Mo'Betta' ZAPro v3,0,118

ZoneAlarm Pro's latest v3,0,118 uses 3% less resources than 10-day old v3,0,091 (tho still uses 9% on this Tbird 1.4). AdBlocker works Gooood. Gets the same download speeds as without. No probs atall with tweaked Me. Go ZA! Next Ver use even less resources?

 

(tho still uses 9%

That seems like a lot of resources.

Norton AV, Norton Internet Security both loaded only use 6%

 

I still think v.2.6.357 is the best. I tried the new version and it only lasted for about 10 minutes. Ad blocker didn't do much really. Use an ad blocking proxy instead I say...works much "mo better" than ZA. As a firewall it's very good but there are others that offer exactly the same protection if not better than ZA without the constant hassle of True vector not loading properly. To be honest I only use it for the application rules. I use another firewall for my real firewall.

 

BillyBob, 9% IS high, hope their next version lowers it again. I've NSW2002, I s'pose NAV+Internet Security for 6% also blockads & is stealthy at https://grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2(ok it's a ZA cheerleader) or other leaktesters.

walberg rasta, yep ver2,6,357 was great. New v3,0,118 + ad blocker hasn't let a popup/under or sideways in on this 'puter when "Privacy" set to "High" & "Always" {Don't see 'em, AdAware never finds any dregs}. Better than two other 3rd party blockers that added 2-3% overhead too. Now all in one package. So far, ZA is 'mo betta' for my $$. Your "True Vector" problems -None (zero) on this box. Whats your real firewall that offers {what} more protection ? Am always ready to try new stuff.

To quote a famous quoter "Each to what works best for them"

 

also blockads & is stealthy

#1. I do not worry about ads or pop-ups. I would rather see the few ads that I get rather then increase the cost of my ISP. Or maybe even have to pay for some sites. It is just a matter of dropping down to the tool Bar, right click and close. No problem with that here.

It is indeed in complete stealth on GRC, Symantec or what ever place I go to test.

I was just thinking that 9% for one app was a little high when I run two at 6%.

Actually I am thinking of doubling up on my Firewalls anyway by adding ZA. Or going with a Router to replace my Hub. That would give me both a Hardware and Software Firewall. ( at least I believe it would ) And that might just be a bit easier than two software Firewalls and me sitting here fighting over who is going to do what.

I would not touch NSW if it were given to me. Too much un-necessary junk in it. Plus Norton Utilities is almost useless on anything above the Original Win98.

I use NIS because it is both AV and Firewall in one box. Very easy to keep BOTH updated. AV 2002 now checks e-mail both in and out. And for those reasons I feel that NIS has got ZA beat all to hello and back.

Please note that I said ( or meant ) that I feel it has ZA beat.

"Each to what works best for them "

Can not, and will not disagree with that. That is the way it is and/or should be.

BillyBob

 

I've a 56k DUN {no cable here in the woods, too far from a phone substation for isdn, hi-speed commercial satellite doesn't yet reach here} ad blocking means a lot to me in saved keystrokes and seemingly faster webpage loading w/o junk. Anywho, slow-speed tradeoff is worth living here

Yep, 9% is high even w/ firewall+adblock+gross email protection and i hope a ZA person is working on it 8)

The NSW helped me "Get Tutored" with RegEdit, & their Uninstall cleans up after either propietary uninstalls didn't, ditto Add/Remove. email checker in/out. But its unused 'stuff' does come w/ a high overhead. Guess I'm a dinosaur with Win98se and tweaked Me- they run real well now. Either XP or Win2K {Linux?} are around the corner, still procrastinating. that was tuff to spell.

I've NetGear hubbed my home 'puters, thought about adding their 56k router too, but PAP and CHAP security don't seem too much added hardware firewall, like dsl/cable routers could add. Most work real well with software firewall too, a little xtra setup sometimes. Am still looking around. This ZA just works so durn good for me it doesn't seem a real problem esp with a changing DUN IP address.

Cheers from 'da woods.

 

For information.

 

Like i said, a "gross {as in crude} email protection" and i use Norton . . . "email checker in/out ". ZA's Internet firewall performs xclnt.

 

Outpost?

 

Scanned the Outpost link, looks a good firewall, noticed in their comparison chart they haven't updated it in awhile. And if i'm reading their definitions right:
-Presets for Applications: Yes; each app is required by ZA to access local or onweb, and individual protocols can be set.
-Active Content(Web): Yes; Scripts, embedded Java, ActiveX, MIME integrated objects can all be blocked.
-Global Rules: Yes; applied across the board or specific IP adds.
-Privacy Guard: Yes; Mix'nMatch any or all- Session, Persistent, or 3rd Party incl on Web pages.
-Parental Control: Setup in Windows user, if needed.
-Active Content(email): Yes, tho it's a gross blocker of suspect attachments. Change the dot 8)
-Update Utility: Yes, auto or manual, 1stroke click "Yes" to install.
-Multiple Users: Yes for inbound, if outbound must have ZA on other computer too.
-DNS cache: Conversion handled {temp} by my ISP. Is it helpful for normal use, or . . .
-Logging to Remote PC: Yes; via "PC Anywhere" or "Timbuktu ".
-Invisible Mode: Web Yes; IP add blocker is stealthy. My Email pgm has a "block sender" that would be handy in a firewall too.

Esp where security is concerned I like to have the latest and greatest. Since you've used several firewalls,. . . what in particular about this one is better, besides the above scratched items {sans a better email blocker which my email pgm and Norton does already}? I like the better price of outpost. . .

 

There are other things to consider other than the program itself.

One thing that I have not seen mentioned ( by other than myself ) is how well do the Firewall and AV ( and other software ) programs play with other.

From what I see in the chart NIS does just as good as any other in the areas THAT I NEED.

Also as I mentioned before. NIS is AV & Firewall and they play VERY well together. And get update together if needed. Both Data base and program wise.

I myself conisder the above to be just as important as what each individual Program does. Because incompatable software causes as many PC problems as anything.

It is not all a case of which one is BEST. It is a case of which one does the best job for the user. And which one does not create a boat load of complaints from the system.
( and the user

The same one that is compatable, say on the machine that RexB owns may create nothing but problems for me.

We are now back to the COMBINATION of things AGAIN.

BillyBob

 

Roger that, mucho. Sometimes I load something, that I want, then have to beat something else into submission to make them work together. {Luckily} didn't happen with ZA and Norton, cuz I like them both. Until one or the other stops pleasing . . .

BTW, you can't mean that there's something that wouldn't agree with my little 'ol T-bird 1.4?

To quote a famous quoter: "If you can't beat it, trash it and thrash it till it breaks, you're not really trying "

 

Outpost was last updated on 12 March. Whilst the program was in beta, it was updated on more or less a daily basis. Now that the final version has been released, things have slowed down somewhat. An update will be realeased in the not too distant future once a few things have been fine-tuned.

The only other PF which offers a similar level of features to Outpost is ZAP. Why is Outpost better than ZAP?

1) Outpost is free, ZAP is not (or at least the free Outpost version is free (obviously) - but both versions have a very similar feature set);

2) The application presets shipped with Outpost make it possible for Outpost to be securely configured much faster than would be possible with ZAP;

3) Outpost has a DNS cache facility, ZAP does not;

4) Outpost (generally but not always) will use less resources than ZAP;

5) Outpost is open architecture and will sipport third party plug-ins such as the AGNIS ad-block list;

6) Most importantly (possibly) support for Outpost is excellent (in direct contrast to Zonelabs technical support!) - both from other users and the developers. The developers also readily take on board the suggestions and comments of users.

All that said, I'm currently playing with Kerio. I will, however, be reverting to Outpost in the near future.

 

AND Outpost will allow denial of service attack detect and protection. Under Options > Plug-ins, 6 different abilities of this type that can be adjusted through the settings button.

This one would be worth installing if no other reason to find out its features.

I had used Norton and Zone Alarm but find this one to be a keeper.... at least in my box.

I Run dual boot WinME and XPpro. with antivir ver 6 as an antivirus Program. free-av.com . their server seems to be down today but free-av.de is up if I could speak the language.

 

All application gates/PF's (including Outpost) are actually quite ineffective in terms of the protection they offer against most types of DoS/DDoS attack. They do, however, help prevent individual machines from becoming "zombie" participants in such attacks.

 

Good answers, 'cept their comparison chart I was steered to was inaccurate on the listed items. If its not up to date, don't use it.
Configured ZA initially in a few minutes, tweaked as needed for new apps.
has a free version too.
would like less than 9% resources if it delivers.
DNS cache? For the numbers go to logfile.
TechSupport? Haven't had to ask.
Yep, adblocker is updated too.
This is getting circular. . .

When it comes time for renewal, I'll be looking (trial install) several, outpost included, I like their denial of service protection mentioned. And there will prob be more of DoS crud happening as everybody learns to use bots. Right now, I'm more than satisfied, as in no probs with lottsa protection, with ZA.