Norton vs Zone Alarm firewalls

[Luis Ortega]

My Zone Alarm Pro firewall subscription expires in a few days and I recently
bought a Norton Internet Security 2008 package 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.
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.
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?
Should I renew the Zone Alarm Pro subscription or uninstall it when it
expires and turn on the Norton firewall?
Thanks for any advice.

 

[John]

My Zone Alarm Pro firewall subscription expires in a few days and I recently
bought a Norton Internet Security 2008 package 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.
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.
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?
Should I renew the Zone Alarm Pro subscription or uninstall it when it
expires and turn on the Norton firewall?
Thanks for any advice.

Good luck if you should decide to try and uninstall Norton.

John.

 

[Luis Ortega]

You don't understand.
I'm not trying to uninstall Norton, I'm wondering whether to renew the Zone
alarm if Norton already comes with a firewall. I'm interested to know which
might be the better firewall.
Does anyone have any relevant advice on this?

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Luis Ortega added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

You don't understand.
I'm not trying to uninstall Norton, I'm wondering whether to
renew the Zone alarm if Norton already comes with a firewall.
I'm interested to know which might be the better firewall.
Does anyone have any relevant advice on this?

The person who replied to you is warning you that it can be
problematical to effectively get 100% rid of any Symantec
product. I have System Works 2006 and understand its limitations
and I think I know what to do if I want to uninstall it, but I
wouldn't want Norton Internet Security on my PC - it is too all-
invasive. Now, it has happened to me and I've read of others
having similar experiences, if you DO need or want to fully
uninstall Norton/Symantec products, you almost always need to use
their uninstall cleanup utility after you uninstall it in
Add/Remove programs. I have also found that I must go through my
Registry looking for orphan keys or entries and kill them, else I
have problems with the new utility I'm trying to install. Now,
what I DON'T know is if I ever really got rid of all the crap.

I personally run eTrust Pest Patrol and the commercial Zone
Alarm. Yes, annual subscriptions for these are getting prices as
is a NAV subscriptions. But, one has to decide for themselves how
much money to spend on peace of mind. As to MS's XP SP2 firewall,
it might be OK if it were at all reasonable to set it up to
properly monitor all of the inbound and outbound ports on your PC
and do anywhere near as effect a job on watching for bad guys as
does Pest Patrol and ZA. Now, ZA is a bit annoying with its
constant "do you want to allow or block this, or that", but I
actually like to SEE what it thinks is a risk than to go blithely
on my way ignorant of what is happening around me.

Your choice, and I'll add a "good luck", you may need it!

 

[Luis Ortega]

Thanks, but that's not what I'm asking or even interested in.

 

[badgolferman]

My Zone Alarm Pro firewall subscription expires in a few days and I
recently bought a Norton Internet Security 2008 package 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. 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. 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?
Should I renew the Zone Alarm Pro subscription or uninstall it when
it expires and turn on the Norton firewall? Thanks for any advice.

A couple of years ago Norton took over one of the smaller firewall
software companies and integrated it into their own product. The name
escapes me at this time. I am sure either will be adequate for your
peace of mind, but not necessarily in reality. If you are comfortable
with ZA then upgrade your subscription. If you have already paid for
the NIS then you will be wasting your money, but that is your decision.

You are probably getting more protection from your NAT-enabled router
than from either one of those products. But then again I am no expert
so do what seems right to you.

 

[Milt]

Luis,

The people here are talking religion, not science. There are as many
opinions about firewalls as there are people here. I believe that the truth
is....most of them work pretty well.

You should have one "hardware" firewall. That's the one in your router. And
you should have one "software" firewall. That's your Norton or Zone Alarm.
I've used Zone Alarm, Norton and Windows firewalls. And I also use the
hardware firewall in my Netgear router.

I've tested all three software firewalls using Gibson Research Shields Up
free online utility. It's at https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 Each of
the three firewalls showed the same results; "No Ports Visible".

I suppose that some attacks can get through one or another of the firewalls.
But I suspect each one has strengths and weaknesses.

Zone Alarm does monitor both inbound and outbound traffic. I supose that's
an advantage. But it's also more of a nuisance to use. And it will cost you
extra. (As I said, I'm now using Symantec's AV software, which came as part
of my Norton Antivirus.)

Milt

Thanks, but that's not what I'm asking or even interested in.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Luis Ortega added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Thanks, but that's not what I'm asking or even interested in.

I know it's not but you responded negatively to the person who
warned you about Symantec and I wanted to let you know what this
is all about. How and where you spend your money is of no concern
of mine, just don't come crying here if you hose your system
after having been warned. Now, as to Norton vs. Zone Alarm vs.
XP's firewall, unless you're into marketing hype, ZA has NIS beat
hands down by any qualitative or quantitative measure, including
independent testing and owner experience. Now I'm sure of it: you
really do need good luck!

 

[bojimbo26]

My Zone Alarm Pro firewall subscription expires in a few days and I recently
bought a Norton Internet Security 2008 package 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.
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.
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?
Should I renew the Zone Alarm Pro subscription or uninstall it when it
expires and turn on the Norton firewall?
Thanks for any advice.

Many a computer * screwup * is caused by Norton .

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

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.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

=?Utf-8?B?TWlsdA==?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

Luis,

The people here are talking religion, not science. There are
as many opinions about firewalls as there are people here. I
believe that the truth is....most of them work pretty well.

You should have one "hardware" firewall. That's the one in
your router. And you should have one "software" firewall.
That's your Norton or Zone Alarm. I've used Zone Alarm, Norton
and Windows firewalls. And I also use the hardware firewall in
my Netgear router.

I've tested all three software firewalls using Gibson Research
Shields Up free online utility. It's at
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 Each of the three
firewalls showed the same results; "No Ports Visible".

I suppose that some attacks can get through one or another of
the firewalls. But I suspect each one has strengths and
weaknesses.

Zone Alarm does monitor both inbound and outbound traffic. I
supose that's an advantage. But it's also more of a nuisance
to use. And it will cost you extra. (As I said, I'm now using
Symantec's AV software, which came as part of my Norton
Antivirus.)

ZA is indeed a nuisance but since it monitors both inbound and
outbound traffic, I am more than willing to put up with the
occasional teaching dialog box. And, since the main reason I
bought it in the first place was that I had evidence that my PC
had been/was being compromised, I needed to know if anything were
attempting to take something out.

Then, too, there's one other thing anyone can easily do when not
actually using a broadbaand always-on connection to the Wild Wild
West, and that is to simply put the cable modem into stand-by
mode which completely cuts off traffic in or out. As to a NAT-
capable router, that is certainly the MINimum I would recommend
but it is far too easy for even mildly sophisticated bad guys to
bypass as it is equally almost trivial to get malware such as
spyware, keyloggers, mouse click loggers, web site loggers, and
the like past even the most diligent Internet safety savvy users,
much less them who are basically oblivious to the dangers which
are increasing at an alarming rate.

About the only thing I don't have myself nor recommend to the
average non-business user with only nominal confidential data on
their HD is a true proxy server or HW firewall. They're just too
expensive for the marginal - IMO - increase in overall security.

I remember from my professional info security days hearing a
saying that I think is even truer today than it was 6-10 years
ago - "there are only 2 kinds of people who've never been
compromised, the arrogant and the ignorant."

Milt

 

[Luis Ortega]

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?

 

[Luis Ortega]

Thanks.
Are you guys saying that the Norton firewall doesn't monitor outbound
traffic while the ZA does?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

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.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Luis Ortega added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Thanks.
Are you guys saying that the Norton firewall doesn't monitor
outbound traffic while the ZA does?

I can't speak definitely about NIS nor do I have any personal
experience with it, but ZA definitely DOES monitor traffic both in
and out.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Luis Ortega added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

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?

Again, can't speak definitely if a NAT router can or cannot
monitor/block outgoing but it can do a modicum job on incoming.
There ARE some caveats, though, such as you MUST make sure that
it has been properly set-up in the first place to monitor
incoming traffic on ports you're interested in and you MUST make
sure from time-to-time that your set-up hasn't been lost. I lost
mine inadvertantly during one of many short power hits where I
live.

But, even if a "good" NAT router is properly set-up and monitored
to ensure continuing protection, it's overall protection from an
even moderately knowledgeable bad guy is pretty minimal. If you
have ANY fears, founded or unfounded, about your Internet
activities and/or identity theft, then you really should greatly
harden your malware protection past the normal AV SW and you
should add some sort of SW firewall and train it as to what you
will allow and what you want blocked. Be aware, though, that ANY
decent firewall will be annoying some amount of the time, and
that is what you WANT, since you want the thing to err on the
side of caution and at least give you a warning which you can
ignore once, ignore forever, allow through once, or give it
permission to allow that particular incoming traffic access every
time.

 

[RalfG]

They might be saying that but it would be wrong. Norton firewall also
monitors outbound traffic, as do most others. I'd go so far as to say you
won't notice a lot of difference between how the Norton and Zonealarm
firewalls operate other than cosmetics. BTW LiveUpdate is a Norton/Symantec
utility, not that it matters.

If you do go with Norton, uninstall the ZoneAlarm completely and beware of
any left-over bits that don't get removed automatically. Even when turned
off both firewalls have services that are always loaded and can conflict.

The Norton firewall version that I had is a couple of years old but in case
it crops up, the thing was somewhat problematic with my wireless connection
and network shares. Moreso when the subscription expired, or else I might
have kept using it.

Thanks.
Are you guys saying that the Norton firewall doesn't monitor outbound
traffic while the ZA does?

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

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.

I tried the free ZA and didn't think it did enough. As to a
performance hit, I can't detect one except when it stops some
other process and waits until I tell it to let the traffic in or
out or to block it. That can be annoying but FAR less annoying
then getting blasted by some nasty infection or suffering a major
outtage or identity theft issue.

 

[Poprivet]

Hi Luis,
I quit reading responses when the zealots crawled out of the woodwork so
please forgive me if I'm repeating someone's input here:

IMO, and that of many other people I know, either of the firewalls you
mention are good ones.
Personally, I would base my opinion on which one to use based on how
they "feel" to me; ease of use, setting blocks/unblocks, controlling
when/how often it interrupts me settings, relevancy of log data, etc..

I have a NAT DSL router and ZoneAlarm. I'm quite happy with them. I also
have Norton SystemWorks which is sans a firewall but my ISP is offering the
NIS pkg, which includes a firewall, so I just may take a look at Norton's
firewall but my choices will be based on how it fits to my own use and
perceptions.

The XP firewall is "decent" but only checks incoming traffic, not outgoing,
so if you had something that was calling home with your account passwords,
it would miss it. It's real use is so that you CAN have a firewall when you
first hit the internet and until you get all of your updates and other
protection apps into place and updated. I seldom have to rebuild my system
so I've only used it once or twice, but it does give basic protection but
that's about all.

You're also correct in that having two software firewalls working at the
same time is a no-no. They will step on each other's resources even if they
seem to work together. Many firewalls won't even install until you disable
any other one you have working. Some even make you actually Remove the
other firewall before they'll install and XP also has a firewall monitor
that'll complain to you.

So, I'd say use the one that feels right to you based on the two you
indicated. They both have excellent reputations for ability and
dependability.
As for the crap about removing Norton, it boils down to being able to
RTFM; if you can read and follow directions it's a snap. I've done it
several times on my own machines and that of clients, for various reasons.

HTH

Pop`

 

[Gerry]

Ralf

FWIW both are known to mess up System Restore! Windows Firewall does
not!


--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~