XP Firewall or Zone Alarm ?

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
5 answers Last reply
More about firewall zone alarm
  1. 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
    >
  2. 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-Zone-Alarm-ftopict551298.html
    Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.windowsforumz.com/eform.php?p=1746678
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows Me Firewalls Windows XP