Zone Alarm Firewall

[Sitara Lal]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vista PC
in view of its built in "Internet Security'?

If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm, should I disable the VISTA
security program in any way?

Thanks

 

[Just.some.guy]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vista
PC in view of its built in "Internet Security'?

If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm, should I disable the VISTA
security program in any way?

Thanks

You should never have two firewalls running at the same time. Pick one or
the other. Although Vista offers inbound AND outbound protection now (it
didn't in XP) some feel it's outbound protection is lacking. So I would
advise Zone Alarm. (I use Zone Alarm security suite)

 

[CB]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vista PC
in view of its built in "Internet Security'?

If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm, should I disable the VISTA
security program in any way?

Sitara Lal,

You can create conflicts if you run more than one firewall at the same
time. I honestly feel that the Windows firewall is sufficient but I choose to
use Comodo firewall, which is free.

I would not use the ZoneAlarm firewall. I have determined, based upon
personal experience, that the ZoneAlarm firewall is incompatible with Vista,
regardless of what ZoneAlarm says to the contrary.

Have a nice day.

C.B.

 

[Just.some.guy]

Sitara Lal,

You can create conflicts if you run more than one firewall at the same
time. I honestly feel that the Windows firewall is sufficient but I choose
to
use Comodo firewall, which is free.

I would not use the ZoneAlarm firewall. I have determined, based upon
personal experience, that the ZoneAlarm firewall is incompatible with
Vista,
regardless of what ZoneAlarm says to the contrary.

Have a nice day.

C.B.

It's not just the folks at Zone Alarm saying that...*I* use Zone Alarm and
it works just fine, so my personal experience is different than yours I
guess.

 

[key.boarder]

It's not just the folks at Zone Alarm saying that...*I* use Zone Alarm and
it works just fine, so my personal experience is different than yours I
guess.

I use ZoneAlarm and it also works fine for me. But I would like to take it
off and experiment with another firewall. My experience with uninstalling
ZoneAlarm leads me to recommend against installing it. I will never install
it again.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vista PC
in view of its built in "Internet Security'?

If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm, should I disable the VISTA
security program in any way?

Thanks

My position is that running two or more software firewalls
simultaneously is generally unnecessary and can _sometimes_ cause
conflicts, potentially negating the protection of both. Even ig there
is no conflict, having two firewalls running simultaneously is most
certainly an unnecessary drain on system resources, without providing
any additional benefit.

As it is, Vista's built-in firewall solution is more than
adequate for most consumers' needs. While it's not quite up to the
ease-of-use standards of Kerio or ZoneAlarm, it has been noticeably
improved over WinXP's version.

There are two interfaces for Vistas built-in firewall:

1) A simplified one accessed through the Control Panel that is the only
one most people see. To further supplement this view, Sphinx's Vista
Firewall Control http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/) is a piece of freeware
that makes the Vista Firewall much more useful to the average user.

2) And the more advanced "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security
(WF.msc), accessed via the Start Menu's Administrative Tools folder, for
the experienced user who wants more granular control.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[CZ]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vistain view of its built in "Internet Security'?
If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm, should I disable the VISTA
security program in any way?


S Lai:

I run ZA free along with Vista's f/w.
ZA provides easier outbound control than Vista's f/w.

 

[CZ]

You should never have two firewalls running at the same time.

Why? Have you had problems doing it?

I have run two f/ws together for years w/o problems

 

[Kayman]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vista PC
in view of its built in "Internet Security'?

If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm,

No, do not proceed with installing ZA!!!

should I disable the VISTA security program in any way?

No, you are not going to find anything better than the Vista FW and Vista
in itself due to the advanced features the FW and Vista are using.

"Personal Firewalls" are mostly snake-oil.
http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html

Jesper's Blogs-
At Least This Snake Oil Is Free.
http://msinfluentials.com/blogs/jesper/archive/2007/07/19/at-least-this-snake-oil-is-free.aspx
Windows Firewall: the best new security feature in Vista?
http://blogs.technet.com/jesper_johansson/archive/2006/05/01/426921.aspx

Exploring The Windows Firewall.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/06/VistaFirewall/default.aspx
"If you try to block outbound connections from a computer that’s already
compromised, how can you be sure that the computer is really doing what you
ask? The answer: you can’t. Outbound protection is security theater—it’s a
gimmick that only gives the impression of improving your security without
doing anything that actually does improve your security. This is why
outbound protection didn’t exist in the Windows XP firewall and why it
doesn’t exist in the Windows Vista™ firewall."

Vista Firewall Control.
Protects your applications from undesirable network incoming and outgoing
activity, controls applications internet access.
http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/

 

[Just.some.guy]

Why? Have you had problems doing it?

I have run two f/ws together for years w/o problems

I've always been told that you add no extra protection by doing that, and
you open yourself up for software conflicts. That's probably why some
firewalls will actually try to turn windows firewalls *off** when you
install them.

 

[Twayne]

I've always been told that you add no extra protection by doing that,
and you open yourself up for software conflicts. That's probably why
some firewalls will actually try to turn windows firewalls *off**
when you install them.

And, it's wasting machine time by looking at everything twice. But I've
no idea how robust Vista's FW is or isn't. I'd say use the one that
feels the most useful and friendly to you over the long term.

--
Twayne

Tired of MS Office and their shananigans?
Try this free replacement:
http://www.openoffice.org

 

[Mr. Arnold]

I've always been told that you add no extra protection by doing that, and
you open yourself up for software conflicts. That's probably why some
firewalls will actually try to turn windows firewalls *off** when you
install them.

The only thing that's really going to happen is that you might create a
double FW situation where packets/traffic that should come through the FW if
either one is being used individually is being blocked, because both are
being used.

I do use two packet filters, when my laptop has a direct connection to the
Internet. Vista FW or some 3rd party personal firewall are not firewalls.
They are packet filters. I use Vista's packet filter, and I also use IPSec
another packet filter that's on Vista to supplement Vista's FW/packet
filter.

http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_traffic_with_ipsec.htm

I hue the AnalogX IPsec rules, which I have made my adjustments to the
policies

http://www.analogx.com/CONTENTS/articles/ipsec.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813878

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Is it redundant to use a standalone Firewall (e.g. Zone Alarm) on a Vista PC
in view of its built in "Internet Security'?

If you feel that I should install Zone Alarm, should I disable the VISTA
security program in any way?

You should run only one firewall program. Choose either Vista's or ZA,
whichever you prefer, not both.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Why? Have you had problems doing it?

Three reasons:

1. You achieve no extra protection,
2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,
3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
between them.

See http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx
which includes the following (talking about XP, but it's the same in
Vista):

"Q. Should I use both the built-in firewall and a software firewall
from a different company on my Windows XP computer?

"A. No. Running multiple software firewalls is unnecessary for typical
home computers, home networking, and small-business networking
scenarios. Using two firewalls on the same connection could cause
issues with connectivity to the Internet or other unexpected behavior.
One firewall, whether it is the Windows XP Internet Connection
Firewall or a different software firewall, can provide substantial
protection for your computer."

I have run two f/ws together for years w/o problems

As I said, the risk of conflicts is probably small, but it's not zero.
If you haven't had a problem, consider yourself lucky. In my view,
it's pointless to run any risk for no benefit.

 

[CZ]

You should never have two firewalls running at the same time.

Why? Have you had problems doing it?

Three reasons:
1. You achieve no extra protection,
2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,
3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
between them.
See http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx



Ken:

You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).

1. You achieve no extra protection,

Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a benefit.
I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free for
application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as they
work at different OSI levels.

2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,

That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
f/w in XP and then in Vista.

3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
between them.

True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.

See http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx

MS attitude is self-serving.

 

[Just.some.guy]

Three reasons:
1. You achieve no extra protection,
2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,
3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
between them.
See http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx



Ken:

You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).



Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a
benefit.
I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free
for application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as
they work at different OSI levels.


That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
f/w in XP and then in Vista.


True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.


MS attitude is self-serving.

Perhaps running two firewalls has worked for *you*, (there are usually
exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
is the answer. It IS redundant!

 

[CZ]

Perhaps running two firewalls has worked for *you*, (there are usually
exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
is the answer. It IS redundant!

JS:

You are not understanding how f/ws work.
It is not redundant as ZA free and Vista f/ws work on different entities as
my previous post stated.
Do you understand the OSI reference model for networking?
Can you provide a technical reason why they would not work?

The popular belief is that you should not run two f/ws together. IMO, this
belief is not based on knowledge or experience.

In the XP NG thread that my previous post mentioned, there were a number of
posts that claimed their experience was the same as mine.



My previous post:
Ken:

You and I discussed this in the XP NG several years ago (along with Alex).

1. You achieve no extra protection,

Wrong. If two f/ws use different f/w technologies, there can be a benefit.
I use Vista's f/w for packet filtering at OSI levels 3 & 4, and ZA free for
application control at OSI level 7. There should not be a problem as they
work at different OSI levels.

2. you incur the extra overhead of running two firewalls,

That has never been an issue in several years of using ZA free as a second
f/w in XP and then in Vista.

3. and you run the risk (probably small, but not zero) of conflicts
between them.

True, but it has never been a problem in my experience.

See http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/firewall.mspx

MS attitude is self-serving.

 

[Just.some.guy]

exceptions to every rule) but the general rule of thumb is that you should
NOT have two firewalls running at the same time! That is what the original
poster was asking, and regardless of *your* rather unique experience, THAT
is the answer. It IS redundant!

JS:

You are not understanding how f/ws work.
It is not redundant as ZA free and Vista f/ws work on different entities
as my previous post stated.
Do you understand the OSI reference model for networking?
Can you provide a technical reason why they would not work?

The popular belief is that you should not run two f/ws together. IMO, this
belief is not based on knowledge or experience.

In the XP NG thread that my previous post mentioned, there were a number
of posts that claimed their experience was the same as mine.

Ok...you win

 

[Not Me]

Do you wear a belt and suspenders at the same time?
Yes it will make sure your pants don't fall off very often, but you won't
have many women trying to get them down either. LOL

Unless you're visiting some really bad sites, two firewalls is way over the
top.
If you put 3 deadbolts and a steel front door on your house, it doesn't make
up for the sliding glass door with a thumblatch in the back.