Zone Alarm Free 7.0.337 - Beware


R

R. McCarty

Checkpoint has released a new version of Zone Alarm Free 7.0.337.
Be aware this new version introduces a Junk Email tool not found in
earlier versions. After just a few minutes of use, I've rolled my install
back to the previous version of ZA Free.

Would have been nice if the damn installer had warned me of the new
( in my case unwanted ) features.

Just why do these imbecile companies believe a Firewall product needs
to include a junk email filter . May be time for Zone Alarm to enter the
software junk heap.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

DanS

Checkpoint has released a new version of Zone Alarm Free 7.0.337.
Be aware this new version introduces a Junk Email tool not found in
earlier versions. After just a few minutes of use, I've rolled my install
back to the previous version of ZA Free.

Would have been nice if the damn installer had warned me of the new
( in my case unwanted ) features.

And you can't turn off the junk mail filter ?
 
R

R. McCarty

Wasn't an installation option, nor something I'd expect Zone Alarm Free
to provide. I really dislike this "Feature Sprawl" programs feel compelled
to do. Besides the fact it ( Junk Mail Filter ) added new folders to both
Outlook and OE, it added a really badly designed toolbar.

Guess Checkpoint couldn't resist the temptation to mimic another
company ( imply Symantec ) that buys a product and immediately ruins
it.
 
F

FrankV

I have it in V/6.5 pro and you can turn it off and on when wanted. It's in
the "E-Mail Protection" setting and is called "Junk Email Filter". Do you
have the "E-Mail Protection" section?

It works correctly but slows down entering the mail box.

Frank
 
C

Curt Christianson

Funny you should mention Symantec--I was just going mention them myself, and
I fear Checkpoint *is* heading in the same direction.

Nobody can make *one* product that is the Alpha and Omega of PC utilities.
BTW, I'm still using ZA 5.1.033, and by choice.

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
http://aumha.org/
 
D

Detlev Dreyer

R. McCarty said:
Checkpoint has released a new version of Zone Alarm Free 7.0.337.
Be aware this new version introduces a Junk Email tool not found in
earlier versions. After just a few minutes of use, I've rolled my
install back to the previous version of ZA Free.

A reliable firewall (packet filter) does not need any updates. If there
are frequent updates anyway, there is something wrong with that product.
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

So whats a better piece of software???
I tried ZA pro and hated it, slowed my pc to a crawl.
 
D

Detlev Dreyer

sgopus said:
So whats a better piece of software?

Any extra software makes the system more complex and any extra code may
increase the systems' vulnerability. There is no reason to install extra
software since WinXP has a built-in firewall (stateful packet filter).
I tried ZA pro and hated it, slowed my pc to a crawl.

The concept of ZA is based on snake-oil since the monitoring of outgoing
traffic can be bypassed easily anyway.
 
N

Noncompliant

Not new in the Pro version of ZoneAlarm. Can be disabled very, very easily
in its active ZA menu. Doesn't affect Mailwasher Pro or NAV email proxy
scanning on my PC.

I don't install any new version of ZA or ZA Pro immediately. I let the
guinea pigs out there test it first for a month or so.

As far as frequent downloads comment from another reply, ZA Pro is not just
a firewall. It needs downloads to keep its other assets up to date.

I'm unable to find any official details about the new free version of ZA
from the zonelabs website. Except that its only a firewall, does nothing
else. At least that's implied at this weblink...
http://www.zonealarm.com/store/cont...znalm/comparison.jsp?dc=12bms&ctry=US&lang=en

A few years ago, I had message showup on my monitor. My Linksys router was
being accessed. The router was asking for the password I placed on it. I
did not have ZA installed. Nuff said about the snake oil comment from yet
another replier.
 
G

Guest

I do not agree with the snake oil concept, I think a software firewall,
better than windows is necessary. not just for outgoing traffic, but also for
incoming, windows firewall is for incoming only!
 
D

Detlev Dreyer

sgopus said:
I do not agree with the snake oil concept, I think a software firewall,
better than windows is necessary. not just for outgoing traffic, but
also for incoming,

What advantage in terms of security do third-party firewalls have
regarding inbound traffic in your opinion?
windows firewall is for incoming only!

Correct. That's the firewalls' classic job.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Detlev Dreyer

Detlev said:
What advantage in terms of security do third-party firewalls have
^^^^^^^^^^^
We're just talking about personal/desktop/software firewalls (no hard-
ware firewalls), to be more specific.
 
M

MassiveProng

What advantage in terms of security do third-party firewalls have
regarding inbound traffic in your opinion?


Correct. That's the firewalls' classic job.

If one uses a router/switch (wireless or otherwise), instead of a
hub, the firewall in firmware in that device is far better than any
done in software within the OS or beside it.
 
M

MassiveProng

^^^^^^^^^^^
We're just talking about personal/desktop/software firewalls (no hard-
ware firewalls), to be more specific.

Such firewalls are what should be recommended, however.
 
D

Detlev Dreyer

MassiveProng said:
If one uses a router/switch (wireless or otherwise), instead of a
hub, the firewall in firmware in that device is far better than any
done in software within the OS or beside it.

Although I basically agree with you, this was *not* the point. The point
of "sgopus" was clearly (see above):

| I think a software firewall, better than windows is necessary. not
| just for outgoing traffic, but also for incoming,

Let's see how he/she will substanciate that statement in particular.
 
L

Lars-Erik Østerud

Detlev said:
increase the systems' vulnerability. There is no reason to install extra
software since WinXP has a built-in firewall (stateful packet filter).

But that lacks important application control (it doesn't ask for
program access or programs server access, and that is important)
The concept of ZA is based on snake-oil since the monitoring of outgoing
traffic can be bypassed easily anyway.

But that then would be true for all software firwall, including
Windows' Or is there any firewalls that can handle this as well
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Detlev Dreyer

Lars-Erik Østerud said:
But that lacks important application control (it doesn't ask for
program access or programs server access, and that is important)

Not true. As for the inbound traffic, the built-in WinXP firewall
notifies the user in order to allow for exceptions by applications.
But that then would be true for all software firwall, including
Windows'

Correct. The built-in WinXP firewall does not monitor the outbound
traffic since this wouldn't make any sense.
Or is there any firewalls that can handle this as well

Nope. Todays malware knows how to bypass those firewalls pretending to
monitor the outgoing traffic (snake-oil):

"Entering through the Exits" (Excerpt)
http://www.spirit.com/Network/net1103.html

| Trojans containing backdoors that make outgoing connections can pass
| right through most firewalls.
| ...
| The most sophisticated backdoors disguise their traffic as ordinary
| Web browsing.
 
C

Curt Christianson

Hi Detlev,

I've been lurking here, reading with interest. I agree, a firewall should
not need updating, and I'm using an old version of ZA (5.1.033.000). IYHO I
would be just as safe using the built-in XP firewall?

That would be nice, one less thing running at startup, or otherwise.

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
http://aumha.org/
 
D

Detlev Dreyer

Curt Christianson said:
I've been lurking here, reading with interest. I agree, a firewall
should not need updating, and I'm using an old version of ZA
(5.1.033.000). IYHO I would be just as safe using the built-in XP
firewall?

Yep. As for the incoming traffic, all software firewalls base on the
same or at least similar principles.
That would be nice, one less thing running at startup, or otherwise.

In contrast to third-party desktop firewalls, the built-in WinXP fire-
wall does not consume extra resources. However, it does not have that
many colorful dialogs and beep-beep alerts to attest its importance.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top