71 replies to this topic

[am9]

if anything, i wouldn't recommend norton

i think it crashed my dad's computer

[hahaman]

as much as i don't like norton for its bloatedness, i have to put up a word of fairness

the problem in ur case seems to lie between the keyboard and the chair

norton doesn't crash anything

[Aurora]

if anything, i wouldn't recommend norton

i think it crashed my dad's computer


It works well for me though... It has anti-spyware and anti-virus programmes that help to protect against malware and scammers. Also, I believe Molizza Firefox comes with a firewall. Make sure it is on.

[Waser Lave]

if anything, i wouldn't recommend norton

i think it crashed my dad's computer


It works well for me though... It has anti-spyware and anti-virus programmes that help to protect against malware and scammers. Also, I believe Molizza Firefox comes with a firewall. Make sure it is on.

Firefox doesn't have a firewall, the only thing it has is some phishing protection so you'll probably also need an additional firewall like ZoneAlarm etc.

[iargue]

Firefox doesn't have a firewall, the only thing it has is some phishing protection so you'll probably also need an additional firewall like ZoneAlarm etc.

Not if your using Windows, Windows Firewall is the best choice to go with.

[Waser Lave]

Not if your using Windows, Windows Firewall is the best choice to go with.

It's a personal choice, most people will be fine with Windows Firewall, I prefer ZoneAlarm Pro myself.

[iargue]

It's a personal choice, most people will be fine with Windows Firewall, I prefer ZoneAlarm Pro myself.

When dealing with third party apps, it creates a sub driver in your lan card, so anything that ever gets sent to the card (Even a loopback) will go through this driver first. This is like begging for compatiblity issues, and I've yet to see a firewall that has never caused another problem. Windows Firewall on the other hard, is built into windows, and only acts upon an applications for request, this ensures that its not going to screw your internet over, and it still does the same thing as every single software based firewall (Ignore all uninitiated incoming, only allow accepted outgoing).

While you may prefer ZoneAlarm, its pointless to have it

[Waser Lave]

When dealing with third party apps, it creates a sub driver in your lan card, so anything that ever gets sent to the card (Even a loopback) will go through this driver first. This is like begging for compatiblity issues, and I've yet to see a firewall that has never caused another problem. Windows Firewall on the other hard, is built into windows, and only acts upon an applications for request, this ensures that its not going to screw your internet over, and it still does the same thing as every single software based firewall (Ignore all uninitiated incoming, only allow accepted outgoing).

While you may prefer ZoneAlarm, its pointless to have it

I wish you wouldn't state your opinion as if it's fact all the time.

Most of what I've read on the subject has come to the conclusion that Windows Firewall is sufficient for most users but isn't as good as a dedicated third party firewall mostly because it can be switched off by other applications and it doesn't block or monitor outbound data. And that is fact, not my opinion.

[iargue]

I wish you wouldn't state your opinion as if it's fact all the time.

Most of what I've read on the subject has come to the conclusion that Windows Firewall is sufficient for most users but isn't as good as a dedicated third party firewall mostly because it can be switched off by other applications and it doesn't block or monitor outbound data. And that is fact, not my opinion.

Only select applications can actually turn it off. Most can make an exception, but first you have to click the Allow button, and then it can create an exception rule so it can broadcast on x port. It does block outbound data....where did you get the data that it didnt? (Thats like the only thing it does)

[Waser Lave]

Only select applications can actually turn it off. Most can make an exception, but first you have to click the Allow button, and then it can create an exception rule so it can broadcast on x port. It does block outbound data....where did you get the data that it didnt? (Thats like the only thing it does)

No, it only blocks inbound traffic. You can find plenty of sources for that if you google it, here's some:

http://www.pcworld.c...d_security.html
http://www.corecom.c.../xpfirewall.htm
http://www.zdnetasia...80859-39000221c

[iargue]

No, it only blocks inbound traffic. You can find plenty of sources for that if you google it, here's some:

http://www.pcworld.c...d_security.html
http://www.corecom.c.../xpfirewall.htm
http://www.zdnetasia...80859-39000221c

Both of those are misinformed. I'm sure you have atleast used Windows Firewall once. Whenever you launch an application, you get a neat popup, saying. "Windows Firewall has blocked some features of this application" and you get the option to Continue Blocking, or to Unblock. This right here is outbound connection block at its purest, and still exists in Windows Vista.

Now, as for Outbound filtering, I can go to Advanced Firewall settings (No need for MMC as Pcworld claims) and set my own outbound filter. Zonealarm even lacks this feature (Or atleast I found nothing about this online. Sorry if I am wrong).

Now, if a piece malware is installed on your computer, a driver based firewall will have a hard time catching it, since the malware makes an invisible connection, as part of the system. In which case, the firewall has no method of blocking it considering system services bypass drivers. With any firewall though, the malware can reach websites, but cannot get any data back due to it still being registered as a "Unsolicited Incoming Connection". I have personally tested this against Windows Firewall.

I see no advantage whatsoever in using Zonealarm over Windows Firewall, and I would like to know if there are any.

[Waser Lave]

I do not and never have used Vista, the outbound issue I was referring to is based on the XP version of the Windows Firewall (which is still by far the most widely used version of Windows). Newer versions of Windows Firewall on Vista and Windows 7 might very well have added outbound filtering but for XP if you want/need outbound protection then Windows Firewall just isn't up to the job.

[iargue]

I do not and never have used Vista, the outbound issue I was referring to is based on the XP version of the Windows Firewall (which is still by far the most widely used version of Windows). Newer versions of Windows Firewall on Vista and Windows 7 might very well have added outbound filtering but for XP if you want/need outbound protection then Windows Firewall just isn't up to the job.

Yes, Windows Firewall on xp was a base level implementation. It was simply there to test, and features would come later. There is no need for application level outbound connection filtering, and as far as driver based filtering, there is nothing that Zonealarm can do to prevent malware from reaching an outside connection. I will download Zonealarm later and test this myself, but Malware connections always use the System service, and therefor, is allowed to bypass drivers and other services (Save for Windows Firewall)


(P.S. If you want to leave Windows Vista/7 out of the arguement, I have no problem doing so, just...dont link me a vista article )

Edited by iargue, 18 November 2009 - 08:19 AM.

[Waser Lave]

Yes, Windows Firewall on xp was a base level implementation. It was simply there to test, and features would come later. There is no need for application level outbound connection filtering, and as far as driver based filtering, there is nothing that Zonealarm can do to prevent malware from reaching an outside connection. I will download Zonealarm later and test this myself, but Malware connections always use the System service, and therefor, is allowed to bypass drivers and other services (Save for Windows Firewall)


(P.S. If you want to leave Windows Vista/7 out of the arguement, I have no problem doing so, just...dont link me a vista article )

I think for somebody who knows what they're doing then outbound protection can be very useful and yeah it can also be next to useless for people who don't (the kind of people who just click allow when they get any notification). As ever it just depends on the person using the computer and how educated they are in these matters. I also don't think it's accurate to say that malware connections always use the System service when we both know that's a gross generalisation.

(And I linked you to that article not because it was based on Vista but because it made mention of XP lacking any outbound protection. "The Windows XP firewall offered inbound protection, but did not offer outbound protection.")

[iargue]

I think for somebody who knows what they're doing then outbound protection can be very useful and yeah it can also be next to useless for people who don't (the kind of people who just click allow when they get any notification). As ever it just depends on the person using the computer and how educated they are in these matters. I also don't think it's accurate to say that malware connections always use the System service when we both know that's a gross generalisation.

(And I linked you to that article not because it was based on Vista but because it made mention of XP lacking any outbound protection. "The Windows XP firewall offered inbound protection, but did not offer outbound protection.")

Your right. Some malware makers are just lazy now days. I love removing these rogue antivirus's that just block Combofix via the name combofix.exe, and so I rename it to, fail.exe and it works perfectly. So, some of them wont use the system service, and ZoneAlarm can catch them. Though, I'm not sure how to make an invisible connection without using the system service, but you have more knowledge in the programming section then I do .

I've used the bolded argument against linux's "epic" security that requires users to not run as Admin...but it was just disregarded due to the linux is perfect rule. Can I use that return argument here? .

Doesnt ZoneAlarm block applications using the same popup ideal? (I've only ever experianced firewalls like this)

[Waser Lave]

I've used the bolded argument against linux's "epic" security that requires users to not run as Admin...but it was just disregarded due to the linux is perfect rule. Can I use that return argument here? .

Doesnt ZoneAlarm block applications using the same popup ideal? (I've only ever experianced firewalls like this)

No you can't use that retort.

And yeah it displays pop-up notifications but they're meant to give the user the information needed to investigate the issue rather than just people blindly pressing Allow every time one pops up. A knowledgeable person in that area would know that for example svchost isn't supposed to be located in some random temp folder trying make an outbound connection and would block that. And again that returns us to the issue of people being the weak link rather than the particular security solution.

[iargue]

No you can't use that retort.

And yeah it displays pop-up notifications but they're meant to give the user the information needed to investigate the issue rather than just people blindly pressing Allow every time one pops up. A knowledgeable person in that area would know that for example svchost isn't supposed to be located in some random temp folder trying make an outbound connection and would block that. And again that returns us to the issue of people being the weak link rather than the particular security solution.

Are you using NAT at home?

[Zala]

Esset, so far so good.

I have doubts using AVG, reporting so many false positives. Avira is better, just that you have to register for it.

[hahaman]

heh

the registration is precisely why i went with avast

lol

i was lazy that very day i decided to swap... and ta-da

i feel kind of ashamed, but well..

[jonnykun]

i'd suggest AGAINST mcafee. i've tried mcafee / avg / norton, and mcafee NEVER detected anything! while avg and norton would . . . i found that very odd. i think if youre just careful with what you cick / download you'll be safe . just need something simple

[Exodi]

eset is reliable, but skimps on features.
for standalone antivirus (which is better than full featured suites because you can pick and choose every aspect of the security on your computer)
g data 2010 or norton (norton is very reliable; ive used it for years without problems)
firewall is comodo (pcmag loves it)
parental controls (you probably don't need it, but just in case theres this granny something program)
tuneup (im having a bit of problem with this; go ahead and choose tuneup utilities 2010)
for full featured security suite, g data or norton

[DarkVision]

All my systems have :
- AVG FREE edition
- CCleaner
- Spybot

Atm i dont have Spybot cause... tbh I Dont really need it as i pay attention to what crap i click on