D
Detlev Dreyer
Curt Christianson said:
You're very welcome, Curt.
<*bg*>
You're very welcome, Curt.
<*bg*>
M
Mindi
Hi NewsGroup,
A bit off topic, but still on the topic of firewalls, after reading through
this post and threads, I'm left scratching my head. What do I need? And What
don't I need? I have a set up as such (in terms of firewalls);
iConnect621 ADSL 2 Modem, firewall enabled (and NAT enabled).
NETGEAR WGT624 V3 firewall enabled (Wireless).
ZoneAlarmPro 7.0.X
In general terms;
ADSL modem firewall
Wireless router firewall
Software firewall.
What can go? What is the best combination? It is a matter of paranoia that
stops me turning one (or two) off. I have been reading this thread
scratching my head, as I do with all posts regarding firewalls. After all if
you (can) search posts going back a while, some recommend the use of a
hardware firewall + a software one.
Sorry for the tangent NewsGroup, thanks for any response.
Regards,
- Mindi.
: 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.
:
:
A bit off topic, but still on the topic of firewalls, after reading through
this post and threads, I'm left scratching my head. What do I need? And What
don't I need? I have a set up as such (in terms of firewalls);
iConnect621 ADSL 2 Modem, firewall enabled (and NAT enabled).
NETGEAR WGT624 V3 firewall enabled (Wireless).
ZoneAlarmPro 7.0.X
In general terms;
ADSL modem firewall
Wireless router firewall
Software firewall.
What can go? What is the best combination? It is a matter of paranoia that
stops me turning one (or two) off. I have been reading this thread
scratching my head, as I do with all posts regarding firewalls. After all if
you (can) search posts going back a while, some recommend the use of a
hardware firewall + a software one.
Sorry for the tangent NewsGroup, thanks for any response.
Regards,
- Mindi.
: 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.
:
:
P
Phisherman
Well, we had malware enter our LAN (I think thru a laptop someone
brought in) so our firewall in the router did little good. It was
Zone Alarm on my PC that detected it a backdoor entry attempt.
M
Mindi
Thanks Phisherman, my post below has been answered.
Regards,
- Mindi
: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:55:23 -0700, MassiveProng
:
: >On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:34:44 GMT, "Detlev Dreyer"
: ><[email protected]> Gave us:
: >
: >>
: >>> 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.
: >
: > 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.
:
:
: Well, we had malware enter our LAN (I think thru a laptop someone
: brought in) so our firewall in the router did little good. It was
: Zone Alarm on my PC that detected it a backdoor entry attempt.
Regards,
- Mindi
: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:55:23 -0700, MassiveProng
:
: >On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:34:44 GMT, "Detlev Dreyer"
: ><[email protected]> Gave us:
: >
: >>
: >>> 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.
: >
: > 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.
:
:
: Well, we had malware enter our LAN (I think thru a laptop someone
: brought in) so our firewall in the router did little good. It was
: Zone Alarm on my PC that detected it a backdoor entry attempt.
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
Detlev said:
No extra resources? Well? It has an extra service. Bet that uses some
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
What I notice is that my router firewall takes ALL the firwall issues.
The "Firewall" log in all the software firewalls I have tested are
empty.
The one thing a software firewall adds is the monitoring of programs
trying to send og receive data. And if that is easy to bypass, then
one should think there is no need for a software firewall at all if
you have a router with a hardware firewall. Agree?
But still, I use a software fireewall to monitor those programs.
And to get that bit I need to install the firewall bit too
(no program that allows for only the program monitor to install)
The "Firewall" log in all the software firewalls I have tested are
empty.
The one thing a software firewall adds is the monitoring of programs
trying to send og receive data. And if that is easy to bypass, then
one should think there is no need for a software firewall at all if
you have a router with a hardware firewall. Agree?
But still, I use a software fireewall to monitor those programs.
And to get that bit I need to install the firewall bit too
(no program that allows for only the program monitor to install)
D
Detlev Dreyer
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
Nope. That particular service runs anyway because it manages ICS as
well. In addition, that service is provided by "svchost.exe" being in
charge of many services and therefore loaded by default. So what?
R
R. McCarty
Basically, I posted the warning about Zone Alarm because of business
needs. I have to install/use the latest version of many products so I can
be aware of issues. Zone Alarm provides a benefit to me personally in
that I can stop things like Rhapsody, iTunes from acting as a "Server".
Since ZA notifies users of available updates, I have to know if allowing
a upgrade will introduce new issues/problems the previous version did
not have.
Since posting the "Beware", I've been checking the ZA forum and from
the number of postings there are lots of problems with Version 7.0.337,
both the Pro and "Free" version.
needs. I have to install/use the latest version of many products so I can
be aware of issues. Zone Alarm provides a benefit to me personally in
that I can stop things like Rhapsody, iTunes from acting as a "Server".
Since ZA notifies users of available updates, I have to know if allowing
a upgrade will introduce new issues/problems the previous version did
not have.
Since posting the "Beware", I've been checking the ZA forum and from
the number of postings there are lots of problems with Version 7.0.337,
both the Pro and "Free" version.
J
Jackson
/.../
This is not 'snake oil'. What ZA does is notify the user when a new
(or a changed) program tries to contact the internet. This is a
valuable asset. Even if malware could avoid ZA, all is not malware
and ZA gives the user control over programs on his computer as regards
connecting to the internet on their own.
For instance. Each time I play something on Windows media player, the
program tries to connect to the internet for whatever reason. Without
ZA I would have no control over this; indeed I would not even be aware
of the action. With ZA I can deny internet access if I feel there is
no good reason for the connection, and so the media player can
continue with playing the media without doing God knows what on the
internet.
BTW my favorite version is 6.0.667. I reverted to this version when
later versions removed a free service and put it the paid version.
This is not 'snake oil'. What ZA does is notify the user when a new
(or a changed) program tries to contact the internet. This is a
valuable asset. Even if malware could avoid ZA, all is not malware
and ZA gives the user control over programs on his computer as regards
connecting to the internet on their own.
For instance. Each time I play something on Windows media player, the
program tries to connect to the internet for whatever reason. Without
ZA I would have no control over this; indeed I would not even be aware
of the action. With ZA I can deny internet access if I feel there is
no good reason for the connection, and so the media player can
continue with playing the media without doing God knows what on the
internet.
BTW my favorite version is 6.0.667. I reverted to this version when
later versions removed a free service and put it the paid version.
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
Detlev said:
And if you don't use that either (not many do)?
The service is disabled on all my computer anyway.
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
R. McCarty said:
You don't get that as an automatic update eihter. I use 6.5.737.000
(seems very stable, allthough uses more resources than Comodo og ZA
6.1) and it says "up to date" if I check manually for updates...
I liked the 4-5-594 version of ZA, very small, low on resources use.
But after I upgraded to XP SP2 it hangs the boot from time to time.
So I have to use 6-1-744-001 (also very stable) or 6-5-737-000
Tried Comodo for a while, but all the "wolf wolf" messages annoyed me
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
Jackson said:
What service was that? Just curious..
I
Isaac Hunt
R. McCarty said:
It's a beta though isn't it?
Why would anyone want to install & rely on a beta firewall?
R
R. McCarty
Not a Beta, Version 7.0.337 is a released product.
D
Detlev Dreyer
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
That does not matter (see below).
Not by default! The default startup type of that service is "Automatic"
since WinXP RTM. See also "Default settings for services"
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/.../en-us/sys_srv_default_settings.mspx?mfr=true
D
Detlev Dreyer
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
BTW, you might be interested in this article:
"The Service Pack 2 firewall" (excerpt)
http://winhlp.com/WxSP2.htm#The_Service_Pack_2_firewall
| Do not disable the firewall service, unless you have a very good
| reason to do so. For example, without the firewall service running,
| the computer browser service will not work properly.
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
Detlev said:
But some of us disable things we do not use (like I don't use the
firewall and not ICS, and I don't use "Themes" either). Windows is
slow enough to have unused services enabled just for stealing
resources
L
Lars-Erik Østerud
Detlev said:
What is the use of this for a stand-alone home computer?
I use is at work (for browsing other computers) and it works
all OK without the firewall service. At home it is disabled.
D
Detlev Dreyer
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
ROFL! Again, note that these services are provided by "svchost.exe"
which is loaded anyway. How much faster does your system run after
you've disabled those services? 1 millisecond or even 2?
D
Detlev Dreyer
Lars-Erik Østerud said:
I'm not really interested in your stand-alone home computer since this
does not apply to all participants of this newsgroup.
Bad enough to mess around with productive systems since you're
apparently not aware of possible consequences. EOD.