ZoneAlarm rubbish now?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nighthawk, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    I still run Win98SE and have ZoneAlarm 6.1.744.001, being the latest
    version you can use with Win98. But I also download versions for XP,
    for friends and relatives and currently have 7.0.362.000. But I am
    reading a lot of comments about later versions of ZoneAlarm being
    unreliable and troublesome with system and browsing slowdowns. Of the
    two versions I mention above the latter installation file is a whole
    FOUR times bigger. People talk about XP installations breaking,
    programmes stopping working, needing to reformat their drives. Has
    ZoneAlarm really got that bad?

    How would you go installing an old version on XP such as the earlier
    one mentioned above, which I have read being a recommended measure in
    some forums?

    Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?
    Nighthawk, Jul 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:30:24 +1200, Nighthawk wrote:

    > Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?


    Smoothwall is indeed an excellent firewall.

    You would need to bear in mind that ifyou use Smoothwall you will require a
    separate PC that ONLY functions as a network firewall. Also the free
    download version of Smoothwall does not control outward going traffic -
    only inward going traffic. :eek:)


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nighthawk

    Robert Cooze Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:30:24 +1200, Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?

    >
    > Smoothwall is indeed an excellent firewall.
    >
    > You would need to bear in mind that ifyou use Smoothwall you will require a
    > separate PC that ONLY functions as a network firewall. Also the free
    > download version of Smoothwall does not control outward going traffic -
    > only inward going traffic. :eek:)
    >
    >

    What about IPCop

    --
    http://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze

    / __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ /
    / / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-'
    ___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/
    Robert Cooze, Jul 24, 2007
    #3
  4. Nighthawk

    XPD Guest

    "Nighthawk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I still run Win98SE and have ZoneAlarm 6.1.744.001, being the latest
    > version you can use with Win98. But I also download versions for XP,
    > for friends and relatives and currently have 7.0.362.000. But I am
    > reading a lot of comments about later versions of ZoneAlarm being
    > unreliable and troublesome with system and browsing slowdowns. Of the
    > two versions I mention above the latter installation file is a whole
    > FOUR times bigger. People talk about XP installations breaking,
    > programmes stopping working, needing to reformat their drives. Has
    > ZoneAlarm really got that bad?


    TBH, Ive always thought ZA to be crap for years.... so many times I had
    callers who had installed ZA and found it killed their connections...even
    using the ZA Uninstaller it wouldnt fix anything and a TCP/IP reinstall was
    needed or even some cases a full system reinstall.......... smart move IMHO
    looking elsewhere :)
    XPD, Jul 24, 2007
    #4
  5. Nighthawk

    SteveM Guest

    Robert Cooze <> wrote in
    news:46a650f9$:

    > Jonathan Walker wrote:
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:30:24 +1200, Nighthawk wrote:
    >>
    >>> Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?

    >>
    >> Smoothwall is indeed an excellent firewall.
    >>
    >> You would need to bear in mind that ifyou use Smoothwall you will
    >> require a separate PC that ONLY functions as a network firewall.
    >> Also the free download version of Smoothwall does not control outward
    >> going traffic - only inward going traffic. :eek:)
    >>
    >>

    > What about IPCop
    >


    Try M0n0wall m0n0.ch/wall/

    *BSD based, can run on a 8 meg flash card, full firewall control out of the
    box.....

    SteveM
    SteveM, Jul 24, 2007
    #5
  6. Nighthawk

    Rob S Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > I still run Win98SE and have ZoneAlarm 6.1.744.001, being the latest
    > version you can use with Win98. But I also download versions for XP,
    > for friends and relatives and currently have 7.0.362.000. But I am
    > reading a lot of comments about later versions of ZoneAlarm being
    > unreliable and troublesome with system and browsing slowdowns. Of the
    > two versions I mention above the latter installation file is a whole
    > FOUR times bigger. People talk about XP installations breaking,
    > programmes stopping working, needing to reformat their drives. Has
    > ZoneAlarm really got that bad?
    >
    > How would you go installing an old version on XP such as the earlier
    > one mentioned above, which I have read being a recommended measure in
    > some forums?
    >
    > Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?
    >

    As far as installing an old version of zonealarm goes, I can't see any
    problems apart from probably being nagged to upgrade every time you
    download the latest virus definitions. You can download an old version
    from http://www.oldversion.com/ , funnily enough.

    Among other free firewalls, I've always found Kerio to be simple to set
    up, reliable and doesn't hog system resources. I used to recommend
    Comodo, but there are conflicting reports on the latest version causing
    problems, though I have installed it for 2 people recently and have had
    no problems reported back.

    Linux based firewalls like ipcop, smoothwall and monowall(bsd based),
    and full security oses like coyote and clark connect(bsd based), require
    dedicating a pc to the job. All very well if you have an old pc lying
    around with a couple of network cards, but for home users with only 1
    pc, it can be impractical and an extra addition to the power bill, as
    well as the task of finding somewhere to hide the box both visually and
    aurally.

    The other alternative is a proper hardware firewall, usually paired with
    a router. Extra power drain, but not as much as a pc firewall, good
    security, small and innocuous and usually easy to configure, but
    probably overkill for a dialup account, ideal for broadband as they are
    just set and forget.

    --

    Rob
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    http://www.aspir8or.com
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    If computers were a religion, I'd be the Pope.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Rob S, Jul 24, 2007
    #6
  7. Nighthawk

    Who Me Guest

    Rob S wrote:
    > Nighthawk wrote:
    >> I still run Win98SE and have ZoneAlarm 6.1.744.001, being the latest
    >> version you can use with Win98. But I also download versions for XP,
    >> for friends and relatives and currently have 7.0.362.000. But I am
    >> reading a lot of comments about later versions of ZoneAlarm being
    >> unreliable and troublesome with system and browsing slowdowns. Of the
    >> two versions I mention above the latter installation file is a whole
    >> FOUR times bigger. People talk about XP installations breaking,
    >> programmes stopping working, needing to reformat their drives. Has
    >> ZoneAlarm really got that bad?
    >>
    >> How would you go installing an old version on XP such as the earlier
    >> one mentioned above, which I have read being a recommended measure in
    >> some forums?
    >>
    >> Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?
    >>

    > As far as installing an old version of zonealarm goes, I can't see any
    > problems apart from probably being nagged to upgrade every time you
    > download the latest virus definitions. You can download an old version
    > from http://www.oldversion.com/ , funnily enough.
    >
    > Among other free firewalls, I've always found Kerio to be simple to set
    > up, reliable and doesn't hog system resources. I used to recommend
    > Comodo, but there are conflicting reports on the latest version causing
    > problems, though I have installed it for 2 people recently and have had
    > no problems reported back.
    >
    > Linux based firewalls like ipcop, smoothwall and monowall(bsd based),
    > and full security oses like coyote and clark connect(bsd based), require
    > dedicating a pc to the job. All very well if you have an old pc lying
    > around with a couple of network cards, but for home users with only 1
    > pc, it can be impractical and an extra addition to the power bill, as
    > well as the task of finding somewhere to hide the box both visually and
    > aurally.
    >
    > The other alternative is a proper hardware firewall, usually paired with
    > a router. Extra power drain, but not as much as a pc firewall, good
    > security, small and innocuous and usually easy to configure, but
    > probably overkill for a dialup account, ideal for broadband as they are
    > just set and forget.
    >

    After finding the latest ZA disappointing Installed Comodo firewall
    pro ,its free and has the sort of feature you find in ZA pro

    Who Me
    Who Me, Jul 24, 2007
    #7
  8. Nighthawk

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Dave Taylor, Jul 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk Guest

    On 25 Jul 2007 06:50:51 +1200, Jonathan Walker <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:30:24 +1200, Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?

    >
    >Smoothwall is indeed an excellent firewall.
    >
    >You would need to bear in mind that ifyou use Smoothwall you will require a
    >separate PC that ONLY functions as a network firewall. Also the free
    >download version of Smoothwall does not control outward going traffic -
    >only inward going traffic. :eek:)


    I am thinking about this for a friend of mine who has had a load of
    trouble but could have a spare K6-2/550 PC. I heard Smoothwall was
    good and easy to set up but I didn't know it did not monitor outgoing
    traffic. As IPCop is a fork of Smoothwall does that monitor outgoing
    traffic?
    Nighthawk, Jul 25, 2007
    #9
  10. Nighthawk

    Craig Shore Guest

    Who Me wrote:

    > Rob S wrote:
    > > Nighthawk wrote:
    > > > I still run Win98SE and have ZoneAlarm 6.1.744.001, being the
    > > > latest version you can use with Win98. But I also download
    > > > versions for XP, for friends and relatives and currently have
    > > > 7.0.362.000. But I am reading a lot of comments about later
    > > > versions of ZoneAlarm being unreliable and troublesome with
    > > > system and browsing slowdowns. Of the two versions I mention
    > > > above the latter installation file is a whole FOUR times bigger.
    > > > People talk about XP installations breaking, programmes stopping
    > > > working, needing to reformat their drives. Has ZoneAlarm really
    > > > got that bad?
    > > >
    > > > How would you go installing an old version on XP such as the
    > > > earlier one mentioned above, which I have read being a
    > > > recommended measure in some forums?
    > > >
    > > > Maybe time to consider Smoothwall?
    > > >

    > > As far as installing an old version of zonealarm goes, I can't see
    > > any problems apart from probably being nagged to upgrade every
    > > time you download the latest virus definitions. You can download
    > > an old version from http://www.oldversion.com/ , funnily enough.
    > >
    > > Among other free firewalls, I've always found Kerio to be simple to
    > > set up, reliable and doesn't hog system resources. I used to
    > > recommend Comodo, but there are conflicting reports on the latest
    > > version causing problems, though I have installed it for 2 people
    > > recently and have had no problems reported back.
    > >
    > > Linux based firewalls like ipcop, smoothwall and monowall(bsd
    > > based), and full security oses like coyote and clark connect(bsd
    > > based), require dedicating a pc to the job. All very well if you
    > > have an old pc lying around with a couple of network cards, but
    > > for home users with only 1 pc, it can be impractical and an extra
    > > addition to the power bill, as well as the task of finding
    > > somewhere to hide the box both visually and aurally.
    > >
    > > The other alternative is a proper hardware firewall, usually paired
    > > with a router. Extra power drain, but not as much as a pc
    > > firewall, good security, small and innocuous and usually easy to
    > > configure, but probably overkill for a dialup account, ideal for
    > > broadband as they are just set and forget.
    > >

    > After finding the latest ZA disappointing Installed Comodo firewall
    > pro ,its free and has the sort of feature you find in ZA pro


    Just gotta watch it's default install. I was wondering why it wasn't
    asking me about some apps accessing the net, but it seems it knows
    about a lot of okay programs and lets them have access.

    You have to do the advanced install if you want it to stop everything
    without your permission.

    I like to decide which apps I allow to phone home. Unless they really
    need to (e.g. antivirus) then they don't get permission.
    Craig Shore, Jul 25, 2007
    #10
  11. On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:19:09 +1200, Nighthawk wrote:

    >>You would need to bear in mind that ifyou use Smoothwall you will require
    >>a separate PC that ONLY functions as a network firewall. Also the free
    >>download version of Smoothwall does not control outward going traffic -
    >>only inward going traffic. :eek:)

    >
    > I am thinking about this for a friend of mine who has had a load of
    > trouble but could have a spare K6-2/550 PC. I heard Smoothwall was good
    > and easy to set up but I didn't know it did not monitor outgoing traffic.
    > As IPCop is a fork of Smoothwall does that monitor outgoing traffic?


    It is only the free download version of Smoothwall that does not control
    outward traffic.

    I have no experience of IPCop and so cannot comment on it.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 25, 2007
    #11
  12. Nighthawk

    Rob S Guest

    >
    >> Rob S wrote:


    >>> As far as installing an old version of zonealarm goes, I can't see
    >>> any problems apart from probably being nagged to upgrade every
    >>> time you download the latest virus definitions.


    I must have been half asleep when I wrote that paragraph. Hopefully
    nobody has searched the zonealarm website for their fancy new antivirus
    equipped firewall. My bad. :)
    --

    Rob
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    http://aspir8or.blogspot.com
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    Beta. Software undergoes beta testing shortly before it's released. Beta
    is Latin for 'still doesn't work.'
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Rob S, Jul 25, 2007
    #12
  13. Nighthawk

    EMB Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:

    > I have no experience of IPCop and so cannot comment on it.
    >

    It's a fork off the Smoothwall dev tree, it's fully featured, and it's
    stable.

    I have it running on a P3-733 with a VPN endpoint, dansguardian, and a
    few other things. In that config it handles 10Mb/s throughput happily
    and copes with 40+ users without squealing.
    EMB, Jul 25, 2007
    #13
  14. On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:48:56 +1200, EMB wrote:

    >> I have no experience of IPCop and so cannot comment on it.
    >>

    > It's a fork off the Smoothwall dev tree, it's fully featured, and it's
    > stable.
    >
    > I have it running on a P3-733 with a VPN endpoint, dansguardian, and a few
    > other things. In that config it handles 10Mb/s throughput happily and
    > copes with 40+ users without squealing.


    Nice!

    Does it control outward traffic as well?


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
    bath and a short dress to get into."
    Jonathan Walker, Jul 25, 2007
    #14
  15. Nighthawk

    EMB Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:48:56 +1200, EMB wrote:
    >
    >>> I have no experience of IPCop and so cannot comment on it.
    >>>

    >> It's a fork off the Smoothwall dev tree, it's fully featured, and it's
    >> stable.
    >>
    >> I have it running on a P3-733 with a VPN endpoint, dansguardian, and a few
    >> other things. In that config it handles 10Mb/s throughput happily and
    >> copes with 40+ users without squealing.

    >
    > Nice!
    >
    > Does it control outward traffic as well?
    >
    >

    With the Block Outgoing traffic addon it certainly does.
    EMB, Jul 25, 2007
    #15
  16. Nighthawk

    EMB Guest

    Jonathan Walker wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:48:56 +1200, EMB wrote:
    >
    >>> I have no experience of IPCop and so cannot comment on it.
    >>>

    >> It's a fork off the Smoothwall dev tree, it's fully featured, and it's
    >> stable.
    >>
    >> I have it running on a P3-733 with a VPN endpoint, dansguardian, and a few
    >> other things. In that config it handles 10Mb/s throughput happily and
    >> copes with 40+ users without squealing.

    >
    > Nice!
    >
    > Does it control outward traffic as well?


    I also meant to mention that I'm using it as a transparent proxy too
    which is giving good bandwidth savings.
    EMB, Jul 25, 2007
    #16
  17. Nighthawk

    neutrino Guest

    On Jul 26, 8:06 am, EMB <> wrote:
    > Jonathan Walker wrote:
    > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:48:56 +1200, EMB wrote:

    >
    > >>> I have no experience of IPCop and so cannot comment on it.

    >
    > >> It's a fork off the Smoothwall dev tree, it's fully featured, and it's
    > >> stable.

    >
    > > I also meant to mention that I'm using it as a transparent proxy too

    > which is giving good bandwidth savings.


    Just to add my bit in - I know it's no longer around or supported,
    but I'v been extremely content with Sygate Personal Firewall (V5.6) .
    and I believe it's still to be found out there in Net'places.
    It looks after all outgoing/incoming connections, and blocks any
    attempts by hackers.
    but.... you guys might have other opinions :)
    oh.. and Avast looks after the Viri stuff .
    neutrino, Jul 26, 2007
    #17
  18. In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:

    > It is only the free download version of Smoothwall that does not control
    > outward traffic.


    Isn't it built around a Linux kernel? Which would include full iptables
    functionality (incoming and outgoing) as standard?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Nighthawk

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote in news:f89kkv
    $n7$:

    > Isn't it built around a Linux kernel? Which would include full iptables
    > functionality (incoming and outgoing) as standard?
    >


    The GUI is the key missing point.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Jul 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Nighthawk

    EMB Guest

    Dave Taylor wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote in news:f89kkv
    > $n7$:
    >
    >> Isn't it built around a Linux kernel? Which would include full iptables
    >> functionality (incoming and outgoing) as standard?
    >>

    >
    > The GUI is the key missing point.
    >

    A matter that is well addressed in IPCop.
    EMB, Jul 26, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony Evans

    Blocking Rubbish

    Tony Evans, Jun 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,040
  2. dawn harmer

    rubbish

    dawn harmer, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    687
    Patrick
    Aug 5, 2003
  3. Chris

    HP printer 610c prints font rubbish?

    Chris, Dec 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    548
    Edward\(1\)
    Dec 30, 2003
  4. Paul

    XP SP2 absolute rubbish!

    Paul, Oct 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,180
    Toolman Tim
    Oct 9, 2004
  5. nemo
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    5,784
    samuel
    Mar 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page