Does anyone agree that the older version is much better? I find that the new one uses a hell of a lot of my resources. Could this be due to me using blacklisted keys or?
Windows ME
Windows ME
ZONEALARM PRO 2.6 vs 3.x?
- Thread starter craig/crystal
- Start date
consider that 2.6 is not updated any longer, meaning all security holes can be exploited, and you are not secure. za 3, on the other hand, is constantly updated. besides, the za 3 works without probs on both win98se and winxp, as opposed to v.2, which never worked properly on win98. and the newest version of za 3 takes very little time to start, as opposed to earlier versions (30-40 seconds), so I am pretty happy with it.
just don't use norton firewall, it's the worst firewall out there, it doesn't even detect certain programmes, when they try to access the net. what kind of protection is that?! za always detects all programmes and asks me whether I want them to access the net or not
just don't use norton firewall, it's the worst firewall out there, it doesn't even detect certain programmes, when they try to access the net. what kind of protection is that?! za always detects all programmes and asks me whether I want them to access the net or not
About the versions
Hello gents,
I work in an IT Security team. In our company, we are about to use ZA Pro 2.6.362.
Firstly, why ZA? Because our main shareolder decided to use it, becauqe our main shareolder is the owner of a security company that is a ZA resseller. Political decision here, thus.
Pzrsonally, I use Sygate at home. Ive tried Black Ice defender long ago (crap), ZA (very good one), Sygate (very good one too), Norton Internet security (stopped to watch at it because it evolved in a way I didn't like), Look'n'Stop...
I must say that ZA is purely a FW: it manages communication restrictions according to rules : which app can connect to the local network or to the Internet, and wich app can act as a server.
ZA does not detect attacks, it has no intrusion detection engine.
Neither does Look'n'stop, which I find quite good as a FW too, but maybe less user friendly than ZA?
Sygates has an built-in IDS in addition to the FW. It is a plus, but personally, I have no real use of it. I just use Sygate because that's the one I prefer, just a question of taste.
Now, why ZA 2.6.362 instead of 3.0.334?
ZA 2.6.362 is presently the only ZA standalone personal FW that suits needs for a company: you can install it remotely and use a script to configure it during the install. You can also distribute a script later to reconfigure it.
You can't do that with ZA 3.0. And clearly, ZoneLabs say that companies have to use ZA Pro 2.6.362.
But for individuals, they advice version 3 because it has evolved and has more features. They didn't speak about possible fixed bugs, sorry
They just spoke about the many more features.
My personal opinion again: if you are happy with the features of ZA 2.6.362 and don't need more, I don't think that there are dangerous bugs in it, this version is already the result of the evolution of the 2.6 serie! Thus, feel free to keep it, at my opinion!
For companies, they also propos Integrity which is centrally managed.
They informed us that a new version is comping that will replaces ZA Pro 2.6.362, for companies still, though, not for individuals.
Hope you found something interesting in all that. I'm not sure! lol
Hello gents,
I work in an IT Security team. In our company, we are about to use ZA Pro 2.6.362.
Firstly, why ZA? Because our main shareolder decided to use it, becauqe our main shareolder is the owner of a security company that is a ZA resseller. Political decision here, thus.
Pzrsonally, I use Sygate at home. Ive tried Black Ice defender long ago (crap), ZA (very good one), Sygate (very good one too), Norton Internet security (stopped to watch at it because it evolved in a way I didn't like), Look'n'Stop...
I must say that ZA is purely a FW: it manages communication restrictions according to rules : which app can connect to the local network or to the Internet, and wich app can act as a server.
ZA does not detect attacks, it has no intrusion detection engine.
Neither does Look'n'stop, which I find quite good as a FW too, but maybe less user friendly than ZA?
Sygates has an built-in IDS in addition to the FW. It is a plus, but personally, I have no real use of it. I just use Sygate because that's the one I prefer, just a question of taste.
Now, why ZA 2.6.362 instead of 3.0.334?
ZA 2.6.362 is presently the only ZA standalone personal FW that suits needs for a company: you can install it remotely and use a script to configure it during the install. You can also distribute a script later to reconfigure it.
You can't do that with ZA 3.0. And clearly, ZoneLabs say that companies have to use ZA Pro 2.6.362.
But for individuals, they advice version 3 because it has evolved and has more features. They didn't speak about possible fixed bugs, sorry
They just spoke about the many more features.My personal opinion again: if you are happy with the features of ZA 2.6.362 and don't need more, I don't think that there are dangerous bugs in it, this version is already the result of the evolution of the 2.6 serie! Thus, feel free to keep it, at my opinion!
For companies, they also propos Integrity which is centrally managed.
They informed us that a new version is comping that will replaces ZA Pro 2.6.362, for companies still, though, not for individuals.
Hope you found something interesting in all that. I'm not sure! lol
ZAP 2.x worked fine on win98, so don't know what others are on about. ZAP 3.x is the junk. Considering it just doesn't work properly (even though constantly updated) is just a black pit to the abyss if you ask me.
Better off with Kerio/Sygate as some others have mentioned.
PS
@Guard (even though still old & discontinued) still works better than present ZAP 3 lol.
*@guard is engine used now in norton personal firewall.
Better off with Kerio/Sygate as some others have mentioned.
PS
@Guard (even though still old & discontinued) still works better than present ZAP 3 lol.
*@guard is engine used now in norton personal firewall.
netman
1
i'm with you, shadoe. i still haven't found a firewall i like better than @guard. that is, when i use a software based firewall. and yes, symantec bought it and bloated it beyond recognition to turn it into norton personal firewall. but hey, taking good software and turning it into oversized, hungry, buggy, nearly useless crap is what they do best.
i have seen numerous instances where trying to uninstall za pro totally screwed up the os and all there was to do was reinstall. i guess it's pretty tight but it seems to be too much of a pain in the ass for me. i haven't tried kerio or sygate but then i'm usually going through a very secure proxy so i have no need to evaluate them yet.
i have tried the firewall built into xp and it comes up as total stealth on shields-up at grc.com. i haven't found a good way to configure it so it has to be turned off when accessing ftp sites in many cases.
i have seen numerous instances where trying to uninstall za pro totally screwed up the os and all there was to do was reinstall. i guess it's pretty tight but it seems to be too much of a pain in the ass for me. i haven't tried kerio or sygate but then i'm usually going through a very secure proxy so i have no need to evaluate them yet.
i have tried the firewall built into xp and it comes up as total stealth on shields-up at grc.com. i haven't found a good way to configure it so it has to be turned off when accessing ftp sites in many cases.