Zone Alarm (free addition) and Netscape dialup accelerater.

There is life beyond Zone Alarm.

Yours, VB.

Is it possible that it asked you once and you denied it (with the 'remember' check)? Have you gone into 'programs' and looked to see if it is listed, and if it is you can change the setting there. Otherwise, perhaps look around and try some other free firewall(s)? I had some problems with the ZA free version blocking stuff I did not want it to block myself, even after putting the site/host in the trusted zone, somehow it still blocked some packets - this did not help my game let me tell you. I ended up paying for the full suite - seems to work much better - 60-70 bucks, with a possible 30 dollar rebate is not that much, and then if you do have problem(s) you can ask their tech support directly. Plus, of course they are going to make sure that version works*, since that is what they expect to make money on/with. Another thought, have you checked netscapes help page to see if anyone else has had this problem before and what if anything can be done about it?

*Sebastian / Volker / any others - please, no snide remarks about this, if Consumer Reports advises people to run a software firewall, I think they have more respectability than someone that posts here and tells people to turn off their firewall and learn to close services themselves (but does not usually even say how or where to find out how) - not everyone has time or inclination to do such, therefore using a pf is better for them.

If you are skilled enough to install and properly configure a personal firewall you are also skilled enough to be able to shut down services or to run a script that does the job for you.

The advice of consumer reports is not an argument.

Hopefully this was'nt a snide remark.

ArtDent schrieb:

Well, I cannot see any arguments on Consumer Reports, whereas Sebastian and Volker typically provide some. Sometimes it is just a matter of what you want to read.

how often did they post the link

If you have time to order, download and install a personal firewall you also have time to shut down unnecessary Windows services.

So do I :-)

Regards Thomas

Erm... pardon my ignorance please, but what the??? I (and others) should run this instead of that. What is the point then? Instead of running a pf, which will usually check for updates periodically to keep ahead or at least abreast of current 'threats', you are suggesting that I (and others) should run _this program_ instead, once? What about when Windows programs/OS update themselves and reset to their not so secure defaults? Must we run this program/script again then? And, how would we know we needed to if Windows is set for auto updating like _most_ Windows users should have it set for? Again, I am talking about the _normal_ (yes, yes, I know there is no such thing) Windows user, people that are not that computer savvy. If we could indeed keep all ID ten T's off the net, it would be wonderful to the max, but we must live and work in/with the 'real' world where your local auto mechanic or lawyer or doctor or etc. does not feel that they have the time to learn all this 'stuff'. Can we please stop with the elitism I see here so much. I have seen people say that if you can't figure this (shutting down services) out, you should not be on the net, well then, should we say that if you can not dis-assemble and re-assemble your car you should not be driving it? Specialization is the way of the world today. Do you doctor yourself? Do you go to court and represent yourself? No, you go to a 'specialist', which is the equivalent of what a pf is to the average/normal user. Dang, sure hit my button, heh. I apologize if this seems to be pointed at you or anyone in particular, but, as the saying goes - if the shoe fits... I just do not think that such elitist advice is very helpful / productive to the people that are trying to get answers to their questions here and wish it would stop.

That's one reason why I never advise these people to install Zonealarm. If I did then they'd have to spend time learning how to use a complex product which most of them would never be able to understand. This would cause them to get into a worse mess than they were in before they installed the unnecessary personal firewall software, just like the OP has.

It's much better to configure doctor/lawyer/mechanic PCs so that they remain secure without bothering the user (who, as you say, doesn't have time to learn about computer security) with security related questions.

Sometimes this is difficult when the doctor/lawyer/mechanic insists that because all their friends mistakenly think Zonealarm is essential then they must have it too. For some reason they rarely insist on checking whether all updates for all software on the PC are present or whether an administrator account is in use when a user account is all that's required or whether any unnecessary services are exposed to an untrusted network or indeed whether any unnecessary software is installed on the PC and running at each startup. These things are all simple to do, much simpler than understanding how to correctly configure Zonealarm. Do the "Consumer Reports" that you mention advise users to find out how to do any of these simple things? or do they simply say "Install a firewall"?

[Rest snipped]

Jason

First, just fyi, 'Consumer Reports' is a magazine in the US that does not accept any advertising and 'tests' things in their labs and such like. Everything from cars to washing machines to computers and their peripherals. Second, yes, they _told_ people how to do all those things, (not just how to find out how, although I am pretty sure there were useful links for further info) using user accts, etc., the fw section was just that, a section in the whole 'article'. They used language a computer 'noob' would understand, when they introduced a 'new' word, they explained it. They really are a wonderful organization, probably modeled after something people over in Europe have had for ages - we are the 'johnny come latelies' after all. :) They are at

if you care to give them a look. The problem is that not everyone that buys a computer will read that very good article, and if someone comes here and poses a question I think it is better to try to talk with them at the level they seem to put forward, not look down from some lofty perch and yell 'you are not good enough', and spout jargon they probably do not even understand. Hand holding over 'sink or swim'. I mean, hey, it is in our own best interest after all, if we can help keep someones machine from becoming another zombie that spews spam all over the place, I say we make any and every effort to do so, up to and including being 'nice'. Even if we have to grit our teeth to do it. :|

It would be a good idea to ask your question on the ZoneLabs User Forums, or read some posts on the subject there...I remember reading a thread about conflicts between the firewall and some web accelerators. Your ISP's Help page might have some information on the subject, too. Good luck.

charlie R :

ArtDent schrieb:

The point is very simple:

1. A personal firewall can by design not do what it is advertised to do. Why would you think that software A could control software B but not vice versa? As a matter of fact, any well written malware will control the firewall and not the other way round. Note that the author of such malware can even test his code against the firewall (as this is publicly available) whereas the firewall author cannot. So it is much more likely that the malware will control the firewall. Thus, controlling outbound traffic with a personal firewall is just a dream. And if it is about inbound traffic alone, the integrated XP firewall will do just fine.
2. Configuring a packet filter requires even more knowledge about all this computer stuff than stopping unnecessary services. Just clicking on the allow button whenever a process wants to access the internet does not really help. Also, most of your "normal" users will have no idea what is behind the cryptic name of such a process requiring internet access.

No. You should check your services again once you installed a new piece of software. Takes a minute.

see above

That is why I suggest to rather configure the pc than learning a lot about IP and packet filters. It is easier for them.

This is not elitism. This is just pragmatic.

I think that even in your car you should at least understand the basic security mechanisms.

No, the specialist would be somebody who knows about all this stuff and configures it for you. Installing a personal firewall is exactly the equivalent to doctoring yourself or representing yourself at court. Yes, the specialist will ask for some money, but do your doctor or lawyer work for free?

Seems so :-)

I admit that the tone sounds elitistic from time to time but what is wrong if somebody tells a poster that he can achive what he wants

- without paying a dime vs buying a software product

- with more security and control than the software product can offer

- without adding software that uses disk space and consumes resources

- with less learning to do

Yes, installing a personal firewall seems so much easier. But if you want to configure it, it turns out that it is not. And if you don´t configure it, it is useless anyway.

Regards Thomas

I do not agree with this. At least for myself. I find it much easier to only google at need, (if/when get some pop-up from pf) rather than having to search around for all the 'general' info I would otherwise need. Besides, while I am trying to find all this general info, my computer would not be 'protected' as well as I think it should be. Better - in my mind - is to have a pf blocking things until I google them and can then make a knowledgeable decision whether to 'allow' something or 'deny' it. They are making these programs as intuitive as they can, I don't think you can say that about OS's. :)

ArtDent schrieb:

Fine, but who does really do this in real life?

If you really want to "protect" your computer in a hands free and hassle free mode, buy a cheap NAT router. Although not designed as a security device, it will still do the job much better (and with less hassle) than a personal firewall.

Addressing security issues with intuition is not necessarily a good idea ;-)

Regards Thomas

Type computer security in the search box. The third article in the list (when I did it) dated 9/06 is only missing anti-virus software and advice on when/why/how to use a user account instead of an administrator account. Other than that it's fine. No mention of personal firewall software at all.

Jason

In the printed magazine, in the article titled 'Stay Safe Online' - subtitled 'Best Software Tools & Strategies', they list 7 steps to security. Step one is labeled 'Enable existing protection', in there they state, and I quote "Start by activating a firewall", they mention XP's and Mac OS X's built in firewalls, but explain that those only block incoming communications, they go on to say that: "For greater protection, you can also use a firewall that blocks outgoing communications".

Obviously not the same writer as the article I found. What is the date of this issue? September 2006?

Why would a user be expected to enable existing protection? Why wasn't it enabled for them?

I'd like to know how a computer with blocked outgoing communications could do very much on a network. Requesting a web page might be difficult, not to mention an IP address if it's using DHCP.

Ok so maybe I should assume that they meant it only blocks selected outgoing communications based on rules set up by the user. How would the average Windows user know how to correctly set up the rules and what would stop malware changing the rules? What would stop malware making other changes to the firewall or disabling it completely while making it look to the user like it's still working? What would stop malware using communication channels which are not blocked by the firewall? Why is the average personal firewall user not aware of these issues? Why are groups like microsoft.public.security.* full of people who, in many cases, seem to already have personal firewall software but are still in a dazed and confused state about why their computer seems to be possessed?

Jason

Yes, Sept. '06. There are several 'sections' to the whole 'article', and this was/is in the second main section.

I think most new computers nowadays do have it turned on by default, unless they come with some other 'security' software (McAfee, Norton, whatever), which would / should be on instead. They (CR) seemed to be trying to make sure people were aware of it in the first place.

Google? Help files within the program? Yes, I know 'most' or 'average' users won't, but the answers aren't usually too hard to find, all the software can do is make it as easily available as possible, without shoving it in the face of a more advanced user.

I think checksums and maybe 'other' methods, hey, I am not the programmers, I do not know _all_ the inner workings. The obvious (to us) is to be careful and knowledgeable while surfing, checking emails, etc., I'm sure the programmers do all they can, but it does indeed come down to the users behaviour online. No matter if they put brakes on a car, if you fall asleep at the wheel and don't hit them, you will hit that wall in front of you - same for surfing online even with a firewall, it is (supposed to be) subservient to the user, if they don't 'use' it correctly it really isn't the softwares 'fault'.

Program permissions?

Lack of specific education about it? Whether it is the software coporation(s) that does not shout about any possible deficiencies (is there any corp. that does?), or just the user not paying attention to what _is_ reported in the media.

There are indeed people that should not use computers, but until there is some kind of test (like a drivers test for your drivers license) before you are allowed to buy one, any schmuck/bozo/moron/whatever with an IQ under 80, but with the money, can go buy whatever they want. Or, even if they are almost a genius, but know nothing about computers, just that they want one because everyone else has one.

And all we can do is to try to help if / when we can.

[snip]

A minefield of incomprehensible information to the average Windows user if the subject is firewall configuration.

The last time I looked at the help in ZA it wasn't very helpful. As an example it would refer to a box for an IP address and say something like "In this box you enter an IP address".

Why would personal firewall software want the user to understand it? If they understood it they might conclude that they don't need it.

You don't think that Microsoft should fix Internet Explorer then? It is after all the major route that malware takes into a home Windows PC, particularly when Microsoft's implementation of Java is in use.

Windows isn't to blame then? It's either the user's fault or incorrect use of the personal firewal.

We sure don't hear Microsoft shouting about the deficiencies in Internet Explorer.

Why? Why can't they have a computer which doesn't fill up with malware after a few weeks of use?

I'm not sure the car analogy is good one because a properly designed computer for the average user shouldn't be able to hurt anyone else no matter what the user does.

Perhaps they should have been supplied with one which is secure by default and doesn't require detailed knowledge to keep it secure. Instead they get an insecure operating system and some personal bloatware which claims to make it more secure but is actually designed to do little more than sell (make money).

This is not the user's fault and it is definitely not something which can be solved with personal firewall software.

Jason

Me. Am I truly _that_ unique?

We do at the office, where we have dsl. But still run pf's because I can only trust my own 'wisdom', and must even sometimes allow clients to use my computer (guest account of course) to access the internet (Firefox). At home I am still on dial-up, do they make any routers that can handle that? I would still use a pf, but that is just my paranoia over what was pre-installed.

True, but I hope you know I was referring to the 'gui aspect' there and not the inner workings as such.

No, incomprehensible = information which does not associate with anything the reader already knows and thus does not provide them with any additional insight, even if it would provide such insight to a reader who already has suitable existing knowledge. This has nothing to do with being dumb.

No idea. It's been a long time since I last had a PC in front of me with ZA on it. I was going to put ZA on a PC today so I could give a clearer explanation of why I think the built in help is useless, but I think that would be a waste of time. The average Windows user does not understand the help in ZA so I can see no reason why the vendor would wish to improve it.

I think that there is much software out there which is targeted at home Windows users and which would prefer that they spend money on it rather than know how to use it. Getting the user to know how to use it is less important because this is secondary to persuading them to purchase it.

What is this bias? Do you mean I'm biased against products which have only the goal of sales instead of quality or usefulness? If so then ok I'm biased.

So if there were only one major car manufacturer, and if the default configuration of their products was so flawed that the engine fell to pieces after a few weeks, you would not complain to the car manufacturer you would tell car owners that it's up to the manufacturer whether these problems are fixed and that owners should immediately fit a different make of engine?

No doubt these people never question why the manufacturer never fixed the configuration of the existing engine.

I don't think there's any point responding to the rest of your points as you appear to believe that it is Microsoft's job to sell products with a default insecure configuration and the job of other people to fix it with additional software. I don't think anything I can say will change that.

The fantasy computer described at the end of your post does exist in the real world, at least in my real world. I have two computers at home running XP pro SP2 in constant use by three teenagers and their friends. The only firewall on them is the built in one. They do not have any other "protection" software and they do not even have anti-virus software. Both are free of malware. Both use Internet Explorer. I know it will not be possible for you to believe this.

I believe that the best way to control malware is to configure your network/computers/procedures so that you never get it. The best way to deal with it if you do get it at home is to spend a few minutes restoring a drive image. Anyone who can correctly use a personal firewall can also do this but I don't see many people telling home users to make a backup image of their computer. The article I found on your favorite web site does contain advice on backing up to an external drive.

Jason

If you have no anti-virus software, how can you be so sure it is so clean? Not that I am saying it necessarily isn't, just wondering how you would know then. These teenagers and their friends, would you say they are 'average' computer users, like what we have been discussing? Or are they perhaps a bit more knowledgeable than most?

I can believe it, just wondering why, when there are other 'better' browsers available (some for free too). You were the one complaining about it earlier.

Tried to sneak that one in, eh? Procedures. So, the user _does_ matter.

Re-active instead of pro-active? In the meantime, how much spam has the zombie spewed?

Not my 'favorite', just an example of one 'respectable' source that advises using pf's.