«

Can anyone help me, I have Zone Alarm 4.5 and the instructions just confuse
me. I can't get on the internet through internet explorer? I ticked all the
boxes with green ticks and still it won't connect. It will let Outlook
express through though. Does anyone know how to fix this?

Adam wrote:
> Can anyone help me, I have Zone Alarm 4.5 and the instructions just
> confuse me. I can't get on the internet through internet explorer? I
> ticked all the boxes with green ticks and still it won't connect. It
> will let Outlook express through though. Does anyone know how to fix
> this?

Please provide more information. Your Operating System? What are "the boxes
with green ticks" and where are they located?


--
Creating a Good Newsgroup Post:

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/post.html
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-...ns.html#asking

Xp Home, The boxes with the green ticks are in Zone alarm 4.5, they allow
you to set what programs are allowed to use the internet. Thanks.

"The Prophecy" <> wrote in message
newssYjc.31722$en3.13888@edtnps89...
> Adam wrote:
> > Can anyone help me, I have Zone Alarm 4.5 and the instructions just
> > confuse me. I can't get on the internet through internet explorer? I
> > ticked all the boxes with green ticks and still it won't connect. It
> > will let Outlook express through though. Does anyone know how to fix
> > this?
>
> Please provide more information. Your Operating System? What are "the
boxes
> with green ticks" and where are they located?
>
>
> --
> Creating a Good Newsgroup Post:
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/post.html
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-...ns.html#asking
>
>

"Adam" <> wrote in message
news:yt3kc.6$...
> Xp Home, The boxes with the green ticks are in Zone alarm 4.5, they allow
> you to set what programs are allowed to use the internet. Thanks.
>
> "The Prophecy" <> wrote in message
> newssYjc.31722$en3.13888@edtnps89...
> > Adam wrote:
> > > Can anyone help me, I have Zone Alarm 4.5 and the instructions just
> > > confuse me. I can't get on the internet through internet explorer? I
> > > ticked all the boxes with green ticks and still it won't connect. It
> > > will let Outlook express through though. Does anyone know how to fix
> > > this?

You're talking Application Control and most home users don't have a *clue*
as to what and what not to allow to run or make contact with the Internet.
The more I look at Application Control and the other *bloat* crap that these
so called personal firewalls have in them, the more I realize how absolutely
* worthless* they are in the protection.

However, I'll point you to comp.security.firewalls as they will be able to
help you there.

Hell, you're better off just using XP's FW, a good AV, and Active Ports
(free).

Duane

Duane Arnold wrote:
> "Adam" <> wrote in message
> news:yt3kc.6$...
>> Xp Home, The boxes with the green ticks are in Zone alarm 4.5, they
>> allow you to set what programs are allowed to use the internet.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "The Prophecy" <> wrote in message
>> newssYjc.31722$en3.13888@edtnps89...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> Can anyone help me, I have Zone Alarm 4.5 and the instructions just
>>>> confuse me. I can't get on the internet through internet explorer?
>>>> I ticked all the boxes with green ticks and still it won't
>>>> connect. It will let Outlook express through though. Does anyone
>>>> know how to fix this?
>
> You're talking Application Control and most home users don't have a
> *clue* as to what and what not to allow to run or make contact with
> the Internet. The more I look at Application Control and the other
> *bloat* crap that these so called personal firewalls have in them,
> the more I realize how absolutely * worthless* they are in the
> protection.
>
> However, I'll point you to comp.security.firewalls as they will be
> able to help you there.
>
> Hell, you're better off just using XP's FW, a good AV, and Active
> Ports (free).
>
> Duane

XP Firewall? The only thing it's good for is taking up HD space!

So, you just use the XP sieve ware, not something I would brag about in
public

JJ

Dune Arnold wrote:
>
>
> Hell, you're better off just using XP's FW, a good AV, and Active Ports
> (free).
>
> Duane

"Jeremy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> So, you just use the XP sieve ware, not something I would brag about in
> public
>
> JJ
>

No gentlemen I don't use XP's ICF at the present time. No, what I use is a
NAT router, BlackIce, and IPsec to protect the machines on inbound and
outbound threats on the LAN.

The ICF on the XP O/S is no different than using a NAT router. One of the
main purposes of the NAT router is to stop unsolicited inbound traffic to
the machine. If an application on the machine doesn't solicited the traffic
from a remote application, the ICF just like any other host based FW, NAT
router or FW appliance will stop the unsolicited inbound traffic.

To protect things such as the services that are running on the machine,
Application Control on a personal FW solution is useless when the PFW is not
integrated with the O/S, as malware such as a Trojan, spyware, etc, etc will
beat any PFW solution to the TCP/IP before a PFW can even get started on the
TCP/IP to stop it at boot. As long as the machine is not booted, Application
Control is affective, other than that, it's kind of useless.

Time and time again, I see some poster indicate, I have stopped this unknown
request by svchost from accessing the Internet with my Application Control
on the PFW. And yet they turn around and let svchost access the Internet for
some other reason. What happen to the reason that one stopped svchost from
accessing the Internet, because it's never svchost that wants access as it's
just the messenger for the O/S and other programs that use svchost on their
behalf, such as Trojans and spyware? The list is long in this area of I
stopped something but I know not the reason why.

IPsec on the Win2k, XP, and 2K3 O/S (s) can get to the TCP/IP connection
first at boot to stop inbound or outbound and in many ways is far superior
to a third party host based FW solution.

http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_tr...with_ipsec.htm
http://www.analogx.com/contents/articles/ipsec.htm

I also know what a FW is suppose to do. Do you? Do you see anything about
Application Control and the rest of the bloat crap that's in a these PFW
solutions, that only confuses the user if they don't know what is happening
in the link?

http://www.firewall-software.com/fir..._firewall.html

You're right, I go to where I am suppose to go to secure the machine and
that's to the O/S, if you have one that security can be implemented, because
the buck stops at the O/S and everything else is secondary to it. That
includes the NAT router, BlackIce, AV and any other third party solution in
this area. If the O/S is not secure, than nothing on the machine can be
secure.

http://www.uksecurityonline.com/index5.php

And BTW, the XP FW on the release of SP 2 will have Application Control and
will be able to get to the TCP/IP first at boot, since it is integrated with
the O/S.

Currently, IPsec and ICF on the XP O/S is a solid combination. I think the
combination should be even better with the release of SP 2 for XP.

But I also use other tools to look around for myself from time to time and
not depend solely upon a single element in the protection. That and my
common sense and not do stupid things with happy fingers goes a long way.

Duane

Black Ice

Hehehehehe

I would not be so confident. You seem to know your stuff but Black Ice,
come on, you have got to be kidding.

Hope you did not get burned by the holes and latest black ice worm.
BTW the website needs considerable work to make it readable and give a
little more information before purchase.
JJ

Duane Arnold wrote:
>
> "Jeremy" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > So, you just use the XP sieve ware, not something I would brag about in
> > public
> >
> > JJ
> >
>
> No gentlemen I don't use XP's ICF at the present time. No, what I use is a
> NAT router, BlackIce, and IPsec to protect the machines on inbound and
> outbound threats on the LAN.
>
> The ICF on the XP O/S is no different than using a NAT router. One of the
> main purposes of the NAT router is to stop unsolicited inbound traffic to
> the machine. If an application on the machine doesn't solicited the traffic
> from a remote application, the ICF just like any other host based FW, NAT
> router or FW appliance will stop the unsolicited inbound traffic.
>
> To protect things such as the services that are running on the machine,
> Application Control on a personal FW solution is useless when the PFW is not
> integrated with the O/S, as malware such as a Trojan, spyware, etc, etc will
> beat any PFW solution to the TCP/IP before a PFW can even get started on the
> TCP/IP to stop it at boot. As long as the machine is not booted, Application
> Control is affective, other than that, it's kind of useless.
>
> Time and time again, I see some poster indicate, I have stopped this unknown
> request by svchost from accessing the Internet with my Application Control
> on the PFW. And yet they turn around and let svchost access the Internet for
> some other reason. What happen to the reason that one stopped svchost from
> accessing the Internet, because it's never svchost that wants access as it's
> just the messenger for the O/S and other programs that use svchost on their
> behalf, such as Trojans and spyware? The list is long in this area of I
> stopped something but I know not the reason why.
>
> IPsec on the Win2k, XP, and 2K3 O/S (s) can get to the TCP/IP connection
> first at boot to stop inbound or outbound and in many ways is far superior
> to a third party host based FW solution.
>
> http://www.petri.co.il/block_ping_tr...with_ipsec.htm
> http://www.analogx.com/contents/articles/ipsec.htm
>
> I also know what a FW is suppose to do. Do you? Do you see anything about
> Application Control and the rest of the bloat crap that's in a these PFW
> solutions, that only confuses the user if they don't know what is happening
> in the link?
>
> http://www.firewall-software.com/fir..._firewall.html
>
> You're right, I go to where I am suppose to go to secure the machine and
> that's to the O/S, if you have one that security can be implemented, because
> the buck stops at the O/S and everything else is secondary to it. That
> includes the NAT router, BlackIce, AV and any other third party solution in
> this area. If the O/S is not secure, than nothing on the machine can be
> secure.
>
> http://www.uksecurityonline.com/index5.php
>
> And BTW, the XP FW on the release of SP 2 will have Application Control and
> will be able to get to the TCP/IP first at boot, since it is integrated with
> the O/S.
>
> Currently, IPsec and ICF on the XP O/S is a solid combination. I think the
> combination should be even better with the release of SP 2 for XP.
>
> But I also use other tools to look around for myself from time to time and
> not depend solely upon a single element in the protection. That and my
> common sense and not do stupid things with happy fingers goes a long way.
>
> Duane

"Adam" <> wrote in message news:<S6Xjc.955$>...
> Can anyone help me, I have Zone Alarm 4.5 and the instructions just confuse
> me. I can't get on the internet through internet explorer? I ticked all the
> boxes with green ticks and still it won't connect. It will let Outlook
> express through though. Does anyone know how to fix this?

Adam,

The best way to use ZoneAlarm is to set it to warn you when a program
asks for access to the internet, this stops malicious programs from
accessing the internet without your knowledge. When you mention
ticking all the green boxes I assume you meant just for IE and not all
the other programs too? It depends on what errors you are receiving
when trying to connect. Firstly change all the ticks to question marks
then try and connect, IE should ask you for permission to connect then
you choose yes and tick the box to remember the settings.
As there are quite a few settings and I am not sure exactly how you
are connected (dialup, DSL or Cable) or what errors you are receiving
then maybe resetting ZA's preferences and starting again is a good
idea. As the program is on my home machine and not this one then I
can't check the different preferences myself.

Stuart

Jeremy <> wrote in
news::

> Black Ice
>
> Hehehehehe
>
> I would not be so confident. You seem to know your stuff but Black
> Ice, come on, you have got to be kidding.

I am always going to be confident with any computer technology, because
that's what my 30 years plus in the Information Technology field allows
me to be just that -- confident.

>
> Hope you did not get burned by the holes and latest black ice worm.
> BTW the website needs considerable work to make it readable and give a
> little more information before purchase.
> JJ
>

In the couple of years I have been using BI, I have not had any problems
with it and with anything else in using the product. I know exactly how
to use BI out of its automatic settings; therefore nothing was affected
on any machine, in addition to the one that had IIS exposed to the public
Internet.

All you have told me here is that you don't know anything and you're just
another *Gibson* brain washed home user disciple, most likely a teenager
or not far from that age group by the nature of your post.

You post to me you had better come correct, otherwise, I'll consider you
to be a *clown* and some kind of a troll.

Duane