ZoneAlarm with mixed XP W2k networks

Has anyone else noticed this strange behaviour when using ZoneAlarm:

win2k machines will network without setting up in ZoneAlarm firewall any kind
of ip access list for the local network. (Assuming the 'Trusted Zone' security
setting is set at medium.) But add an xp machine to the network, and
communication to/from it is only possible when the lan ip addresses are set up
in the 'Zone' configuration area. This is not to do with Windows firewall, as
disabling ZoneAlarm enables the whole network to be mutually visible.

So what is it about the XP machines? Or perhaps I should be asking what is it
about the w2k machines, as reading the literature suggests the access-zone
configuration route is how it is supposed to work?

I'm not sure I've explained that very well. Anyone else experienced this?

Fred the Ferret

XP is written on the bones of 2000. They go 95, 98, me, 2000, xp,
"vista". XP tried to plug the security holes of 2000.

Fred the Ferret wrote:

> Has anyone else noticed this strange behaviour when using ZoneAlarm:
>
> win2k machines will network without setting up in ZoneAlarm firewall any kind
> of ip access list for the local network. (Assuming the 'Trusted Zone' security
> setting is set at medium.) But add an xp machine to the network, and
> communication to/from it is only possible when the lan ip addresses are set up
> in the 'Zone' configuration area. This is not to do with Windows firewall, as
> disabling ZoneAlarm enables the whole network to be mutually visible.
>
> So what is it about the XP machines? Or perhaps I should be asking what is it
> about the w2k machines, as reading the literature suggests the access-zone
> configuration route is how it is supposed to work?
>
> I'm not sure I've explained that very well. Anyone else experienced this?
>
>

Glenn

It sounds like you've got it figured out, at least how to make it work,
though not why it works the way it does.

Are you not yet content?

smackedass

smackedass

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:27:03 GMT
"smackedass" <> wrote:

>
> It sounds like you've got it figured out, at least how to make it work,
> though not why it works the way it does.
>
> Are you not yet content?

Heh heh: I'm never content

I wondered if it pointed to a w2k security flaw, since it seems to bypass
ZoneAlarm's LAN firewall. Of course it makes networking with w2k simpler than
with xp...

Fred the Ferret

Fred the Ferret wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:27:03 GMT
> "smackedass" <> wrote:
>
> >
> > It sounds like you've got it figured out, at least how to make it work,
> > though not why it works the way it does.
> >
> > Are you not yet content?
>
> Heh heh: I'm never content
>
> I wondered if it pointed to a w2k security flaw, since it seems to bypass
> ZoneAlarm's LAN firewall. Of course it makes networking with w2k simpler than
> with xp...

The firewall is probably blocking ports 137,138,139--Netbios aka
SMB/CIFS.

eelder1@gmail.com

On 1 Aug 2006 19:10:12 -0700
wrote:

>
> Fred the Ferret wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:27:03 GMT
> > "smackedass" <> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It sounds like you've got it figured out, at least how to make it work,
> > > though not why it works the way it does.
> > >
> > > Are you not yet content?
> >
> > Heh heh: I'm never content
> >
> > I wondered if it pointed to a w2k security flaw, since it seems to bypass
> > ZoneAlarm's LAN firewall. Of course it makes networking with w2k simpler than
> > with xp...
>
> The firewall is probably blocking ports 137,138,139--Netbios aka
> SMB/CIFS.
>

How would that explain the differences in behaviour between xp and win2000?

Fred the Ferret