Replacement for ZA free?

system · 2007-03-15T22:23:13.000Z

Platforms: Designed for Windows Vista™ 32-bit, XP, 2000 and Server 2003
davidr-does this help at all-this is all it said for system requirements
and the leaktest passed on both of mine too ;D

bob3160 · 2007-03-15T22:47:37.000Z

Sorry OrangeCrate,
I hate to disagree but IMHO, security programs of any type should always be as up-to-date as possible.

OrangeCrate · 2007-03-15T22:58:24.000Z

bob3160 post:60:

Sorry OrangeCrate,
I hate to disagree but IMHO, security programs of any type should always be as up-to-date as possible.

Not if the engine remains the same. It’s like newer models of cars that use the same platform. Looks nice, but it’s still the same car. Same engine, same transmission, same drive train, etc.

There is a new engine with version 7, but nothing changed to the guts of the ZoneAlarm firewall, with any version from 4.something to 6.1.744.000. The firewall functions were the same no matter what the version was.

It was all “bells and whistles”, and the change list that David posted reflects that.

Here’s a review of the new engine…

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/downloads/2128997/zonealarm

But, I would advise a long-slow-read through the ZA forums before anyone would think about upgrading to version 7.

bob3160 · 2007-03-15T23:20:58.000Z

To me OrangeCrate, a good test of a product is how it performs on a system.
I’ve had the latest version of ZA running on my other (XP-2) system with out any problems or
hick ups since the day it was released.
I don’t need a written review. We all work and evaluate things differently. A program has to work for me and with
my operating system. No company will ever please every one. Just look at Microsoft. ;D
I will however replace ZA on that computer with PC Tools Firewall since it’s as good as ZA has been and, is much less
system intensive.

DavidR · 2007-03-15T23:32:29.000Z

OrangeCrate post:58:

DavidR post:56:

@ OrangeCrate
I generally don’t like recommending Old versions of Security software, especially if the updates were security related, rather than adding more bells and whistles, unfortunately it is many years since I used ZA.

For me some of these issued that were fixed may have improved things rather than just bells and whistles.

[b]New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.744.000[/b] * Fixed - Service stability issue * Fixed - Communicate with the centralized server issue * Fixed - Various other bug fixes
New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.1.737.000
* Fixed - Compatibility issues with Adaptec USB driver
* Fixed - Nortel VPN can not connect
* Fixed - Compatibility issue when System Mechanic Startup Guard is enabled
* Fixed - VSNET 2003 issues
* Fixed - High vsmon CPU usage
* Fixed - System stability issues
* Fixed - Various other bug fixes

New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.667.000
* Fixed - Free ZA blocking some Remote access software from accessing ZA Alert notifications
* Fixed - Propel compatibility issue

New and improved features in ZoneAlarm Antivirus version 6.0.631.003
* Fixed network detection issue.[b]

New and improved features in ZoneAlarm version 6.0.631.002[/b]
* Routine maintenance items

So David, would you care to point out to me on that list, what exactly improves those upgraded versions’ ability to be a firewall?

It looks like system stability issues and bug fixes to me… Right?

When I cut and pasted I didn’t select anything, I have edited the above and any and all would make me concerned at what you say is the same engine has multiple issues, which have been reportedly fixed.

Another thing are the generalisations like, Fixed - Various other bug fixes and Routine maintenance items, these things could mean anything and is almost microsoft language/speak in it could mean absolutely anything.

System stability is only one issue but like Bob said when it comes to security products I tend too recommend the latest up to date version. This is especially true if it is advice for someone else, you Bob or I are big enough to take care of and make decisions for ourselves. So I have no problem if you want to use 5.5, knowing its possible failings, but it is entirely different for advising a novice user.

OrangeCrate · 2007-03-15T23:34:23.000Z

bob3160 post:62:

I will however replace ZA on that computer with PC Tools Firewall since it’s as good as ZA has been and, is much less system intensive.

I think that’s a great idea. From what you’ve said, and what I’ve read in this thread, that program sounds like a real winner. I’ll probably just leave my Windows setup the way it is, only because it’s the guest OS now, and I seldom use it. 5.5.094 has worked fine for me.

OrangeCrate · 2007-03-15T23:44:56.000Z

DavidR post:63:

So I have no problem if you want to use 5.5, knowing its possible failings, but it is entirely different for advising a novice user.

Agreed, but if you go back to the beginning of this thread, you’ll notice that the advice I gave was to MikeBCda, not some novice user. Unless of course, you’re calling Mike a novice…

DavidR · 2007-03-16T00:58:52.000Z

I believe you well know the answer to your own question. Neither you or I can say how much research MikeBCda might do to see what the differences between the 5.5 version and any later version. However, it a mute point why go back to 5.5 when he is using 6.5.737 that is working for him and incorporating all of the points I raised and then some.

I'll stick with my 6.5.737 as long as it stays functional, but I'm fairly sure its days are numbered.

OrangeCrate · 2007-03-16T12:28:14.000Z

DavidR post:66:

I believe you well know the answer to your own question. Neither you or I can say how much research MikeBCda might do to see what the differences between the 5.5 version and any later version. However, it a mute point why go back to 5.5 when he is using 6.5.737 that is working for him and incorporating all of the points I raised and then some.

I'll stick with my 6.5.737 as long as it stays functional, but I'm fairly sure its days are numbered.

To answer your question directly…

In my opinion, any version after 6.0 (after Check Point purchased ZoneAlarm) is inferior to ZoneAlarm’s own products.

5.5.094 is a superior firewall to any version that has come after. The long list of bug and stability fixes to the bloat that was introduced by Check Point to the product, that you posted, just confirms that to me. Changes for the better, are normally listed in release notes. I don’t see anything that tells me that is so with their revisions that you posted.

Sometimes what was, is better than what is. Check Point’s changes to the ZoneAlarm products were marketing driven, not technical driven.

The advice and information that I gave to MikeBCda and to anyone else who read my post, still stands. In threads here, there are many times opposing views and suggestions. As said, it’s then up to the OP to make up his mind as to which suggestions to adopt.

As I’ve tried to point out in this thread on my discussion on ZoneAlarm, sometimes updates to programs don’t necessarily make them better. In fact, many times, they just compound the problems, as I believe the case is with ZoneAlarm. Sometimes stepping backwards to an earlier version might be a person’s best bet, and was the suggestion I made to MikeBCda.

MikeBCda · 2007-03-16T16:48:02.000Z

Maybe I should jump in and clarify. In an earlier posting which might have been overlooked, I said I’d ditched my ZA and replaced it with Comodo (and thanks for numerous recommendations for that) since the latter works quite well and doesn’t suffer from the new bloatware that’s been added to ZA. I do agree that security software should be kept as up to date as possible, but I ain’t gonna stay with ZA since CheckPoint seems to have abandoned the wants of users who’ve faithfully used it and recommended it for years.

CheckPoint apparently still has to learn one of the most critical parts of marketing: abandonment is a two-way street, which is essentially what I’d said in my first posting here.

As for my level of “expertise”, sure, I’ve been on computers for something like 20 years now. But while I was considered an expert back in DOS days, since Win became the actual operating system I’m just another point-and-click-and-pray user.

polonus · 2007-03-16T17:27:02.000Z

Hi MikeBCda,

Cheer up, my good friend, your knowledge of Dos is still welcomed during various occasions, especially when Win 98Se users are concerned. I still have a MS DOS 5.0 bible on the shelf. Windows is not running on it anymore, but it is still hanging there. Buddha does not have point - click and pray methods.

polonus

Lisandro · 2007-03-16T17:47:31.000Z

I lose faith on ZA when I see the level of protection achieved.

http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php#firewalls-ratings
http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
http://www.thefreecountry.com/security/firewalls.shtml
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=22742.0;topicseen

Why don’t common users move to Comodo? It’s free!

I'm just another point-and-click-and-pray user. ;)

We're all learning-praying-blaming-users eh eh...

szc · 2007-10-30T18:47:37.000Z

Tech post:70:

…
…
…
Why don’t common users move to Comodo? It’s free!
…
…
…

Well, maybe because Comodo for Vista at this stage (Beta) is too buggy… nothing works as it should on some systems. Even on Windows XP I experienced few problems with suddenly losing internet connection… also with Home Networking… sometimes it works, sometimes you can’t access your network computers even though you were able to do that 2 minutes prior your second attempt… Also, it seems like they included so many options inside that Comodo became everything but simple for some beginner user profile. Another bad thing - It became little too heavy on system resources too.

bob3160 · 2007-10-30T21:04:33.000Z

Sasha,
To be fair, this is a 7 month old thread. Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo.

Lisandro · 2007-10-30T21:26:46.000Z

bob3160 post:72:

Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo.

Unfortunately, but true.

szc · 2007-10-30T22:13:12.000Z

bob3160 post:72:

Sasha,
To be fair, this is a 7 month old thread. Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo.

Oh yeah, sorry Tech… I have no clue how this thread popped-up in my browser so I instantly answered it, didn’t even pay attention to the date when last reply was posted.

What’s even worse… I am not that happy with Comodo as I was back then…

system · 2007-11-01T14:07:26.000Z

bob3160 post:72:

Sasha,
To be fair, this is a 7 month old thread. Tech has also changed his mind about Comodo.

What does Tech think about comodo now?

MikeBCda · 2007-11-01T17:36:36.000Z

As for me, I’m quite happy with Comodo and am sticking with it (for now, anyway - more on that below). While I agree that the “Advanced” settings and options are probably way beyond the ken of the average user, in most cases they can just be left at the defaults.

My only concern is with the upcoming new version, which from comments on their forums sounds like it will be an entirely new application, having only the name in common with the current one. Hopefully it will continue to be user-friendly for most users even with the drastic changes.

Lisandro · 2007-11-01T18:07:42.000Z

Lusher post:75:

What does Tech think about comodo now?

A very good firewall. Support could be better (most of the times, just from users and not from the programmers themselves).
But I couldn’t manage to install any of the betas on my Vista Business 32 bits system.
I do not try on XP but I’ve kept the version 2 (stable).

system · 2007-11-02T13:49:33.000Z

I guess nobody wants to know what Lusher thinks of Comodo firewall?

Announcements