Re: XP Firewall or Zone Alarm ?



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
.




Relevant Pages

  • Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?
    ... > Which version of free Zone Alarm should I go for if I am concerned ... > about losing too much PC power to running the firewall? ... > I don't expect to need any Zone Alarm feature ... > free version of Sygate. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?
    ... > Which version of free Zone Alarm should I go for if I am concerned ... > about losing too much PC power to running the firewall? ... > I don't expect to need any Zone Alarm feature ... > free version of Sygate. ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?
    ... > Which version of free Zone Alarm should I go for if I am concerned ... > about losing too much PC power to running the firewall? ... > I don't expect to need any Zone Alarm feature ... > free version of Sygate. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: [Full-disclosure] PC Firewall Choices
    ... ZoneAlarm - gets in the way, ... > I am looking at supplementing the Windows XP SP2 Firewall with a third ... > party product on a bunch of Windows machines. ... > ZoneAlarm, Sygate, Norton, Kerio, and Tiny. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?
    ... I have used the free version of Sygate with no problem on XP computers. ... The free version of Zone Alarm is fine, easier for most users, ... Personally I find the built in ICF firewall in XP to be very good for what ... > I don't expect to need any Zone Alarm feature ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)