ZoneAlarm Pro, Sygate Personal Firewall, or built in xp firewall?

C

Carey Frisch [MVP]

Please visit the Firewall experts in the Firewall newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windows.networking.firewall

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


| Hello.
| I am up to choose between ZoneAlarm, Sygate and built in Windows XP
| firewall. Please tell me which is taking fewer RAM resources and protects
| well.
| Tanx a lot in advance for your suggestion!
|
|
 
N

NT Canuck

az0000000 said:
Hello.
I am up to choose between ZoneAlarm, Sygate and built in Windows XP
firewall. Please tell me which is taking fewer RAM resources and protects
well.

Nothin can touch the built-in Windows XP firewall for stability,
so keep it running although it's not the best for info or things
leaving your computer that you weren't aware of...

What you need mostly is outgoing alerts...so try a few of the firewall
freebies out there (zone alarm, outpost, sygate) and select the one
you understand the best or are most comfortable using...but keep
the XP ICF running so in effect you end up with 2 incoming firewalls.

as for ram resources...it's a computer...you WANT to use resources.
if you have 256mb (or less) goto 512mb.
if you have 512 mb ram...you have no problems.
With large amounts of ram...if you have 150-200mb free...you have lots.

Even with 128mb ram..WinXP will function even if overloaded...
WinXP will simply swap more data/info onto hard drive if short on ram.
 
W

Wesley Vogel

[[Q. Should I use both Internet Connection 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 different
software firewall, can provide substantial protection for your computer.]]

Frequently Asked Questions About Internet Firewalls
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/firewall.asp
 
A

az0000000

Hello.
I am up to choose between ZoneAlarm, Sygate and built in Windows XP
firewall. Please tell me which is taking fewer RAM resources and protects
well.
Tanx a lot in advance for your suggestion!
 
N

NT Canuck

[[Q. Should I use both Internet Connection 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 different
software firewall, can provide substantial protection for your computer.]]

Frequently Asked Questions About Internet Firewalls
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/firewall.asp

It doesn't help...because it's wrong.
Microsoft should know better, or at least talk to each other within
their own organization before writing a Q&A.
XP ICF should always be on, one of reasons is to block malicious
applications/exploits from sending "spoofed packets", another is that
ICF is the ONLY firewall that never crashes (or most stable) and
the third reason is that ICF will protect you from incoming attacks
that the other firewalls (to date) are unable to resist (and stay active).

Mind you...the fact that a Microsoft firewall is more efficient or stable
should not be a surprise...after all they did make the OS others sit on.

I might suggest sygate, outpost, and zonelabs/zonealarm last (ZA log
problems are well documented and after 3+ years a nuisance.). Set
those firewalls to allow all incoming (?) then ICF can handle incoming
by itself, and just use 3rd party critters for outgoing alerts/blocks
which they handle better (at the moment) than Microsoft does.

Oh yeah...shame on Microsoft "security" for allowing that Q&A.
 
W

Wesley Vogel

ICF does *not* block outgoing traffic.

[[Q. Should I use a non-Microsoft personal firewall instead of the built-in
Internet Connection Firewall?
A. If you already have a non-Microsoft firewall on your computer, you should
continue to use it. If you do not have a firewall, then you have a choice.
If you want a simple firewall that is very easy to configure, then you
should use the Windows XP Internet Connection Firewall. If you want more
advanced control over the traffic that passes through your computer, and you
also want to block outgoing traffic (that is the traffic from your computer
out to the Internet) then choose a personal firewall from another company.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/firewall.asp

[[Most third-party firewalls protect you from software that may violate your
privacy or allow an attacker to misuse your computer—features not found in
ICF.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/northrup/02august12.asp

[[If you're not running Windows XP, or if you want to have greater control
(and awareness) of what your firewall is doing on your behalf, you may be
better served by a separate personal firewall software package. There are a
variety of good products available that enhance your computer's security.
For example, Zone Alarm by Zone Labs will not only filter incoming
connections, but will also filter outgoing connections by program. That
means that you can specify which programs on your computer should be able to
communicate over the Internet and which, if any, should be prevented from
doing so.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/5min/5min-101.mspx

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.
Wes

In
NT Canuck said:
[[Q. Should I use both Internet Connection 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 different software firewall, can
provide substantial protection for your computer.]]

Frequently Asked Questions About Internet Firewalls
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/firewall.asp

It doesn't help...because it's wrong.
Microsoft should know better, or at least talk to each other within
their own organization before writing a Q&A.
XP ICF should always be on, one of reasons is to block malicious
applications/exploits from sending "spoofed packets", another is that
ICF is the ONLY firewall that never crashes (or most stable) and
the third reason is that ICF will protect you from incoming attacks
that the other firewalls (to date) are unable to resist (and stay
active).

Mind you...the fact that a Microsoft firewall is more efficient or
stable should not be a surprise...after all they did make the OS
others sit on.

I might suggest sygate, outpost, and zonelabs/zonealarm last (ZA log
problems are well documented and after 3+ years a nuisance.). Set
those firewalls to allow all incoming (?) then ICF can handle incoming
by itself, and just use 3rd party critters for outgoing alerts/blocks
which they handle better (at the moment) than Microsoft does.

Oh yeah...shame on Microsoft "security" for allowing that Q&A.
 
N

NT Canuck

ICF does *not* block outgoing traffic.

Heck...I am not trying to pick on you...but that's wrong also.
ICF can block ports, and it does block spoofed packets that
originate from that computer. ICF does not specifically block
"applications" (especially outgoing or worms)...which is what most
decent software firewalls (even the free ones) can do. Should
Microsoft wake up a bit...they could fix the app' part in days.
[[Q. Should I use a non-Microsoft personal firewall instead of the built-in
[]
out to the Internet) then choose a personal firewall from another company.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/firewall.asp

that is not bad...but the etrust av/firewall offer is using a zonelabs
"branded"
firewall and it isn't that stable by itself. The etrust AV seems ok.
[[Most third-party firewalls protect you from software that may violate your
privacy or allow an attacker to misuse your computer—features not found in
ICF.]]

heh...doesn't sound like much done for "security" pledge last 2 years.

I hope it helps someone but is only info and not any solution.
 
W

Wesley Vogel

You're not picking on me.
While I respect your opinion, that's what you are offering.
You have not cited any references to anything.
How would anyone know that you are not making up stuff?

ICF monitors outbound ports to know what inbound ports to block/open.

[[Q: How does ICF compare to third-party firewalls?
A: In many cases ICF does not have the rich feature set provided by these
products. This is because ICF is intended only as a basic intrusion
prevention feature. ICF prevents people from gathering data about the PC and
blocks unsolicited connection attempts. ICF is intended for users who
connect to the Internet but would not normally purchase a firewall from the
store.

Q: Does ICF do outbound packet inspection?
A: Other than checking the source IP address, ICF does not do any outbound
packet inspection.

The Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) is designed to give the home user and
small business protection against these threats. The goal is to provide a
baseline intrusion prevention mechanism in Windows XP. This means protecting
against scans for information and denying all unsolicited inbound traffic.

The goal of Internet Connection Firewall is to provide a baseline intrusion
prevention mechanism in Windows XP. This means protecting against scans for
information and denying all unsolicited inbound traffic. By doing this, the
basic tools that are available to "script kiddies" will be ineffective and
they will likely move on to an easier target.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/plan/icf.mspx#XSLTsection125121120120


[[ICF functions as a stateful packet filter that uses technology shared with
ICS. Although the ICF feature is stand-alone, you can also run it on the
shared Internet connection to protect your home network.

When enabled, this stateful filter blocks all unsolicited connections
originating from the public network. To accomplish this, ICF uses the flow
table and validates any incoming flow against the entries in the flow table.
Incoming data flows are only allowed if there is an existing flow table
mapping that originated from the firewall system or from within the internal
protected network. In other words, if the network communication did not
originate within the protected network, the incoming data will be dropped.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpsec.mspx

[[Because ICF inspects all incoming communications, some programs,
especially e-mail programs, may behave differently when ICF is enabled. Some
e-mail programs periodically poll their e-mail server for new mail, and some
e-mail programs wait for notification from their e-mail server. Outlook
Express, for example, automatically checks for new e-mail when its timer
tells it to do so. When new e-mail is present, Outlook Express prompts the
user with a notification about the new e-mail. ICF does not affect the
behavior of this program, because the request for new e-mail notification
originates from inside the firewall. The firewall makes an entry in a table
noting the outbound communication to the mail server. When the mail server
returns the response for new e-mail, the firewall finds an associated entry
in the table and allows the communication to pass, then the user receives
notification that a new e-mail has arrived.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...ion/IIS/6/all/proddocs/en-us/hnw_UsingICF.asp

[[ICF is considered a "stateful" firewall. A stateful firewall is one that
monitors all aspects of the communications that cross its path and inspects
the source and destination address of each message that it handles. To
prevent unsolicited traffic from the public side of the connection from
entering the private side, ICF keeps a table of all communications that have
originated from the ICF computer. When used in conjunction with ICS, ICF
tracks all traffic that has originated from the ICF/ICS computer and all
traffic that has originated from private network computers. All inbound
traffic from the Internet is compared against entries in the table. Inbound
Internet traffic is allowed to reach the computers in your network only when
there is a matching entry in the table that shows that the communication
exchange originated from your computer or private network.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...proddocs/en-us/hnw_understanding_firewall.asp

[[A simple definition. ICF allows outgoing communications that originate
from your computer (and the corresponding incoming replies) while blocking
everything else.

Essentially, ICF only allows in that which is a reply to a previous request
that went out. ICF blocks and discards all other incoming traffic.

Say you get infected with a Trojan horse program. Many of these announce
their existence to some database somewhere. If an attacker tries to connect
to the Trojan on your computer, ICF will block it. Note that this applies
only to Trojans in which the attacker makes the first connection to the
infected computer; other Trojans that make the first connection to the
attacker will open a connection in ICF's memory, allowing the attacker to
reply.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/security/askus/aus1001.mspx

[[The Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) feature in the original release
version of Windows XP examines only inbound unicast traffic. Starting with
Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Windows Server 2003, ICF examines and
drops (blocks) unsolicited inbound unicast, multicast, and broadcast
traffic.]]
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;329928#appliesto

[[Windows Firewall considers outbound traffic and the corresponding
responses to be the components of outbound connections. All outbound
connections are automatically allowed by Windows Firewall.

Action Required
None. Windows Firewall will automatically allow all outbound connections,
regardless of the program and the user context.]]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/security/productinfo/XPSP2/networkprotection/firewall_devimp.aspx

Windows Firewall
[[Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), now in Beta testing, includes the new
Windows Firewall, previously known as the Internet Connection Firewall
(ICF). Windows Firewall is a stateful host-based firewall that drops all
unsolicited incoming traffic that does not correspond to either traffic sent
in response to a request of the computer (solicited traffic) or unsolicited
traffic that has been specified as allowed (excepted traffic). Windows
Firewall provides a level of protection from malicious users and programs
that rely on unsolicited incoming traffic to attack computers on a
network.]]
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0204.mspx

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.
Wes

In
NT Canuck said:
ICF does *not* block outgoing traffic.

Heck...I am not trying to pick on you...but that's wrong also.
ICF can block ports, and it does block spoofed packets that
originate from that computer. ICF does not specifically block
"applications" (especially outgoing or worms)...which is what most
decent software firewalls (even the free ones) can do. Should
Microsoft wake up a bit...they could fix the app' part in days.
[[Q. Should I use a non-Microsoft personal firewall instead of the built-in
[]
out to the Internet) then choose a personal firewall from another
company.]] http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/firewall.asp

that is not bad...but the etrust av/firewall offer is using a zonelabs
"branded"
firewall and it isn't that stable by itself. The etrust AV seems ok.
[[Most third-party firewalls protect you from software that may
violate your privacy or allow an attacker to misuse your
computer—features not found in ICF.]]

heh...doesn't sound like much done for "security" pledge last 2 years.

I hope it helps someone but is only info and not any solution.
 
N

NT Canuck

You're not picking on me.

correct, but I can't proofread entire MS database of html/errors either.
While I respect your opinion, that's what you are offering.

umm no..."I think, I believe, I imagine" are examples of opinions,
"It does, it can, it will, it is" are examples of statements just as
"I noted, I saw" would be observations and statements...check
sentence structure and syntax (sometimes hard to do here). ;-)
You have not cited any references to anything.

Umm...you have my permission to consider those posts a reference.
Putting words on html onsite is no guarantee (by itself) of accuracy.
How would anyone know that you are not making up stuff?

How does anyone know the references you quoted aren't imaginative versus
empirically validated? Sort of a wish list or misquoted error reports?
One has to test...and test again...then compare with others results if you
wish to be an effective administrator/participant in any IT "security"
field.

This is after all; security_admin forum, and not dogbert. (i think)
(see difference?...that statement was an opinion...) ;-)

So Wesley...hunt and peck into the windows/system32/drivers
folder and if familiar with firewalls/dependencies/code you will
observe for yourself many libraries (*.dll) that have ability to
do more work than what ICF currently offers...although I admit
saying that MS could add application checking "in days" is more
of an opinion because I have no data on how fast MS can type.
 

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