ZoneAlarm 5.5 vs. 6.5

Y

Yrrah

There is a new version of the ZoneAlarm firewall (free), v. 6.5.700.
It's a 13.7 Mb download. I still use v. 5.5.094, which was a 7.0 Mb
download. So the new one is 2X the size of a previous version. The
question is do we get 2X better protection? Or is this just bloatware
requiring more resources?

Yrrah
 
D

dadiOH

Yrrah said:
There is a new version of the ZoneAlarm firewall (free), v. 6.5.700.
It's a 13.7 Mb download. I still use v. 5.5.094, which was a 7.0 Mb
download. So the new one is 2X the size of a previous version. The
question is do we get 2X better protection? Or is this just bloatware
requiring more resources?

Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs :)

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
 
M

Mike Echo

[email protected] says... said:
Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs :)

Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I know other progs
(WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly earlier, that are supposed to be
better because they contain less bloat.
 
M

Mark Garrett

Mike Echo said:
Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I know other progs
(WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly earlier, that are supposed to be
better because they contain less bloat.

That's certainly the reason I divorced a couple of my ex's.
 
D

dadiOH

Mike said:
[New zonealarm version big file size]
Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs :)

Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I know other
progs (WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly earlier, that are supposed
to be better because they contain less bloat.

Best? I have no idea but it does what it is supposed to do. Ditto numerous
other programs I use...my Winamp, for example, is v2.5e.

One can get old versions of numerous programs at oldversion.com. This is
the link for ZA...
http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=zalarm

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
 
M

me

[New zonealarm version big file size]
Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs :)

Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I know
other progs (WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly earlier,
that are supposed to be better because they contain less
bloat.

Ditto (2.6.88) here. "Ain't boke, don't fix."

J
 
C

Craig

Mike Echo said:
(e-mail address removed) says...

[New zonealarm version big file size]
Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs :)

Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I know
other progs (WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly earlier,
that are supposed to be better because they contain less
bloat.

Ditto (2.6.88) here. "Ain't boke, don't fix."

J

DadiOH, J;

Back in April, Huss posted on another thread his argument for using only
those firewalls that are still being developed. In a nutshell, the
reason was new exploits.

Did you consider this possibility when you decided to stick with (quite)
old versions of ZA? Personally, I don't have a firm grip on how these
things work but, I operate on the assumption that new exploits are possible.

just curious,

-Craig

Here's the post by Huss I referred to:
 
F

Franklin

Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs :)


What about all the patches and fixes which have come out since?

Won't your version let all the creepy-xrawlies through which these
patches can trap?
 
M

me

Mike Echo said:
(e-mail address removed) says...

[New zonealarm version big file size]
Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs
:)

Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I
know other progs (WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly
earlier, that are supposed to be better because they
contain less bloat.

Ditto (2.6.88) here. "Ain't boke, don't fix."

J

DadiOH, J;

Back in April, Huss posted on another thread his argument
for using only those firewalls that are still being
developed. In a nutshell, the reason was new exploits.

Did you consider this possibility when you decided to stick
with (quite) old versions of ZA? Personally, I don't have
a firm grip on how these things work but, I operate on the
assumption that new exploits are possible.

just curious,

-Craig

Here's the post by Huss I referred to:
-snip-

Craig,

Yes, I did consider that possibility. Given my "surfing" habits,
so far so good. So, in the meantime: "Ain't boke, don't fix." ;)
BTW, a hardware firewall would, indeed, be better.

Some interesting comments:
http://samspade.org/d/persfire.html
http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html

J
 
H

Huss

Franklin said:
What about all the patches and fixes which have come out since?

Won't your version let all the creepy-xrawlies through which these
patches can trap?

By way of illustration, here's one example of an *old* Zone Alarm
specific exploit in this Diamond Computer Systems Security Advisory:

http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/ntbugtraq/2000-q4/0132.html
Sat Dec 30 2000 [...]
THE EXPLOIT:
A trojan can easily set this Mutex ("Zone Alarm Mutex") with
one simple call to the CreateMutex API (see msdn.microsoft.com
for more information on Mutexes). ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro are
then be prevented from loading while the trojan is alive. If
ZoneAlarm is running, all the trojan has to do is terminate
the processes of zonealarm.exe, vsmon.exe and minilog.exe first
before creating the Mutex. Despite being services, vsmon.exe and
minilog.exe can both be killed by any program by setting it's
local process token privileges to SeDebugPrivilege, giving it
the power to kill any process/service.
SOLUTION:
We offered suggestions to Zone Labs Inc. in October/November,
including encryption/hashing of the Mutex, but all were dismissed,
and none have been implemented.

(Arrogant bastards at Zone labs? Well read on...)

http://www.google.com/search?q=mutex+exploit

I used the Diamond CS patch. I would imagine that ZA eventually got
around to fixing it. By that time I'd moved to another, and glad too, as
I bought Outpost. I keep my eye open, just in case...
--
Huss

They come together like the Coroner's Inquest, to sit upon the murdered
reputations of the week.

William Congreve
 
C

Craig

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

(e-mail address removed) says...

[New zonealarm version big file size]

Personally, I use v2.6.88. It was only about 1.6 megs
:)

Is this what is considered to be the "best" version? I
know other progs (WinAmp, etc) have versions, mostly
earlier, that are supposed to be better because they
contain less bloat.

Ditto (2.6.88) here. "Ain't boke, don't fix."

J

DadiOH, J;

Back in April, Huss posted on another thread his argument
for using only those firewalls that are still being
developed. In a nutshell, the reason was new exploits.

Did you consider this possibility when you decided to stick
with (quite) old versions of ZA?

-Craig

Craig,

Yes, I did consider that possibility. Given my "surfing" habits,
so far so good. So, in the meantime: "Ain't boke, don't fix." ;)
BTW, a hardware firewall would, indeed, be better.

Some interesting comments:
http://samspade.org/d/persfire.html
http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html

J

J;

I've come across arguments similar to samspade's on a German network
security site. If I am understanding things correctly, the h/w firewall
pretty much precludes the need for a s/w firewall at least as far as
staionary clients are concerned.

I'm trying to think of situations on the road and, often as not, we have
access to wireless networks only...no cat5's. So mobile routers are
out. So, for our laptops...prolly s/w firewall is still the way to go.

We're running Comodo's CPF v2.1.0.1 on one lappy right now. I'll post
if there's anything noteworthy.

thx,

-Craig
 
M

me

By way of illustration, here's one example of an *old* Zone
Alarm specific exploit in this Diamond Computer Systems
Security Advisory:

http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/ntbugtraq/2000-q4/013
2.html
-snip-

(Arrogant bastards at Zone labs? Well read on...)

http://www.google.com/search?q=mutex+exploit

I used the Diamond CS patch. I would imagine that ZA
eventually got around to fixing it. By that time I'd moved
to another, and glad too, as I bought Outpost. I keep my
eye open, just in case...

[ quote ]
While the demo program is running, you will not be able to load
ZoneAlarm or ZoneAlarm Pro, and if it finds that
ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro is running, it will terminate the
ZoneAlarm processes and services ...
[ /quote ]

No program is "safe" on an already compromised system.

S/W firewalls, A-V programs, and pretty much any executable can
be "taken down" by malware.

J
 
T

Tim Weaver

wrote:
By way of illustration, here's one example of an *old* Zone
Alarm specific exploit in this Diamond Computer Systems
Security Advisory:

http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/ntbugtraq/2000-q4/013 2.html
-snip-

(Arrogant bastards at Zone labs? Well read on...)

http://www.google.com/search?q=mutex+exploit

I used the Diamond CS patch. I would imagine that ZA
eventually got around to fixing it. By that time I'd moved
to another, and glad too, as I bought Outpost. I keep my
eye open, just in case...

[ quote ]
While the demo program is running, you will not be able to load
ZoneAlarm or ZoneAlarm Pro, and if it finds that
ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro is running, it will terminate the
ZoneAlarm processes and services ...
[ /quote ]

No program is "safe" on an already compromised system.

S/W firewalls, A-V programs, and pretty much any executable can
be "taken down" by malware.

J

http://www.hftonline.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5663.html

DiamondCS would like to thank Steve Gibson of grc.com for his mutual
assistance to both DiamondCS and Zone Labs.

Publishing of this document is permitted providing the text is published in
it's entirety and with no modifications.

Copyright (C) 2000, Diamond Computer Systems Pty. Ltd.
http://www.diamondcs.com.au - http://www.diamondcslabs.com


Diamond Computer Systems Security Advisory
http://www.diamondcs.com.au/alerts/zonemutx.txt

VULNERABILITY:
ZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro can be stopped from loading by creating a
memory-resident Mutex (one call to the CreateMutex API).
Uninstalling\reinstalling ZoneAlarm in a different path has no effect.

SEVERITY:
Low-Medium, but as Zone Labs will not be fixing the problem it could be
considered Medium-High.

AFFECTED SOFTWARE:
"Zone Alarm" and "Zone Alarm Pro" (Zone Labs Inc. - www.zonelabs.com),
(http://www.zonelabs.com),)
possibly all versions.

REMOTE EXPLOIT:
No.

RELEASE DATE:
Friday Dec 29, 2000

VENDOR NOTIFIED:
Zone Labs Inc. were notified 12th of October, 2000

---

DESCRIPTION:
Zone Labs "ZoneAlarm" and "ZoneAlarm Pro" programs both use a Mutex - an
event synchronisation memory object - to determine if it has already loaded
(to prevent loading a second instance of the firewall).

THE PROBLEM:
By design, ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro has no way of determining WHICH program
actually set the Mutex, thus allowing a trojan to use the Mutex and block
both ZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro from loading.

THE EXPLOIT:
A trojan can easily set this Mutex ("Zone Alarm Mutex") with one simple call
to the CreateMutex API (see msdn.microsoft.com for more information on
Mutexes). ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro are then be prevented from loading while
the trojan is alive. If ZoneAlarm is running, all the trojan has to do is
terminate the processes of zonealarm.exe, vsmon.exe and minilog.exe first
before creating the Mutex. Despite being services, vsmon.exe and minilog.exe
can both be killed by any program by setting it's local process token
privileges to SeDebugPrivilege, giving it the power to kill any
process/service.

SOLUTION:
We offered suggestions to Zone Labs Inc. in October/November, including
encryption/hashing of the Mutex, but all were dismissed, and none have been
implemented.

ZONE LABS RESPONSE:
From Conrad Hermann, VP of Engineering at Zone Labs, in regards to
encrypting the mutex:
"... the solution you propose is one of "security through obscurity", which
isn't really good enough for us--mainly because it means it will eventually
need to be re-implemented to be truly secure. It would not be impossible to
discover the same base information, re-implement the same encryption
algorithm, and use the same key we use to encrypt/hash the data--this is
precisely the methodology that most software crackers use, and most software
that anyone cares to crack has been cracked."

In other words, encryption isn't good enough for Zone Labs, so they have
opted to use plain-text. Even despite exhaustive correspondance to Zone Labs
between DiamondCS and Steve Gibson / GRC, they have expressed no desire in
fixing the vulnerability. Because of this, trojan authors are now free to
exploit it, knowing that the vendor will not be fixing the problem. This
alone escalates the magnitude of the problem.

DEMONSTRATION:
We have created a harmless, simple, working executable to demonstrate the
vulnerability, available at http://www.diamondcs.com.au/alerts/zonemutx.exe
(16kb).
While the demo program is running, you will not be able to load ZoneAlarm or
ZoneAlarm Pro, and if it finds that ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro is running, it
will terminate the ZoneAlarm processes and services first using
SeDebugPrivilege before stealing the ZoneAlarm Mutex. The demo also opens an
echo server socket to listen on TCP 7, allowing you to test socket
connectivity/data transfer (try telnetting to 127.0.0.1 on port 7 and saying
hello).
 
H

Huss

In message said:
By way of illustration, here's one example of an *old* Zone
Alarm specific exploit in this Diamond Computer Systems
Security Advisory:

http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/ntbugtraq/2000-q4/013
2.html
-snip-

(Arrogant bastards at Zone labs? Well read on...)

http://www.google.com/search?q=mutex+exploit

I used the Diamond CS patch. I would imagine that ZA
eventually got around to fixing it. By that time I'd moved
to another, and glad too, as I bought Outpost. I keep my
eye open, just in case...

[ quote ]
While the demo program is running, you will not be able to load
ZoneAlarm or ZoneAlarm Pro, and if it finds that
ZoneAlarm\ZoneAlarm Pro is running, it will terminate the
ZoneAlarm processes and services ...
[ /quote ]

No program is "safe" on an already compromised system.

No system is truly safe, especially a windows system, and there is no
substitute for a hardware firewall, the rest is icing.

I recently posted a search on firewalls+exploit, but it occurs to me now
to reiterate something that I learned in a past profession; no security
system can stop intruders, but it can be designed to delay them and
increase the probability of detection (by other/human means) and thus
defensive action.

That's something I was taught specifically for security purposes, and it
generalises to other domains. It would normally go without saying that
you get what you pay for, but it's worth iterating the point, freeware
group or not.
S/W firewalls, A-V programs, and pretty much any executable can
be "taken down" by malware.
--
Huss

They come together like the Coroner's Inquest, to sit upon the murdered
reputations of the week.

William Congreve
 
A

Al Klein

I've come across arguments similar to samspade's on a German network
security site. If I am understanding things correctly, the h/w firewall
pretty much precludes the need for a s/w firewall at least as far as
staionary clients are concerned.

Most firewalls, h/w or s/w, stop incoming connections. ZA stops
outgoing connections.
I'm trying to think of situations on the road and, often as not, we have
access to wireless networks only...no cat5's.

No difference as far as firewalling goes, except that someone could
probably come up with an exploit to connect directly to your
wirelessly-connected laptop, completely bypassing the wireless router.
 
D

Dan Goodman

Huss said:
It would normally go without saying that you get what you pay for,
but it's worth iterating the point, freeware group or not.

Economics lesson: What you pay isn't always in money.

The highest payment I might make would be learning enough about
software to design my own. If I did this, I would eliminate the
constant problem of dealing with software which makes it easy to do
things I don't want to do and difficult to do what I want to do.

At a lower level, I would evaluate all relevant software -- paid,
shareware, freeware, etc. -- to see which is best for my purposes.

Next-to-lowest payment would be hiring an expert to choose the software
for me.

The lowest payment would be just using whatever software my computer
was sold with (and paying for all upgrades rather than spending time
and effort finding out if they're enough better to be worth it); and
when I needed software which didn't come with the computer, going with
whatever has the niftiest advertisements.

--

Dan Goodman
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
 

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