PUNTERS who use the ZoneAlarm security package might not want to install MS update KB951748. According to several news groups, the first thing you will notice after running the update is that your internet connection dies as KB951748 made changes to the networking files that Zonealarm doesn't like. It then decides to block everything just to be safe.You can get around the problem by setting the Internet Zone Security permission slider from high to medium and that will give you your connection back but that is not really a good idea if you want high security. Sniffing around the forums we found similar advice although, apparently, the best bet is to reset the ZoneAlarm database.
View: The full story @ The Inq
Are you serious? I didn't think anyone actually used that, let alone likes it enough to *hug* it.
OneCare has repeatedly proven to have extremely sub-par anti-virus, catching only about 80% of known and unknown infections on test systems, both viruses and spyware (Other companies, including Norton, are above 97%). It's also been compared to Norton Internet Security Suite in terms of system resource usage (read: high memory usage).
Now, my comparisons to Norton are a bit unfair, as I wouldn't use that either.
There are some amazing products out in terms of AV and Firewall (Google them):
I use these personally, recommend them to my clients, and gladly support the developers.
Anti Virus:
Anti-Spyware:
Firewall:
See: AV-Comparatives for a list of AV Comparisons/options.
With all these options, there is NO reason to be using shovelware like OneCare. Microsoft's attempt at capturing the AV/IS market was truly pathetic, with lackluster, feature-less and generally poorly functioning software across the board.
Last edited by cyberdrone2000 on 09 Jul 2008 - 18:44
Seriously, do a little research and you'll see how craptastic OneCare is. It's got more holes than a block of swiss cheese.
If you've got Avast, AVG or Nod32 and a good hardware-based firewall, it doesn't get any better than that.
So, I'll end with this: Research has nothing on personal experience.
You could also get around the problem by not using crap like ZoneAlarm. Windows Firewall is fine for the smidgen of security that any software firewall is. And if you are serious about security, just get a router. Faster and more secure.
Aye to that. It's a shame because not too many years ago ZoneAlarm free firewall was a great product. Frankly, if you have Vista though, you don't really need another firewall solution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7496735.stm
It might be a bad idea not to install the update.
Your use of "Microshaft" was pretty clever.
The title of the news should be "Microsoft update kills ZoneAlarm on XP"
Last edited by franzon on 09 Jul 2008 - 12:06
Might as well also post that Windows 95, 98, Me, 3.11 users are also not affected.
The title of the news should be "Microsoft update kills ZoneAlarm on XP"
oh ok so why is it then that my MS Vista was broken by that exact update
Microsoft does not know what Zonealarm is doing in the background. Only Zonealarm as they wrote the software.
If Zonealarm breaks down when there is a new patch, Zonealarm need to rewrite their software a bit better.
You can't except Microsoft to test every single software with different version out there.
If Zonealarm want to keep their software working better, they should have signed up with Microsoft to receive the beta patches!
Microsoft does not know what Zonealarm is doing in the background. Only Zonealarm as they wrote the software.
If Zonealarm breaks down when there is a new patch, Zonealarm need to rewrite their software a bit better.
You can't except Microsoft to test every single software with different version out there.
If Zonealarm want to keep their software working better, they should have signed up with Microsoft to receive the beta patches!
Microsoft patches have broken a lot of software in the past. I'm sure some major and even minor changes to Windows can cause problems with dozens of applications.
now if anyone wants a free firewall just install comodo personal firewall and your done
//flame on
/// kidding, XP is still a solid OS
That's what I was thinking too.
Hey I rely on my router alone... *cough* it being an ISA server though that connects to a metro-ethernet conection *cough*
The problems crop up because Windows itself is so poorly written from a security point. It seems like every file needs access to the internet for Windows to work properly.
Windows is poorly written when it comes to internet security. Thousands of files and components can access the internet at any time. Only using a good outbound Firewall can you see the number of apps and components that try to make outbound calls.
It's a Trojans paradise.
bottom line just get a router and install DD-WRT (third party firmware) to it and be done.... cause to me a firewall like zone alarm aint even worth using the resources to run it.
Comodo is sort of the "spiritual successor" to the now-defunct Sygate Personal Firewall, which was great... in it's day. I've tried Comodo, and it works as advertised.
I still say a hardware firewall is the way to go, but if you absolutely must go with a software firewall, then give Comodo a try.
1. In the name of resources and conciseness, the program doesn't log 'similar' connections - and there is no option to have it log everything.
2. The rules system is redundant, inefficient, and its navigation is clunky at best.
3. It requires manual resetting of local network address zones (bad for people like me who moves to a different IP multiple times a year)
4. It does not show all your current open connections in network activity.
5. It does not show or represent in anyway hardware level packets from router to computer.
It's nice that it's so secure... but I prefer a program that gives more respect to its user.
the title should be "zonealarm kills windows XP". Vista is immune to DNS flaw (yet another reason to use Vista
Solutions here :>
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=648196
As for Zonealarms, it's quite possible that they knew about the problem before the patch was released, but you forget that MOST companies (Microsoft seems to be excluded) test their patches and updates for compatibility problems BEFORE they are released, and that takes time. For all you know the Zonealarms update could have come out a few hours after the Microsoft update. What confuses people is that all outgoing connections are blocked by the glitch, including Zonealarm's attempts to get updates. Setting the security level to medium and telling Zonealarms to check for updates gets you an update that resolves the problem.
From a programming perspective, the Zonelabs programmers were right to assume that the XP core network libraries weren't going to change, and it's both good that Microsoft updated them to fix the security hole and bad that there was a security hole.
As for the people using Microsoft OneCare, I've seen it on a few friends' computers, and the largest impression I've gotten from it is that it's huge resource hog.
You say it works just fine, well, I use Zonealarms free (on my few Windows boxes, the rest are linu
After Microsoft's inability to write secure OS code, why do you think it can write a working security application? I will never trust OneCare.
Anyway, one question I'm going to get is "Why do you use Zonealarms free?"
I've used it since Windows 98, and I've had a NAT router and home network since Windows 98 as well. I prefer the low level control that IPTables on linux gives me, but other family members use the Windows boxes, and Zonealarms gives excellent outgoing protection with a fairly understandable UI for the less advanced user. It's more memory and CPU efficient than most other firewalls, and it does what it needs to do.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.