ZoneAlarm Problem

I just replaced my old computer (Win 98) with a Dell with XP Pro. I used ZA with my old system and never had a problem. I therefore turned off the MS firewall and loaded the free version ZA. Without question, it has bogged down my internet function to an unbelievably slow pace at times. I just now uninstalled ZA and am back to the MS firewall and all is fine. However, reading this forum re firewalls indicates this is not that great for protection.
I did read the other post below regarding this ZA issue but was wondering if someone could steer me to an excellent firewall, even if I have to pay for it. FYI, with both firewalls (only one operative at a time) I run/ran Ad-aware, AVG, Spybot, Spyware Blaster, Spyware Guard, CCleaner, and cwshreader, all freeware.

 

I love Sygate. Where I had problems with ZA, I didn't with Sygate. It conflicted with Kaspersky on my computer though and I never could get them to work together.
abri

 

Try Process Explorer, this will tell you, in realtime, what is running, and how much of your resources they are hogging.

I am using
ZoneAlarm version:6.5.731.000
TrueVector version:6.5.731.000
Driver version:6.5.731.000

with no ill effects at all.

Process Explorer. http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4566

 

>> I love Sygate. Where I had problems with ZA, I didn't with Sygate. It conflicted with Kaspersky on my computer though and I never could get them to work together. abri <<

With regards to Sygate, if anyone is looking for a qualified freebie-firewall; you can’t really go wrong with this program. Although I should probably point out that it is not quite as "user friendly" as ZoneAlarm FREE. It will require a little study (with regards to configuration, etc.) in order to get the most out of using the Sygate free program as well as get it to do what you want it to do for you "security-wise" But once you get used to using it, the Sygate free program actually runs circles around the ZoneAlarm freeware version IMO.

Additionally, Sygate FREE used to have dedicated support from the company which originally developed it; which was fantastic. Of course, that was before the company was gobbled up and Borg-assimilated by Symantec the makers of the Norton Ogre and all of Norton’s bastard children programs. Here is the abundant "Wiki" list of all the great companies Symantec acquired, assimilated and subsequently ravaged in the past 19-20 years.

However, there are many dedicated users of Sygate in various forums throughout the web; which you can easily find using a targeted Google search. There is also an "Unofficial Sygate Help Guide" webpage available here at the Sygate Basics website. The information contained within the webpage there is actually very thorough with great descriptions as well as having accurate and descriptive pictures and is much easier much easier to view than the old (currently unavailable) Sygate Personal Firewall User Guide PDF Help file ever was.

Unfortunately, many freeware websites which list still list "older versions" links which still lead to something like smb.sygate.com and are therefore unavailable for download. Fortunately, OldVersion.com has several older versions of Sygate Personal Firewall are available here including Sygate Personal Firewall 5.0 | 5.5.2516 | 5.5.2525 | 5.5.2577 | 5.5.2637 | 5.5.2710 and the very latest freeware version: 5.6.2808

The very latest version is also available here at Major Geeks [Sygate Personal Firewall Free 5.6 Build 2808]

I always liked using version 5.5 build 2710 (which is also still available over at the OldVersion.com website). The reason I liked the "older version" was because whenever I tried to installed the Sygate v5.6 after a while; it would invariable crash my pc every time I’d boot; but that was just in my case. Many users currently report no problems at all using version 5.6.

As for ZoneAlarm FREE for many years now (even for the free version) they have maintained an outstanding and well moderated onsite forum support over at ZoneLabs and they take all-comers. I actually used the Zone Alarm free version for many years and was happy with it until recently, when the latest free version started crashing all over the place and seemed to "forget" previous permissions that I'd given.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence (or maybe it's "karma" - lol); but I have also recently noticed an apparent "upsurge" of many more "complaints" being posted in various forums recently, regarding the foibles of the latest freeware version releases of ZoneAlarm - since the announcement that they would no longer support earlier versions of Windows.

Side Note: I'm currently testing Look 'n' Stop which is not free; unfortunately, but I'm impressed with is so far as it is very configurable, uses almost no resources and I have also noticed that my broadband internet speed has increased dramatically (around 45 Mbps) compared to when I tested some other "shareware" firewalls like ZoneAlarm pro; which was effective but quite the resource hog and surprisingly unstable when I tested the latest version recently.

Good Luck!

 

Thanks for all the input. It looks like Sygate is the most popular. I'll give it a try.
Out of curiousity, is the MS firewall for XP that bad?

 

>> Thanks for all the input. It looks like Sygate is the most popular. I'll give it a try. Out of curiosity, is the MS firewall for XP that bad? Jud149 <<

About the only positive thing I can think of regarding the "free" Microsoft firewall included in Windows XP SP2; is that it is a substantially "improved version" of the entirely useless previously installed Internet Connection Firewall (ICF). <lol>

The reason that I say this is; with a minuscule number of exceptions, Windows Firewall does not support "egress filtering," which prevents the software (within the user's computer) from making an "outbound" connection. This type of filtering is very useful for catching and preventing crapware, adware and spyware and other malicious types of software; from trying to "phone home." In other words; even though it was offered "free-of-charge" - users actually pay a big price securitywise - if they're using "only" the Windows Firewall alone; since it monitors and blocks almost none of the outbound traffic.

Because the Windows Firewall only attempts to filter incoming traffic, this will allow any application to send outbound packets, a fact which makes it less useful for serious protection. Since Microsoft's firewall is essentially "one way only" protection; this means that it actually offers (to put it kindly here); at the very least ineffective protection. Additionally, the API "application program interface" used to manage the Windows Firewall could actually be used by attackers to either modify the software or turn it off.

Windows firewall is better than nothing; but just barely IMO. Because it only attempts to stop "incoming" threats; it will therefore do absolutely nothing to stop threats that get onto your computer some other way; like installing a spyware program. Once a user does get a malware on their computer; they will need to have something else installed that is going to block the crapware from "phoning home" or hijacking the users’ computer in some other way. While I’ll freely admit that having and using the Windows Firewall is better than having no firewall security at all; the commercial personal firewalls (such as Zone Alarm Pro and others) support egress filtering so they are more effective in this case.

Most commercial firewalls include this egress filtering feature; in order to prevent all but user permission based "authorized" applications from sending data to the Internet. This consequentially helps to halt the malicious code from sending unauthorized communications, and also prevents computers from being "hijacked" and used to either send spam and/or participate in hacker distributed denial-of-service attacks.

Incidentally, my own personal belief is that Microsoft did not build this firewall to protect the users of Windows XP. The reality is that they developed a rather micro and soft, "timid firewall" which is exceedingly conservative regarding the blocking of potentially suspicious traffic. Bill and company apparently built this firewall in such a way because they didn't want to bother users with a lot of confusing and interruptive messages which would undoubtedly consequently cause their OEMs (who included XP with the computers that they were selling) and ISPs to be inundated with support calls.

Good Luck!

 

Many thanks again, Compuable!