Re: Re: PC Firewall Choices

[Stan Bubrouski <stan.bubrouski () gmail com>]

As cruel as that last message was I'm sick of the ZA pros here saying
its perfect, its not, far from it.  But I forgot to mention it beats
Symantec's firewall hands down.

Symantec Personal Firewall I've found from many different versions the
same horrible inconsistencies in my experience installing it for a
family member.  For example:

1) In the 2004 iteration of NPF it would simply stop working at times.
 Basically it would just completely stop working and would prevent the
lauch of even trusted applications.  The only solution was to reset
and pray it didn't happen again soon.
2) Even though Opera was fully conifgured in the rules (tried manually
and automatic scan option), it would only launch half the time.  NPF
would block it from launching despite its own rules.  It did this
selectively with different applications.  Sometimes it was just Opera,
other times IE or Firefox would not open either.  Killing the firewall
service would make this go away.

The above alone was enough to drive you nuts.  NPF acted the above way
after several reinstalls and even the formatting of the drive and
reinstallation of Windows had no affect on its buggy ways.  2005
edition was no better.  The 1st problem mentioned above didn't seem to
happen with 2005, but the second problem continued unabated.  It's
like NPF would just decide on its own it didn't like a particular app
or rule.  It is relatively easy to configure, though finding exactly
what you're looking for in the settings can be a pain at times.

Best Regards,
sb

On 1/19/06, Stan Bubrouski <stan.bubrouski () gmail com> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Dave Korn <davek_throwaway () hotmail com> wrote:
> >  I'd like to second what Greg says.
> >
> >  I've used ZA for years, through many changes of version.
> >
> >  It's never forgotten its settings for me.
> >  It's never blocked anything it shouldn't or not blocked anything it
> > should.
>
> Really?  Do you just run notepad?  I've had to remove it on several
> machines because it blocked the launch of certain applications despite
> there being no rules to do so.  This includes (to my recollection this
> was some months ago) some popular tax software updating features,
> adobe acrobat plugin stoppped working within IE even though it was
> configured to, and numerous other problems that couldn't be tracked to
> any rules.
>
> >  It's not remotely bloated compared to similar packages like anything
> > Norton/Symantec/McAfee[*]
>
> Symantec is hugely bloated, but on a 1.2 GHz machine I have here, when
> ZA is installed web browsing with IE is slowed down very noticably,
> far more than average Norton System Works install causes.
>
> >  Nor do I find a dialog such as "Should internet explorer be allowed to
> > connect to the internet" at all confusing.
>
> Neither does anyone else in this thread, you just presume we're all
> lusers who can't read english or configure simple software.
>
> >  So I'm convinced the problem exists between chair and keyboard.
>
> Your wild assumptions that because you've never had a problem that
> anyone who does must be an idiot is astounding...do you teach?  Try
> using google you'll found thousands of ZA problems, not all imagined.
>
> >  Can you actually back up your claims?  For example, can you describe a
> > simple procedure, that anyone with ZA installed could try out, that shows it
> > to misbehave?  Or do you have detailed notes that you took at the time one
> > of these problems occurred that shows the symptoms you observed and the
> > steps you took to attempt to diagnose and solve the problem?
>
> Having uninstalled it, deleted the executable, and wiped my free space.  No.
>
> >  Or can we just expect to hear "No, I didn't know what was going on, I
> > didn't keep proper notes, I was in a rush and just needed to get things
> > working so I didn't investigate"?  In which case it would be false to claim
>
> It's clearly the problem if it degrades system performance, some apps
> fail to load, and all this goes away when is disabled.  And who the
> hell takes notes on every piece of software they install and remove
> because its buggy?  Please we'd all have a set of encyclopedia-sized
> notes for Windows problems alone.
>
> > that you knew ZA to be the cause of the problem, rather than either pilot
> > error or a faulty PC or any number of other confounding factors that could
> > arise?
>
> It's easy to know, because when you uninstall it suddenly things are
> much smoother and your heart rates go back down.
>
> >  I hear people slagging off ZA quite often, but not one of them has ever
> > been able to actually demonstrate a real problem or even explain what the
> > problem is in terms any more precise then "Uh I dunno it just went wrong".
>
> Just because someone doesn't take notes every time some piece of shit
> software doesn't work as advertised and uninstall it, doesn't make
> what they say any less true.  Why would I install something just to
> prove it causes problems to satisfy the ego of someone who thinks
> because something works for them it must be perfect for everyone.  It
> would be fruitless.  If you can't find anyone reporting real problems
> with ZA then maybe you should browse your way over to www.google.com
> and do a search.
>
> >    cheers,
> >      DaveK
> >
> > [*] which I consider to be the gold standard for lousy, bloated, buggy,
> > faulty software.
> > --
> > Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
>
> I have a sigline for you:  ZA is in my mouth.
> Stop sucking.
>
>
> Why isn't it friday yet,
> -sb
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/