Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XP Firewall or Zone Alarm ?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
June 29, 2005 10:48:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi there,

I have recently built a new (latest Intel spec.) computer and have
now, because I use RAID etc, have had to move on from Windows ME.
I liked Windows ME and it was a reluctant move, but now after 6 weeks
I REALLY like XP and am a convert .... never though I would say that !

Up to now, I have just used the XP 'built-in' firewall, whereas on ME
I used Zone Alarm (purchased version, NOT the free one).

My questions are these :-
Shall I just stick with the in-built one or install Zone Alarm ?
Any benefits either way ?
More importantly, any problems with Zone Alarm and XP ?

Thanks in advance,

Steve

More about : firewall zone alarm

Anonymous
June 29, 2005 10:48:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

If you have NAV 2005 installed, you may be interested in my post from a
while back.

***************
As Carey Frisch posted (and the following article from PC Magazine
suggests), I should substitute Windows Firewall with my new version of
Norton Antivirus 2005 - with its Internet Worm Protection.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/­0,1759,1646466,00.asp


This article also suggests I install ZoneAlarm Pro, which I did a while
back.

***************


"Steve" <steve@parity.demon.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:07d4c15q9b0uqko3oeoj313cs5sp5ie0s6@4ax.com...
> Hi there,
>
> I have recently built a new (latest Intel spec.) computer and have
> now, because I use RAID etc, have had to move on from Windows ME.
> I liked Windows ME and it was a reluctant move, but now after 6 weeks
> I REALLY like XP and am a convert .... never though I would say that !
>
> Up to now, I have just used the XP 'built-in' firewall, whereas on ME
> I used Zone Alarm (purchased version, NOT the free one).
>
> My questions are these :-
> Shall I just stick with the in-built one or install Zone Alarm ?
> Any benefits either way ?
> More importantly, any problems with Zone Alarm and XP ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Steve
>
June 29, 2005 6:36:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

"" wrote:
> If you have NAV 2005 installed, you may be interested in my
> post from a
> while back.
>
> ***************
> As Carey Frisch posted (and the following article from PC
> Magazine
> suggests), I should substitute Windows Firewall with my new
> version of
> Norton Antivirus 2005 - with its Internet Worm Protection.
>
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/­0,1759,1646466,00.asp
>
>
> This article also suggests I install ZoneAlarm Pro, which I
> did a while
> back.
>
> ***************
>
>
> "Steve" <steve@parity.demon.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:07d4c15q9b0uqko3oeoj313cs5sp5ie0s6@4ax.com...
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I have recently built a new (latest Intel spec.) computer
> and have
> > now, because I use RAID etc, have had to move on from
> Windows ME.
> > I liked Windows ME and it was a reluctant move, but now
> after 6 weeks
> > I REALLY like XP and am a convert .... never though I would
> say that !
> >
> > Up to now, I have just used the XP 'built-in' firewall,
> whereas on ME
> > I used Zone Alarm (purchased version, NOT the free one).
> >
> > My questions are these :-
> > Shall I just stick with the in-built one or install Zone
> Alarm ?
> > Any benefits either way ?
> > More importantly, any problems with Zone Alarm and XP ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Steve
> >

Zone Alarm is best, it alows you to control which programs have access
to the internet, unlike windows firewall which basicly just blocks
unrequested incoming conections. So if you got a trojan on your
computer windows firewall will not stop it.

Note: Once you have installed ZA, you should disable windows firewall
to avoid confliction.

--
Posted using the http://www.windowsforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.windowsforumz.com/Help---Support-XP-Firewall...
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.windowsforumz.com/eform.php?p=1746678
Related resources
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 11:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have recently built a new (latest Intel spec.) computer and have
> now, because I use RAID etc, have had to move on from Windows ME.
> I liked Windows ME and it was a reluctant move, but now after 6 weeks
> I REALLY like XP and am a convert .... never though I would say that !
>
> Up to now, I have just used the XP 'built-in' firewall, whereas on ME
> I used Zone Alarm (purchased version, NOT the free one).
>
> My questions are these :-
> Shall I just stick with the in-built one or install Zone Alarm ?
> Any benefits either way ?
> More importantly, any problems with Zone Alarm and XP ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Steve
>


WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
June 30, 2005 12:22:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Are you dial-up, or behind a residential gateway (w/ NAT)? If the later
then stick w/ XP's Firewall, it's good enough in combo w/ the NAT. If
dial-up you may appreciate ZA's finer control.

Note that SP2's firewall is almost as good as ZA, it WILL alert you if a
program you run tries to open a SERVER port; it won't alert you if it
simply tries to send data (as ZA will). So, if you acquire a trojan then
it may phone home w/o your knowledge.

Note also, if you use ZA, you may or may not be able to disable the
Windows Firewall Service (to save mem usage). If you're set up for
networking w/ file sharing enabled you will need to have the service
running; something within is still needed for filesharing to work, even
tho ZA will ask it to not perform its firewall activities. If not doing
filesharing you can disable the service and save some memory usage.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:22:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

frodo@theshire.org wrote:
> Are you dial-up, or behind a residential gateway (w/ NAT)? If the later
> then stick w/ XP's Firewall, it's good enough in combo w/ the NAT. If
> dial-up you may appreciate ZA's finer control.
>

That's no where close to being true.

If you use a router with NAT, it's still a very good idea to use a
3rd party software firewall. Like WinXP's built-in firewall,
NAT-capable routers do *nothing* to protect the user from him/herself
(or any "curious," over-confident teenagers in the home). Again --
and I cannot emphasize this enough -- almost all spyware and many
Trojans and worms are downloaded and installed deliberately (albeit
unknowingly) by the user. So a software firewall, such as Sygate or
ZoneAlarm, that can detect and warn the user of unauthorized out-going
traffic is an important element of protecting one's privacy and
security. (Remember: Most antivirus applications do not even scan for
or protect you from adware/spyware, because, after all, you've
installed them yourself, so you must want them there, right?)

I use both a router with NAT and Sygate Personal Firewall, even
though I generally know better than to install scumware. When it
comes to computer security and protecting my privacy, I prefer the old
"belt and suspenders" approach. In the professional IT community,
this is also known as a "layered defense." Basically, it comes down
to never, ever "putting all of your eggs in one basket."



> Note that SP2's firewall is almost as good as ZA,

..... not even close!




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
!