >> here; you really aren't ready to respond to questions on newsgroups. >> Quit >> being a parrot and face reality; only then will you actually understand >> the >> pros and cons of what you've been attempting to make others think you >> know. > > You are the parrot here. You just write what everybody else repeats > all the timing withing thinking. > > Face reality. It is possible without AV and with PFW. > > Gerald Please, there is no need for you guys to get into a flame war over my post. I understand that you are trying to be helpful, but I have to disagree with you on the points that you have to reinstall windows to uninstall security software or that running a windows system without av or pfw is a good idea. I appreciate all the advice and thank everyone for their help.
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers on 25 Nov 2007 06:50 In comp.security.firewalls Poprivet <poprivet(a)devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: > Gerald Vogt wrote: >> On Nov 25, 12:49 am, "Luis Ortega" <lort...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> Thanks. My understanding of router firewalls is that they only block >>> incoming traffic and if there is some malware on the system then >>> outgoing stuff is not blocked. Is that correct? >> >> Correct. But software firewalls only detect outgoing traffic if the >> malware is so nice/dumb to be detected. And even if it is detected >> and something is blocked it does not mean it does not send anything >> out because there are various ways to send something out even with a >> firewall installed (through your browser, through DNS, etc. all >> things you use and need to browse the internet for instance.) >> >> It would be more effective for your overall security if you have >> learned how to prevent malware on your computer in the first place. >> And this mostly depends on what you do and not with some security >> software you install. > > Whaaat? Sober up! Unlike yourself Gerald knows what he's talking about. It's utterly pointless to try and confine malware once it's already running on a system (even more if the user has admin privileges). The only reasonable way to deal with malware is to prevent it from being run in the first place. That's what AV software or Windows' System Restriction Policies are doing. And what Personal Firewalls fail to do. Why don't you try getting a clue instead of making a fool of yourself? cu 59cobalt -- "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution." --Mark Russinovich
From: Gerry on 25 Nov 2007 05:53 Ken Bert has a bit to say on Zone Alarm. It's not as straight forward as regards your pet hate Norton. http://bertk.mvps.org/html/srfail.html -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:24:44 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> Ken >> >> Are you using System Restore? > > > It's on. I've restored from it a couple of times, on my XP machines, > where ZA is running.. I've never had a problem or conflict between it > and ZA. > > >> Have you ever noticed any outbound traffic >> being stopped by Zone Alarm? > > > Not that I remember. > > >> Does Zone alarm stop malware phoning home? > > > That's the theory. Some dispute it. I can't say from my own > experience, since I've never had any malware installed here. > > > >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:49:43 GMT, "Luis Ortega" >>> <lortega(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks. My understanding of router firewalls is that they only >>>> block incoming traffic and if there is some malware on the system >>>> then outgoing stuff is not blocked. Is that correct? >>> >>> >>> Yes, it's correct. The same is true of the built-in Windows >>> firewall; it too is inbound only. >>> >>> However many knowledgeable people feel that monitoring outbound >>> traffic adds little or nothing to the effectiveness of the firewall. >>> >>> I'm personally not convinced that either point of view is absolutely >>> right, but as a precaution, I use the free ZA in addition to what my >>> router does. My guess is that any extra protection I'm adding is >>> slight, but on the other hand, the hit on performance by having it >>> running appears to be slight too. >>> >>> >>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake(a)this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in >>>> message news:duegk35uco6l75o5klqmor4hmq3tu3drk0(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:31:59 GMT, "Luis Ortega" >>>>> <lortega(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My Zone Alarm Pro firewall subscription expires in a few days >>>>>> and I recently >>>>>> bought a Norton Internet Security 2008 package >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A bad mistake, in my view. Norton is the *worst* security product >>>>> on the market. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> that contains a firewall. >>>>>> I currently have the Norton firewall turned off and just use the >>>>>> Zone Alarm >>>>>> Pro firewall. >>>>>> I don't use the Win XP firewall because I heard that it's not a >>>>>> good idea to >>>>>> have several firewall on at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's correct. You should run only a single software firewall. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We get internet through a Belkin pre-N wireless router that is >>>>>> supposed to >>>>>> have some sort of firewall built in and that one is turned on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> My computer connects to the router with an ethernet cable and my >>>>>> son's computer uses a Belkin N usb wireless adapter. They both >>>>>> have the same current setup I describe regarding firewalls. >>>>>> Can anyone please advise on whether the Zone Alarm Pro firewall >>>>>> is any better than the Norton firewall in my situation? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My view, as I said above, is that almost any other product is >>>>> better than Norton anything. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Should I renew the Zone Alarm Pro subscription or uninstall it >>>>>> when it expires and turn on the Norton firewall? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those are only two of your many choices. I would use ZA in >>>>> preference to Norton, but I would also use ZA free rather than ZA >>>>> Pro. I don't think Pro is worth the money. >>>>> >>>>> You could also use the built-in Windows firewall instead of >>>>> either. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, note that with your router, any software firewall adds >>>>> very little to your protection. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User >>>>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
From: Poprivet` on 25 Nov 2007 16:19
f'ups set to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Gerald Vogt wrote: > On Nov 25, 10:34 am, "Poprivet" <popri...(a)devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: >> Gerald Vogt wrote: >>> On Nov 24, 8:31 pm, "Luis Ortega" <lort...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >> ... >> >>> It is actually also a bad idea to install more then one software >>> firewall on a computer. >> >> No, it's a bad idea to RUN more than one firewall at a time. Have >> fun removing XP's firewall if that's how you operate. > > Why do you want to remove the XP firewall? Installing more then one > (i.e. two or more) software firewall on a computer (i.e. in addition > to the XP firewall) is not really useful. > >> The software firewall to do its "job" deeply >> >>> integrates/messes with the Windows system. >> >> Actually, what it does is sit and monitor what goes in/out >> (sometimes only in), compare it against its rules, and send messages >> appropriately to/from the system. It does not "integrate" into the >> OS. > > Exactly. It does not integrate. That's why it is so difficult to > uninstall that stuff afterwards??? No, not really. If your questions are serious, I'll go thru here and give you what I have experience and knowledge with, so maybe that'll help. "Integrate" means to essentially become a part of. However, I do understand that the term is used very loosely by many people. AV sw looks into, and captures, system communications in order to monitor and function. Depending on what you've asked it to do, some of those can be more than just inserting itself in between your internet connection and your email client of browser, which is where most of the detection is done. > > A software firewall wants to provide security. For that it must > establish itself somewhere deep in the OS to prevent evasion or the > ability to turn it off quickly. > >> In general, the only way to >> >>> get properly rid of an installed (single) software firewall on a >>> Windows system is to reinstall the system. >> >> Blatantly untrue and misinformed information here. It occurs to me >> that you > > Why exactly do you need additional tools available from Symantec to > uninstall Norton completely from your computer?? Is that untrue? No, it's definitely true! There are some silly reasons and some good reasons for it. The silly reason is that you might want to reinstall it in the future and that way it preserves all your settings and things should you reinstall it to "fix" a file corruption or whatever. But if your aim is to get it off your computer, it's a pia. The good reason is that the way theyve chosen to install files and where to put them isn't tracked well by XP nor Norton, and can be a very considerable amount of data. This is some of the "bloatware" that people often refer to, but only a piece of it. The "big deal" is that Norton creates a LOT of files "on the fly" and only Norton knows the best way to rid a system of everything so that it won't interfere with anything later. Sucks, and I hate it, but that's how it is. FWIW, the methodology Norton uses isn't particular to them; many other applications do the same thing for basically the same reasons. IMO it's mostly because of the rush to market, inability to be sure of MS's various proprietary areas and what it's doing, and a few others but I'd be rationalizing and want to stop here with that thought. In reality, this "tool" should have been part of the installation but if you notice, Norton (and others) must look at your installations to be able to give you the correct tool to use. So, it's obviously not something simple and is widespread. I think really, in Norton's case, it's a matter of rush to market after having coded themselves into a corner over the years and of course, when Symantec bought Norton, the problem only got worse because the Norton SW coders didn't go with it and they had to relearn it from scratch. So now they have a mess to work themselves out of. OTOH, I find the products bug free and fully functional so I've stuck with them since I have a well managed and maintained system. I've never had any serious problems with Norton (I use SystemWorks) and the only reason I'd leave them would be over money. Which is an event in progress; their virus subscriptions are getting pretty expensive and considering the other protections I have, I may forego Norton when my subscription is up next year. As for bloatware, it probaby is, and as for slowing down a system, there is only one part of their apps that I've noticed slows anything down; that is their GoBack. It works wonderfully and I used it to great advantage until I got backup imaging applications running, after which I dispensed with it. It did slow down boot and shut-down times although I never noticed any other delays it caused. Others will tell you differently but in my circle of friends and acquaintances, we all have pretty much the same experiences. > >> are doing no more than parroting what you think you have read and >> have little to no experience in such matters. OR, you refuse RTFM >> and can not, will not do things correctly. All the good ones come >> with perfectly readable, understandable, concise information and >> instructions, including removal instructions. Failing that, you can >> always go online to their site and get the information again should >> you lose track of it. > > There is an uninstaller available. That does something but not > everything. Why again does it happen to so many people that there > networking still does not work correctly after they have uninstalled > ZoneAlarm? The stupid uninstaller forgot to remove the proxy setting > in the internet settings... Hic. It was just not built to be > uninstalled. I can't answer that one because I don't have any issues with it. I use ZoneAlarm Pro after using the free version for a long time, and never had issues with it. The proxy I use is a very simple one, and my LAN is small, so maybe that has soemthing to do with it. I'd probably start at ZA and if there's any good reason for it, I'm sure they have it covered there. I've no idea whether it's a Norton or a ZA issue so ... can't say anything here. > >> Otherwise you may see all >> >>> kinds of issues after the uninstallation plus usually not everything >>> is gone after the standard deinstallation from the software wizard. >> >> Not "everything" is "gone" after almost ANY uninstall of almost ANY >> software. There are some good and some not so good reasons for that >> but I'll not go into them because I can feel the hardness of your >> skull from here. > > O.K. What was exactly the good reasons why some uninstallers forgot to > remove the proxy setting in the internet options which prevented > people to use the internet after uninstallation? As I've said above, I have no experience with that. My most recent removal of Norton was a few weeks ago in order to try out the free NIS my ISP was offering, but it also wanted me to remove ZoneAlarm before it'd install, so that that says there IS some truth to what you're alleging. But if it's not Norton's proxy, I wouldn't expect it to fix anything that ZA did and vice versa. It does however, appear to be covered in the documentation. I read that I should uninstall ZA, but didn't, and NIS just refused to install until I did uninstall it. AFter the install, I reinstalled ZA and all was fine. Again though, I see the same things in other applications and not always explained or recognized. Norton at least controlled the sitiation with NIS 2007. I had no issues at all uninstalling it and reinstalling my SystemWorks 2006. So, that's the extent of my experience there. Sorry. > >>> Now make the math: you have already installed two firewalls on your >>> computer. (The Windows XP firewall is part of the OS that's why it >>> does not cause issues here). >> >> That's not what you said earlier, and it's not correct. You have >> little to no knowledge of the SP firewall and/or other software >> firewalls and probably even less on hardware firewalls. > > What is your problem? Do you have anything else to say except > personal insults? I simply believe that inconsistancies and misinformation are bad, very bad, in a public place because too many newbies will hook onto the one they like the best and remember that instead of the more accurate assessments. I think I've said a LOT other than insults, and if you find them personal, you need a slightly thicker skin. I'm gentle by many standards but I do say what I think and mean what I say. If I'm wrong then so be it; I'm not afraid to say so, and if you're actually reading this, I guess I was wrong and apologize for that. I felt that the misinformation needed to be pointed out, in particular, and wanted it to stop. > >> Twice you have messed up the system with >> >>> an installation of a software firewall. Both try to hook into the >>> system to do their job and to make them fixed into the system so >>> that other malware does not accidentally removes the firewall >>> software. >> >> Patently untrue. Your misinformation is outdone only by your >> ignorance of reality. Please adjust your brain. > > If it does not fix itself deeply in the OS as they do they can > obviously very easily circumvented. Hmm, that's a sort of semantics thing I think, depending on what one considers the meaning of those words in that context. What you mean is probably correct as far as it goes. It's not the "deepness" but the logic and points of the application's connection that are important, along with what it does with such information of course. But I'm rationalizing, something I abhor, so ... <g> > >>> It is even now impossible to say whether any of those two firewalls >>> operates correctly if turned on. Norton may well have removed some >>> of the hooks which ZoneAlarm installed which ZoneAlarm did not >>> notice. Or well, maybe ZoneAlarm noticed some of those changes and >>> reverted them back removing Norton hooks... >> >> Again you have no idea what you're talking about but love the little >> buzzwords you found somewhere and are trying to parrot here. > > Do you have any arguments except personal insults? > >>> learn a little about computer security and how to keep your computer >>> secure by what you DO instead of what you INSTALL. It is not so >>> complicated and still human beings are more intelligent than some >>> piece of software. It is possible to run a computer without any >>> firewall running and without getting infected with malware. But >>> obviously, this last statement does not sell good that's why you >>> find a lot of opposite (well sponsored) statements. >> >> Wow, that's so full of misinformed content and reasoning that even >> your attempt at rationalizing failed to anyone with even a modest >> idea of the reality of this situation. > > No argument. Personal insult. What are you trying to say: > > * A software is more intelligent than a human being? No, but it's more reliable, consistant and usually much more dependable. > > * It is more effective to use some security software then to learn > something about security and to be careful while in the internet? > > * It is not possible to run a computer securely connected to the > internet without any antivirus and firewall? Not really. Within minutes, the "noise" of the internet is likely to discover one or more of your open ports and start testing them. One can literally become infected with a virus or spyware within minutes of accessing the internet without some sort of protection in place, especially considering all of the "noise" looking for you are covert in nature and aren't going to announce themselves. You'll find very, very few recommendations to EVER connect to the 'net without some sort of protection installed. If fact, if you find such a site saying you can connect safely, get the hell away from them; they are likely already probing you. It can ruin a good afternoon of rebuilding a system. There's a little hype involved, but if you'd like to see what's happening on your machine and who can see what in and on it, visit grc.com and let them run a few tests on you ports. In my current configuration, I'm fully "stealthed", meaning no one on the 'net can see me in any way. That's the target to shoot for. It's a free service, and pretty good. There are others also but I like grc. > > ... > >>> At the current stage I doubt you will be able to get any of those >>> firewalls removed from your system without damage to the system... >> >> It's very obvious that what you think is irrelevant to anything, >> probably in most of your life in fact, not just this one >> circumstance. First you have to learn to recognize reality, then >> you need to get some education about things you wish to profess, >> acquire a few interpersonal skills, and then gain some experience. >> Then you might be close to getting ready to respond to the OP's >> question, which you have not answered clearly. > > The amount of personal insults and the lack of argument in your post > makes me thinking your lack a few interpersonal skills and some > experience. Very possible, and a fair shot! I obviously could/should have chosen my words much better than I did. My apologies if you felt attacked; it wasn't really my intent nor was it deserved; but I guess Freud was at work. > >> Thanks for the entertainment; I needed the break. But I meant what >> I said here; you really aren't ready to respond to questions on >> newsgroups. Quit being a parrot and face reality; only then will >> you actually understand the pros and cons of what you've been >> attempting to make others think you know. > > You are the parrot here. You just write what everybody else repeats > all the timing withing thinking. > > "You must install AV. You must install PFW." > > That of course is not entertaining but boring. > > Face reality. It is possible without AV and with PFW. No idea where PFW came from; that's a product I don't use but is still a viable firewall. If you're really sans firewall and antivirus software, you're going to understand soon enough; that's about all I can say. I do apologize if you felt attacked. I'm more than willing to discuss things amicabley. If you're just trolling though, I'm done. Cheers, Pop` > > Gerald |