ZoneAlarm Pro 2.6.362 - Is it still good?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I have ZoneAlarm Pro 2.6.362 on a number of older networked Win98SE PCs
that I only use occasionally and rarely use them to connect to the web.
Is it still a good program?

I have a NAT router and I use Kerio 2.15 on the systems that are web
active.

Chas.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <6sudneyr1vAjlZ_eRVn-sw@comcast.com>, dnafutz@aol.spam.com
says...
> I have ZoneAlarm Pro 2.6.362 on a number of older networked Win98SE PCs
> that I only use occasionally and rarely use them to connect to the web.
> Is it still a good program?
>
> I have a NAT router and I use Kerio 2.15 on the systems that are web
> active.
>
> Chas.

2.6.362 is great if you want a bloat-free ZA. I suppose it's better to
use an updated version, but I like 2.6.362 myself and have used it many
times before with good results.

--
Kerodo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, Kerodo mused:
|
| When you get right down to it, if the malware is sophisticated enough,
| it can always get past ANY of the software firewalls. Wouldn't you
| agree?

Certainly. But the key phrase is "sophisticated enough." The
keyboard/macro protection added in later versions of ZA were in response
to new trojans that could simulate key presses and mouse clicks. In
that case, they are sophisticated enough to defeat 2.6.x, but not 4.x
.... for example.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Kerodo" <loopback@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6c4ea76f3d39f2989682@news.east.cox.net...
| In article <6sudneyr1vAjlZ_eRVn-sw@comcast.com>, dnafutz@aol.spam.com
| says...
| > I have ZoneAlarm Pro 2.6.362 on a number of older networked Win98SE
PCs
| > that I only use occasionally and rarely use them to connect to the
web.
| > Is it still a good program?
| >
| > I have a NAT router and I use Kerio 2.15 on the systems that are web
| > active.
| >
| > Chas.
|
| 2.6.362 is great if you want a bloat-free ZA. I suppose it's better
to
| use an updated version, but I like 2.6.362 myself and have used it
many
| times before with good results.

Thanks, I had some nightmares with ZA 3.x and switched to Kerio 2.14.
Later tried Kerio 4.x and went back to 2.15. I didn't feel like doing
uninstalls/installs on half a dozen systems that are rarely connected to
the web (or even turned on).

Chas.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, sunnyb@srb.net mused:
|
| Do you happen to have any info or a URL that points to one of these
| types of trojans.

Not off hand, but the protection against them was added to later
versions (as well as other software firewalls) for a reason.