PDA

View Full Version : Zone Alarm is retiring from Win98 ........



paradox
30-06-2006, 12:38 AM
Hi..
ZA has just refused to run the latest update for my trusty Win98, saying that it will no longer support such an old vintage. I haven't been around much lately so may have missed any discussion on this. I'll do a search but any suggestions on what to use in it's place, not too space hungry if poss, would be a real help. Ken.

Renmoo
30-06-2006, 01:01 AM
An excellent firewall alternative: Sygate Personal Firewall

Website: http://www.sygate.com

Cheers :)

Terry Porritt
30-06-2006, 08:49 AM
Just stay with what you've got, the world isn't going to come to an end, or the firewall collapse, just because the latest update is not installed. :nerd:

pctek
30-06-2006, 10:17 AM
Hi..
ZA has just refused to run the latest update for my trusty Win98, saying that it will no longer support such an old vintage.

So? What do you think its actually updating? Its a firewall not an antivirus, it doesn't need new definitions or such. (Yes the pro versions of the newer ones have some AV in it but I wouldn't use it as my AV)
I still use version 4 of ZA Pro, have done for ages. I have XP now too.

It really doesn't matter unless you are one of these people that thinks you always have to have the latest everything.

Ferg
30-06-2006, 10:31 AM
A little bit off the thread, but James you link to Sygate, and I have read others who recomend it. That link now leads to the Symantec site, it appears they have brought Sygate out.

I could not find the find their free firewall, is there such a thing as a free Sygate anymore?

Thanks

Terry Porritt
30-06-2006, 11:00 AM
I would even go so far as to recommend going (back) to Kerio 2.1.5 for Windows 98.

Tests a few years ago showed it consumed only 1% resources, as compared to 10% for Zone Alarm.

I was running it on XP until a few weeks ago when I thought I try out Comodo, and am still running it by preference on Win98SE.

http://www.321download.com/LastFreeware/page7.html

tweak'e
30-06-2006, 11:20 AM
the problem is older firewalls may not pick up on some of the newer ways malware are using to bypass them.

sygate is OK, the default install leaves a lot to be desired. a bit of tweaking required.

jinja_thom
30-06-2006, 11:57 AM
Ferg

If you want sygate it is still available here:-
http://www.tucows.com/preview/213160

It's a bit old but hey it's a firewall and it's free

JT

Master_Frost
30-06-2006, 02:21 PM
Its a shame ZA isn't retiring in general useless piece of unconfigurable crap (great for noobs).

Sygate is a ton better, its a shame Symantech brought them out and basically shut them down (if you can't make a decent product buy your competitor and shut em down)

Sygate is a good solid easy FULLY CONFIGURABLE firewall that does what it said it will, nothing less nothing more and as only a firewall we be good for some time to come.

I will use Sygate till I find something better, still looking.

Renmoo
30-06-2006, 03:41 PM
A little bit off the thread, but James you link to Sygate, and I have read others who recomend it. That link now leads to the Symantec site, it appears they have brought Sygate out.
Oops, sorry. I didn't realise that :blush:

Cheers :)

Kate_vkv
12-07-2006, 02:26 PM
Is there a free firewall out there that supports WIN98? Have used Zone Alarm for years with no problems at all. Zone Alarm does not support either WIN98 or WINNT 4.0 (I have a few PCs) Would be grateful for some help & advice.
:confused:
Thanx in anticipation.

FoxyMX
12-07-2006, 03:18 PM
It is only recently that ZA ceased support so you could get a slightly older version that will run on Win98. It will still be fine.

There is also Sygate which, although now discontinued, should be still available if you look.

Terry Porritt
12-07-2006, 03:55 PM
Older versions of firewalls (and other good stuff) can be downloaded from these sites:

http://www.321download.com/LastFreeware/page7.html

http://www.oldversion.com/

rumpty
12-07-2006, 07:26 PM
While we are on this topic - I've been using W98SE for years without a firewall of any sort, and I've never had any problems from viruses, malware etc. Admittedly that's on dial-up, if that makes much difference.

I believe though that W2k wouldn't last 10 minutes without a firewall. What is the significant difference between 98 and 2k in this regard?

tweak'e
12-07-2006, 07:58 PM
w2k is not much better than XP is that regard. 9x is better simply because w2k/xp is more sort after and what most pc illiterate users run.

don't forget most infections are self inflected so how you use a pc is important, with good net use you will very rarely get infected.

however i've seen it more than a few times of people who claim they are virus/malware free only to find various infections running on their pc. ignorance is bliss.

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 09:11 PM
While we are on this topic - I've been using W98SE for years without a firewall of any sort, and I've never had any problems from viruses, malware etc. Admittedly that's on dial-up, if that makes much difference.

I believe though that W2k wouldn't last 10 minutes without a firewall. What is the significant difference between 98 and 2k in this regard?

On broadband you probably wouldn't want to use a softwall firewall anyway as they wouldn't be as reliable as hardware firewall. My router does the job and no need to run a software firewall.

On dial up on XP you'd be ok on the built in firewall, and on 98 Kerio would do the trick. Not sure why anyone would want to run 98 but each to their own. Windows 98 is no longer supported and would be a sitting duck for exploits I'd imagine.

tweak'e
12-07-2006, 09:15 PM
My router does the job and no need to run a software firewall. <groan> not again...thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the.......

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 09:30 PM
<groan> not again...thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the.......

"Most people don't think of common NAT routers as hardware firewalls, but ANY NAT router inherently provides terrific security and protection against incoming malicious traffic. Learn how and why this is, and which default settings MUST be changed to lock down the security of your NAT router"

Steve Gibson - Security Now podcast http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-003.txt

Kick away.

Terry Porritt
12-07-2006, 09:45 PM
I'd think a big problem could exist with the Telstra cable modem, no NAT, so a software firewall would be essential.

I dont think highly of Telstra passing the buck down to subscribers who wouldn't have any idea about security, they should either supply cable modems with NAT, or at least offer to supply a suitable device/router, and advice.

tweak'e
12-07-2006, 09:51 PM
NAT really only helps partitially. it still doesn't stop any malware on you pc from gaining access OUTWOULDS. windows firewall and NAT only do half the job...if anything the minor half of the job.

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 09:58 PM
I have a Telstra Clear cable and the connection from the modem goes through the router. Telstra Clear won't set it up for you or give you any advice on how to do any home networking, in fact I don't recall them even giving a warning that the way they set it up is essentially unprotected.

Terry Porritt
12-07-2006, 10:03 PM
But at least NAT does stop the real nasties getting in uninvited. It could be said that lesser stuff that has got in and is now trying to get out, has been invited in, even if unintentionally through bad habits or ignorance, especially the click-happy brigade :)

But yes, both inwards and outwards protection is important.

Terry Porritt
12-07-2006, 10:09 PM
I have a Telstra Clear cable and the connection from the modem goes through the router. Telstra Clear won't set it up for you or give you any advice on how to do any home networking, in fact I don't recall them even giving a warning that the way they set it up is essentially unprotected.

That is as I understand it, I had to sort out a friends computer that was on cable recently.
For some reason Zone Alarm was causing the win98SE system to run like it was in treacle. I replaced it with Kerio, but it would have been nice to have had a router in there with NAT, I was horrified at the thousands of "serious intrusions" ZA had blocked.

tweak'e
12-07-2006, 10:11 PM
sorry terry but NO. it stops worms thats about it, thats only a small % of whats around. other uninvited can still get through via browser/email/other software exploits.

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 10:14 PM
NAT really only helps partitially. it still doesn't stop any malware on you pc from gaining access OUTWOULDS. windows firewall and NAT only do half the job...if anything the minor half of the job.

The only protection is to stop the stuff getting in your the first place. Software firewalls don't help as as the linked article said, they can be turned off by malicious hackers anyway, or have the outward traffic disguised as say Internet Explorer or something you have already given clearance too. Again read the Security Now article and in fact listen to the podcast.

Steve Gibson doesn't run anti-virus or software firewalls and he is a leading security expert. He is however very careful what gets on to his system in the first place. Hardware firewalls provide significantly better protection than software firewalls. Outward blocking is hardly an issue if it doesn't get on your system in the first place.

I run Kerio on one of my computers, it is probably the best out there right now and if you want to see the outward connections. However the line that outward monitoring is what matters is concocted by the software firewall sellers, as you'd expect. Run a software firewall by all means, but be aware there are potential limitations.

PS For my money the Security Now podcast is the best podcast on computers right now - not just on security. You can download all 50+ episodes or read the transcripts on the site.

Terry Porritt
12-07-2006, 10:19 PM
sorry terry but NO. it stops worms thats about it, thats only a small % of whats around. other uninvited can still get through via browser/email/other software exploits.

You mean exploits that get by NAT but are stopped by a software firewall?

I'm trialling Comodo at the moment, but I haven't seen a log file anywhere as yet. I dont think it makes one, so can't tell how well it's doing :)

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 10:20 PM
sorry terry but NO. it stops worms thats about it, thats only a small % of whats around. other uninvited can still get through via browser/email/other software exploits.

I'm not suggesting you run a firewall and then let any old virus in through your e mail or other means. Although I know a lot of experienced users don't use anti-virus, I prefer to have anti-virus and anti-spyware as well.

However - using an unsupported operating system like 98 would probably leave you wide open anyway.

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 10:26 PM
"Terry Porritt You mean exploits that get by NAT but are stopped by a software firewall?"

I doubt the software firewall would be any use either.

Unfortunately you need to be a security expert these days to run Windows and of course most people know very little. However if I was gving advice to my mum I'd say run a software firewall, anti-virus and have anti-spyware. If she ever gets a hardware firewall it will because she'll know enough by then.

Unfortunately my mum will have no idea what the software firewall is telling her so she'll probably say ok to the wrong things anyway. Hackers will largely go after the easy hits so some security is better than being wide open.

tweak'e
12-07-2006, 10:35 PM
The only protection is to stop the stuff getting in your the first place LMAO malware can get past everything! where have you been! firewals have NEVER stopped it getting IN. only a fool would think nothing will get in

as steve said in that tink the software firewall is usefull for outbound and application controll. his prefered is kerio.

steve dosn't need firewall/av etc because he is so "anal" about his system the slightest change he will see himself. that is not true for the rest of us mere mortals. his system is nothing like what 99.9% of home users have.


have the outward traffic disguised as say Internet Explorer or something you have already given clearance too they do actually check that it is IE, thats why its called application controll.

don't get me wrong here....NAT helps, but its not a replacement for software firewall on a home pc, which is exactly what steve said.

there is alwasy limits and its good to know them, like hacking nat routers ;)

Twelvevolts
12-07-2006, 10:45 PM
<groan> not again...thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the.......

Sorry but you can live without a softwall firewall if you're careful what you do. I work in an IT department and the majority of people I work with would not run a software firewall, and some would not use anti-virus. And network protection is their day job.

Now for people who can understand what Zone Alarm is doing and don't mind the hit on your system resources, good luck to you. But begging to be flamed, I think not.

tweak'e
13-07-2006, 05:23 PM
You mean exploits that get by NAT but are stopped by a software firewall? inbound no, no firewall can. outbound yes, unless you think NAT can do application control.



Sorry but you can live without a software firewall if you're careful what you do. I work in an IT department and the majority of people I work with would not run a software firewall, and some would not use anti-virus. And network protection is their day job.


BINGO........my whole point exactly. an IT pro can do without because they know their system, however all others users don't have any idea and we all can't be IT pro's.

its totally irresponsible to promote security setups only the professional could get away with using. just because YOU can get away without using AV firewall etc doesn't mean the rest of us can. So quit setting up people for a fall :angry

Twelvevolts
13-07-2006, 11:42 PM
inbound no, no firewall can. outbound yes, unless you think NAT can do application control.




BINGO........my whole point exactly. an IT pro can do without because they know their system, however all others users don't have any idea and we all can't be IT pro's.

its totally irresponsible to promote security setups only the professional could get away with using. just because YOU can get away without using AV firewall etc doesn't mean the rest of us can. So quit setting up people for a fall :angry

Who was promoting it? Just pointing out your initial position was wrong when you were so keen to shoot me down in flames.

Remember it was you who said "<groan> not again...thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the......."

Turns out you were wrong and I'm sorry but the same people you think a software firewall protects often won't understand how it works so will be no better off. But the point was you can be secure without one, not that you shouldn't use one. Give yourself that kick, it bounced off me.

linw
14-07-2006, 01:28 AM
Every machine I am responsible for has a software firewall, AV and active anti-spyware prog installed. If the machine lives behind a NAT router, great, this is a bonus.

The idea that an "IT pro" can monitor every thing going on in his machine 365/24/7 is surely a joke. We use software as the monitoring tool because it doesn't need to sleep and it can detect "unseeable" activities. It also has a large team behind it investigating and adding updates for new threats. In addition, an IT pro doesn't watch the maybe hundreds of computers s/he is responsible for. Read their job description. It will say something like set up secure systems for the employees to follow/use.

There are also many business laptops going out of the business to be used on all sorts of dodgy connections then brought back to hook into the business network. Red alert. And these machines are on the internal network as trusted devices. Believe me, I would want to have taken ALL reasonable security precautions when the enquiry gets setup to investigate the million dollar loss caused by having to take a large business system down to disinfect it. And if this sounds like it comes from someone who is/has been an IT manager, you are right!

tweak'e
14-07-2006, 08:50 PM
ok Twelvevolts seeing as your showing your age here....

how do you stop a mouse driver or printer driver from accessing the net? both use comman ports eg same as browser. on a home pc you wouldn't even know they where accessing the net, so please how would NAT stop them ??

don't forget this is a home pc, not some locked down buisness pc. AV will not detect these as they are legit, likewise neither will AS detect them.

Twelvevolts
14-07-2006, 10:26 PM
Every machine I am responsible for has a software firewall, AV and active anti-spyware prog installed. If the machine lives behind a NAT router, great, this is a bonus.

The idea that an "IT pro" can monitor every thing going on in his machine 365/24/7 is surely a joke. We use software as the monitoring tool because it doesn't need to sleep and it can detect "unseeable" activities. It also has a large team behind it investigating and adding updates for new threats. In addition, an IT pro doesn't watch the maybe hundreds of computers s/he is responsible for. Read their job description. It will say something like set up secure systems for the employees to follow/use.

There are also many business laptops going out of the business to be used on all sorts of dodgy connections then brought back to hook into the business network. Red alert. And these machines are on the internal network as trusted devices. Believe me, I would want to have taken ALL reasonable security precautions when the enquiry gets setup to investigate the million dollar loss caused by having to take a large business system down to disinfect it. And if this sounds like it comes from someone who is/has been an IT manager, you are right!

I don't have an issue with people running software firewalls, I think I said elsewhere I use Kerio. Fact is for any flaws you can point at a hardware firewall, there are equal flaws with a software firewall. However an anti-virus, anti spyware and firewall (as well as a few other security tools) makes perfect sense. The point is that my not running a software firewall doesn't warrant a " <groan> not again" comment, and I never implied that I didn't use other security tools. Hackers don't generally need to go after the people with some security, there are enough out there with none.

tweak'e
14-07-2006, 10:45 PM
read it again.



My router does the job and no need to run a software firewall.

<groan> not again...thats so begging for a flameing and a swift kick in the.......

people who promote the very old "you don't a software firewall" rant do need a swift kick in the ....... just like those who promote the "you don't need AV" rant.

Jen
15-07-2006, 07:52 AM
Guys, you are just going around in circles here. Perhaps agree to disagree on this subject ...

techiekid
15-07-2006, 12:12 PM
if you ran windows 3.1 you would be safe, no hackers no crackers
anyways the latest update will alwaysconsume more resources