Norton vs Zone Alarm firewalls
in [Firewalls]
|
From: Poprivet` on 25 Nov 2007 16:21 Luis Ortega wrote: > "Gerald Vogt" <vogt(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:1e07da14-2fc4-452d-a98c- >> The amount of personal insults and the lack of argument in your post >> makes me thinking your lack a few interpersonal skills and some >> experience. >> >>> Thanks for the entertainment; I needed the break. But I meant what >>> I said >>> here; you really aren't ready to respond to questions on newsgroups. >>> Quit >>> being a parrot and face reality; only then will you actually >>> understand the >>> pros and cons of what you've been attempting to make others think >>> you know. >> >> You are the parrot here. You just write what everybody else repeats >> all the timing withing thinking. >> >> Face reality. It is possible without AV and with PFW. >> >> Gerald > > Please, there is no need for you guys to get into a flame war over my > post. I understand that you are trying to be helpful, but I have to > disagree with you on the points that you have to reinstall windows to > uninstall security software or that running a windows system without > av or pfw is a good idea. I appreciate all the advice and thank > everyone for their help. No flame war intended, Luis. I've apologized and responded to him that if he wishes to debate amicably that's fine with me. I was off target and admit it. See my response if you're curious. We all have those "bad" days I guess. Regards, Pop`
From: Volker Birk on 26 Nov 2007 03:23 Luis Ortega <lortega(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > Can anyone please advise on whether the Zone Alarm Pro firewall is any > better than the Norton firewall in my situation? They both exactly have the same type of "quality" - the runs. Yours, VB. -- The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X
From: Poprivet` on 26 Nov 2007 12:58 ChronJob wrote: > "Luis Ortega" <lortega(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in > news:rKX1j.43682$T8.871(a)newsfe5-win.ntli.net: > >> Thanks. My understanding of router firewalls is that they only block >> incoming traffic and if there is some malware on the system then >> outgoing stuff is not blocked. Is that correct? >> >> > > If you've got malware on your system you're already done, cooked, > finished, hacked, and compomised. The ONLY serious remedy at that > point is to flatten your system and rebuild it. There are very few good reasons to "rebuild" a system. Much better to start with AV and an arsenal of spyware tools to clean things up as much as possible. Results might be faster obtained, too. OTOH it's not "wrong" to rebuild/reinstall, just very seldom necessary. The best solution is to be prepared with images of the system stored away and updated automatically. Then it's a minor detail to put the system back to pre-malware state with a few key clicks. > > Software firewalls are garbage, pure and simple. If it makes you feel > better though, use Windows native free firewall. > > Do use a NAT router and hardware firewall. You can get these for > $100.00 or so. > > See: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0504.mspx > > and http://samspade.org/d/firewalls.html > > Good luck! > > > ChronJob > _____________________________________ > "-When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers on 26 Nov 2007 14:03 In comp.security.firewalls Poprivet` <poprivet(a)devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: > ChronJob wrote: >> "Luis Ortega" <lortega(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> Thanks. My understanding of router firewalls is that they only block >>> incoming traffic and if there is some malware on the system then >>> outgoing stuff is not blocked. Is that correct? >> >> If you've got malware on your system you're already done, cooked, >> finished, hacked, and compomised. The ONLY serious remedy at that >> point is to flatten your system and rebuild it. > > There are very few good reasons to "rebuild" a system. Much better to > start with AV and an arsenal of spyware tools to clean things up as > much as possible. Results might be faster obtained, too. Nonsense. Once a system got compromised there are virtually no reasons *not* to flatten and rebuild the system. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/security/essays/10imlaws.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0504.mspx cu 59cobalt -- "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution." --Mark Russinovich
From: Helge Olav Helgesen on 26 Nov 2007 16:51
Hello Ansgar, > Nonsense. Once a system got compromised there are virtually no reasons > *not* to flatten and rebuild the system. I totally agree. You don't know what else have hitted your system. Do not trust A/V to find everytings. I had a case about a year ago with Trend OfficeScan - it did not detect a worm that had compromised a system. When we asked support the reply was that OfficeScan only detects viruses, not worms... Doh --- Helge Olav Helgesen http://www.helge.net |