Norton vs Zone Alarm firewalls

1.) 2.) A number of experts agree that the retail AV version of McAfee, Norton and Trend Micro has become cumbersome and bloated for the average user. The retail version of Norton can play havoc with your pc. Uninstall it using Norton's own uninstall tool get a refund :) As suggested on the site, you may wish to print out the directions before proceeding. Or While Norton's removal tool usually gets the job done, you may also want to go to: download a copy of winsockxpfix just in case. Rarely, the removal of NIS breakes the networking components in XP to the point where internet access is impossible. This little utility will fix it back up.

If the Norton removal tool doesn't work satisfactory use this: Revo Uninstaller Freeware - Remove unwanted programs and traces easily

RegSeeker will remove all associated detritus (registry keys,files and folders) from any application. I found this application user friendly and very effective but suggest *not* to use the 'Clean the Registry' option. Click onto 'Find in registry' and in the 'Search for' box type *Norton*; The pertinent registry keys can then be safely deleted (just in case, ensure that the 'Backup before deletion' is checked). Repeat the task by typing in the Search for' box *Symantec*. You can then go on search and remove associated files as well. Then use NTREGOPT to compact the registry; Follow instructions.

That's correct, steer way from any PFW aka Phoney-Baloney ware and/or Illussion ware. In conjunction with WinXP SP2 Firewall use: Seconfig XP 1.0

XP is able configure Windows not to use TCP/IP as transport protocol for NetBIOS, SMB and RPC, thus leaving TCP/UDP ports 135, 137-139 and 445 (the most exploited Windows networking weak point) closed.) OR Configuring NT-services much more secure.

I'd recomment neither.

No!

Consider this:

1. Do not work as administrator, use limtited user account (LUA) for day-to-day work.
2. Keep your system (and all software on it) patched/updated.
3. Review use of IE and OE.
4. Don't expose services to public networks.
5. For inspirational reading go to:
   formatting link
   Good luck :)

...

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.

The software firewall to do its "job" deeply

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.

In general, the only way to

Blatantly untrue and misinformed information here. It occurs to me that you 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.

Otherwise you may see all

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.

But that should be obviously clear to anyone but those who refuse to read anything and instead barge in like a bull in a china shop, and expect everything to be oh so good for them. Generally very lazy people, plus those with no actual experience but who love to bitch and carp like any good bass turd. Ignorance is bliss for them, but not for long.

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.

Twice you have messed up the system with

Patently untrue. Your misinformation is outdone only by your ignorance of reality. Please adjust your brain.

Again you have no idea what you're talking about but love the little buzzwords you found somewhere and are trying to parrot here.

Completely silly advice and totally unnecessary.

and

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.

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.

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.

Good argument. Very convincing...

Gerald

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.

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.

Why exactly do you need additional tools available from Symantec to uninstall Norton completely from your computer?? Is that untrue?

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.

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?

What is your problem? Do you have anything else to say except personal insults?

If it does not fix itself deeply in the OS as they do they can obviously very easily circumvented.

Do you have any arguments except personal insults?

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?

...

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.

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

care to colaborate what you define as qualitative and quantitative measures ? most personal firewalls are utter crap, heck i've yet to find any good one on windows

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.

Ken

Bert has a bit to say on Zone Alarm. It's not as straight forward as regards your pet hate Norton.

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

f'ups set to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Gerald Vogt wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

No, but it's more reliable, consistant and usually much more dependable.

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.

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.

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`

No flame war intended, Luis. I've apologized and responded to him that if he wishes to debate amicably that's fine with me. I was off target and admit it. See my response if you're curious. We all have those "bad" days I guess.

Regards,

Pop`

"Luis Ortega" wrote in news:rKX1j.43682$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

If you've got malware on your system you're already done, cooked, finished, hacked, and compomised. The ONLY serious remedy at that point is to flatten your system and rebuild it.

Software firewalls are garbage, pure and simple. If it makes you feel better though, use Windows native free firewall.

Do use a NAT router and hardware firewall. You can get these for $100.00 or so.

See:

and Good luck!

ChronJob _____________________________________ "-When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."

They both exactly have the same type of "quality" - the runs.

Yours, VB.

There are very few good reasons to "rebuild" a system. Much better to start with AV and an arsenal of spyware tools to clean things up as much as possible. Results might be faster obtained, too. OTOH it's not "wrong" to rebuild/reinstall, just very seldom necessary. The best solution is to be prepared with images of the system stored away and updated automatically. Then it's a minor detail to put the system back to pre-malware state with a few key clicks.

Nonsense. Once a system got compromised there are virtually no reasons

*not* to flatten and rebuild the system.

cu

59cobalt

Hello Ansgar,

I totally agree. You don't know what else have hitted your system. Do not trust A/V to find everytings.

I had a case about a year ago with Trend OfficeScan - it did not detect a worm that had compromised a system. When we asked support the reply was that OfficeScan only detects viruses, not worms...

Doh

I would not want to run a computer cleaned up "as much as possible" leaving some malware undetected behind because that malware so well hidden is the really dangerous one. A trojan, key logger, similar.

If you use the computer to send a single password, credit card number, or any thing else personal I would never use a computer which is cleaned up "as much as possible".

Either reinstall the computer or restore a 100% sure clean system image. IMHO anything else is bad advice.

Gerald

Haven't rebuild my system since I installed Win98se. When I upgraded to XP I cloned the Win98se partition. Still stable as ****. OK, I do some reg cleaning, but.

Gerald Vogt added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Nice name, Gerald, same as mine! I completely agree with you here. Before I run a periodic image backup with Acronis True Image 9.0, about once every 6-8 weeks, I first do as exhaustive a malware scan as I can including Ad-Aware, Spy Bot, eTrust Pest Patrol, and NAV 2006 (in addition to the latter 2 running all the time) because it makes no sense to image an infected HD. Still, I am never completely sure it is clean, probably I never will be but at least I don't notice any obvious or even subtle signs of an infection.