ZoneAlarm Pro vs Outpost Pro?

I have ZoneAlarm Pro but am getting sick of it blocking graphics sporadically. How does Outpost Pro compare to ZA Pro? If it offers similar features I would consider switching.

Dan

Both are lying with their "stealthing" feature. Both open popups with confusing messages. Both are vulnerable to the SelfDoS attack. Both fail to stop outgoing communication.

But Outpost breaches security by installing a system service, which is opening windows. This is a design flaw and shows, that Agnitum didn't read or didn't understand the documentation for developing system services of Windows at all.

Consider to use the Windows-Firewall.

Yours, VB.

Volker, NOTHING is Impossible!

Claiming that Windows Firewall is better than Zone Alarm (used properly), indicates that you do not know what you are talking about and posting.

Microsoft itself states that their firewall is not as good as other software on open market.

I have used ZoneAlarm Pro and its Firewall for a long time, and have had no problems with pop-up ads, viruses, worms, downloading graphics, or anything else.

It works just fine for me..

I just had a friend of a friend bring me her computer, it was compromised, and she was running Windows XP + SP2 and using the Windows Firewall. It was a clean install, xp+sp2 and Windows firewall enabled before she connected it to the Internet.

Of all the people I know running Zone Alarm, not one of them has been compromised.

Of all the people I know running just the Windows firewall, all of them have been compromised.

I frequently come across Windows PCs with zonealarm which seem to have more malware than operating system on them. I'm not saying that switching to the Windows firewall would make this any better but personal firewall software in the hands of the average home Windows user does little to improve security in my experience.

I've had an XP PC permanently online for years with just the Windows firewall.

My view is that in the average home situation, all the personal firewall solutions in the world will not stop a Windows PC getting compromised. If the home doesn't have at least one user who knows and cares about the security of the PC then the PC will get compromised.

Jason

The Windows firewall has not been available for years - at least no the SP2 firewall. The old, Pre-SP2, firewall application was not worth using as the exploits and holes in the OS were not fully blocked by ICF.

I do agree that anyone can subvert their firewall policy, but at least with ZA you get some kind of warning and it asks for permission.

Please post anything that proves my statements are incorrect. Site articles from a "reputable" organization or company, not something from your own experience or a no-name site.

Not to mention that fact that he's not proven that third-party firewall products are offer less protection than Windows XP Sp2 Firewall.

Be careful, that's not always a wise thing either. There are times, specifically when a patch does not resolve a issue you are faced with, that installing a patch is best done after testing or if directly needed. As an example, with NT4, Win 2000, XP, etc.... If a patch to resolve sound issues on a Frikaziod sound card comes out, if you don't have such a sound card then you don't need to apply it - and if you do apply it without testing, you could have system problems.

Additionally, when SP2 came out, while it helped security for many, it didn't necessarily increase stability on many XP systems - the security features added by SP2 were also not needed in some environments, and it did cause problems for many applications and some hardware solutions.

A good IT person will test before installing, but will apply what is "need" and not just do a blanket install of all updates. While those that do a blanket install may not see any issues (and I've seen that myself), there are many examples where a security update or other patch have cause a machine/application to fail to work properly.

With that being said, most of our computers are set to auto-update every night between 12AM and 5AM each day, but the servers and key production systems are set to only download the update. We manually test updates on duplicate systems before we permit them to be installed.

Yep, see it all the time, but, after you charge them to fix their computers they start learning rather quickly.

Whether or not that is the case I can see no reason to keep repeating it. It does not make you look any better.

Please consider how statements like this affect your own reputation.

There are so many cultural and other differences between you and Leythos that it would probably be best if you could just ignore each other.

Jason

And VB has not given any proof that the statements are wrong. When I say something it's based on personal experience, not spouting something I read some place. If I'm making a statement it's based on personal experience that I've been able to repeat, experience that I've had numerous times, and I would not make a statement if I didn't have enough experience with a subject to feel comfortable making it as a factual statement.

I stand by the FACT that I've seen ZA provide Better protection to users than Windows SP2 Firewall service.

It may be to you, but if I can see it, experience it, and duplicate it, then it's a fact based on my presentation of that information.

You spout a lot of what others have written and that you've read, but you have no personal experience to back your position - get some and come back to the group.

I can't speak for anyone else but is it possible that this is not what others think? It's not what I think.

LOL you need to live in America for 5 years like I did.

But you are coming across (to me) as someone who believes that another person is stupid and ignorant for the simple reason that they don't agree with you. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone else and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with believing that another person is stupid and ignorant, but if you make statements to this effect in public then your behaviour could be viewed as might be expected from a 10 year old not a university lecturer. The only exception is when you are a politician but no-one believes a word of what politicians say any more anyway.

I don't think you are doing your reputation any good but you are providing plenty of entertainment for other readers.

Jason

Ok so it was called something different when XP was first released.

No firewall is a substitute for installing patches as soon as they become available.

My experience with some home users is that they will just click randomly in an attempt to get rid of the warning message.

Jason

This is just FUD, what "Leythos" is writing. No arguments, no technical details like everytime.

Please consider, that "Leythos" perhaps is just lying.

With the Windows-Firewall enabled after a clean install right before connecting the very first time to the Internet, and without doing dangerous things which have nothing to do with the firewall, like viewing web pages with Internet Explorer, it's just impossible to get compromized.

This is, because the Windows-Firewall filters out everything which is coming from the network, with the exception of those things, you're requesting actively.

So using such a configuration and connecting to the Internet is harmless and secure - until for example you're using Internet Explorer and are watching sites, which try to use one of the well-known holes in Internet Explorer to compromize your system.

Is is exactly the same situation as with Zonealarm.

As a matter of fact, there are no additional security drawbacks with using the Windows-Firewall instead of Zonealarm at all. But the opposite is true: there are security drawbacks to use Zonealarm instead of the Windows- Firewall.

What drawbacks there are, I already explained in my postings here.

Yours, VB.

Jason Edwards wrote: [FUD]

I think, they're not affecting it at all. FUD, "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" are exactly, what "Leythos" is trying to achive with telling a story without any proofs of an user, who connects to the Internet and immediately is infected in spite of using a port filter, which disables any IP based communication until a socket is initiated from the local host to the outside, like the Windows-Firewall does.

This ridiculous story I would not believe, too, if he would tell it about Zonealarm, because also Zonealarm is filtering everything first.

Tiny Firewall in version 6.0 is the only "Personal Firewall" I know, which does not filter everything as default.

I'm doing it already. He answers me, though, and your answer to this I can read again ;-)

But: I don't think, we have cultural differences at all. To believe in advertizing and "real firewalls", to ignore any technical argument and to argue without a clue of the topic is not opening a cultural gap.

It's stupidity, combined with ignorance.

Yours, VB.

Yeah well I can't deny that applying all patches the day they appear is not necessarily a good idea on a production network but this seems to be less of a problem these days than it was a few years ago, at least with Microsoft updates. I don't usually install driver updates without good reason.

This is true but if Microsoft wish to continue doing things this way (and I can see no reason for them to change) then we will always have issues like this.

Home users have little choice but to install what Microsoft tell them they need. I do agree that in a business environment it is a good idea to test updates before rolling them out to users, but any business which does this is likely to have proper firewall/proxy arrangements in place between the users and the Internet so there may be less need to panic about installing the update for the latest unchecked buffer or heap overflow.

I've seen this too but it seems to be happening less frequently now than five years ago and it may be possible to find a workaround. Application vendors don't always test their applications with a pre release version of the latest service pack so problems like this are always possible.

I think this is good advice but it shows that the advice given in any particular situation has to be tailored to that particular situation. A good IT person has seen many different situations both home and business and can thus give advice which is best suited to a particular situation instead of giving the same advice to anyone they come across.

Some of them do but I find that these are the ones who would have learned anyway if only they had known how to find the information they need. Home users are sometimes amazed at what can be found with a search engine if only someone would show them how to use it. Then there are others who will do their best to listen but can't relate anything you tell them to anything they already know, so it's forgotten as soon as you leave.

Jason

No. This is not the reason, why I'm thinking so.

First there is a difference between opinions and facts.

To discuss facts is completely useless. To discuss opinions is interesting, and sometimes two people with different opinions will not come together, but both learning from a discussion.

"This is not a real firewall!!!11!!11" is not a fact. But it is not a well expressed opinion, too, because when I'm asking "why do you think so" and there is no reason at all, then it's just stupidity.

And, no, "you would know this if you would know anything about security!!11!!" is not a reason at all, too.

To deny facts is ignorance. It is ignorance to deny, that the Windows firewall just ist a configuration tool for Windows' kernel packet filter.

It's just a fact. So why arguing on it?

"It is bad!!!!!11!!!111" is not a well expressed opinion, though. When I'm asking, "why do you think so", and there are no reasons at all, then it's just stupidity, too.

"I don't like that the Windows-Firewall is dropping every TCP SYN in the default configuration, and not sending RST" is an argument for the opinion "I like Kerio more than the Windows-Firewall", for example.

"I like Kerio more than the Windows-Firewall" is an opinion then.

"Kerio's packet filter is much easier to customize than the one of the Windows-Firewall" would be another reason for this opinion.

I don't have this opinion, but I could accept, if someone would argue like that, and would tell me his opinion.

"Because" is not enough for a reason - this needs an addition. ;-)

In comp.security.* I'd like to talk based on facts, and expressing opinions and concepts.

What "Leythos" is babbling here, is on the niveau of a regulars' table chat.

Yours, VB.