Question about using ZoneAlarm Pro

Trev · Sep 8, 2003

I just installed a trial version of ZoneAlarm Pro, which includes all kinds of spiffy features like the ability to block and/or alert you to various aspects of web pages.

When I come to this site, the "Privacy Advisor" pops up and tells me that it has blocked "Third Party Cookies", "Web Bugs", and something called a "Private Header." In other spots on the site, it says it's blocked ads, animations, etc. Those seem self-explanatory, but can anyone tell me what the first three really are? For example, what is a "Private Header", and why would ZoneAlarm consider it a bad thing?

Thanks,
Bob

dieselsmoke1 · Sep 25, 2003

The privacy header control prevents your IP address, your workstation name, login name, or other personal information from being transferred to third-party sources. Some web pages will not function unless this setting is not check . So if you open a page and can't see that which you seek, check and make sure you hvae not enabled the remove private heading option.

Trev · Sep 26, 2003

Thanks, Dieselsmoke. Yeah, I've found a handful of sites that insist on third party cookies. I figured that was some kind of advertising thing. Not sure exactly what a "web bug" is, though. I'm also not sure whether to trust the new version of ZoneAlarm.. they've released some buggy versions in the past. Maybe it's triggering on something and mis-reporting it.

Thanks for the explanation of the headers. Without going too far off topic, though, I'm puzzled at how (and more to the point, why) I would block my own IP address from being sent unless I was a spammer or some other lowlife. I mean, how does a site like this one know what IP to send the data I've requested to if I've somehow blocked it from knowing my IP? Wouldn't that be like asking you to write back to me but not giving you an address to write to?

Thanks for the reply!

Best,
Bob

p.s. I noticed that immediately after my first posting on this, ZA stopped reporting "web bugs" on this site. Maybe there was something wrong that Muhammad and the guys fixed?

dieselsmoke1 · Sep 27, 2003

The fear is that your IP address will end up on a spammers list somewhere, or worse your PC will be enlisted in a denial of service or similar web attack by unscrupulous persons without your knowledge.

The are countless "bots" roaming the web all the time looking for valid IP addresses and unprotected PC's. From what I have seen, Zone Alarm does a fairly good job at plugging holes and fending off attackers.

Downside: Sometimes blocks info you would like to gain access to.

Hope this explanation helps.

Trev · Sep 28, 2003

Good summary! I routinely post to usenet, and use a from and reply-to address of don.bother@forget.it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And I've used all the utilities kindly provided by Steve Gibson at http://grc.com/freepopular.htm

I choose not to block ads on this site, and other sites I feel provide a real public service. But I'm puzzled by the "web bug" issue. Is this a special form of cookie, or is it an executable of some kind? I'll have to do some research on this.

Thanks for the info!

Best...........Bob

Trev · Sep 28, 2003

Guess I found the answer to my question:

http://www.privacyfoundation.org/resources/webbug.asp#1

Interesting, eh?

Bob

dieselsmoke1 · Sep 28, 2003

Now That's a good explaination!

Wildman1 · Oct 24, 2003

I run the free version of Zone Alarm on all 4 of my 'puters and it has done well for me. I have seen others experience problems with it.

Junkman · Oct 24, 2003

I had Zone Alarm Pro on my computer before I purchased a router, but it was a nuisance for me. I have been told that with the cable router, I no longer need Zone Alarm, so I disabled it...... If this is incorrect, please educate me..... thanks

Trev · Oct 24, 2003

( I had Zone Alarm Pro on my computer before I purchased a router, but it was a nuisance for me. I have been told that with the cable router, I no longer need Zone Alarm, so I disabled it...... If this is incorrect, please educate me..... thanks )

I believe it's incorrect. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

There are two things you need to be concerned about; incoming intrusions, and outgoing "extrusions."

In one case, someone external is trying to break IN to your machine. In the other, a program, perhaps one you downloaded to do your income tax or whatever, is trying to break OUT of your system.. and send your confidential data, your mail list, or whatever, to some other site.

A hardware solution can largely protect you from incoming attacks, but it has no knowledge of what is going out. It just sees packets of data coming from your system..

The software firewall has more control over the outgoing stuff. It can determine what program is generating the packets, check to see if you have given this program permission to do so, and so on. So if your new game you just installed tries to contact a site on the net, the software firewall can pop up and say "Do you want to allow program X to access the Internet?"

Probably the reason you found ZoneAlarm to be a nuisance is that you had it configured to alert you to every stray packet of INCOMING "Internet Background Radiation" that happened to hit your machine.. 99.99999% of which are totally harmless.

Just turning off notification of this incoming stuff is what most people recommend. Only turn off notification of OUTgoing stuff if you are sure the program sending it out is well-behaved and trustworthy.

Did that make any sense at all? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Junkman · Oct 24, 2003

My problem was that it was conflicting with my Norton Anti Virus program with incoming e mail. I use Outlook Express and it was wreaking havoc to the point that I had to either remove the NAV or Zone Patrol.... this was an easy decission... the NAV was more important... I still have the Zone Patrol, but it is turned off.... If I were able to resolve these problems, I would turn it back on......... thanks

PineRidge · Nov 13, 2003

We use two way satellite here at the ranch. Because satellite is always on we have used Zone Alarm Pro from the start. I find it to be a very wortwhile product at keeping the hackers at bay.

CTyler · Nov 13, 2003

I have been running Zone Alarm since it came out and think its great. After setting up my router a couple years ago I continue to use it. The router seems to catch an block all the scans etc.. that used to pile up on the Zone logs. I like the outbound security that ZA provides.

The only trouble I had with ZA and Norton was on the live updates, just had to stop ZA, update, then start ZA again.
There was a problem with Norton that was broadcasting info which was another reason for stop/start on the updates. I did not want info being broadcast.

The GRC site is great, been on his mail list for years.

Trev · Nov 13, 2003

Junkman and CTyler,

My own personal experience has led me to never use anything sold by Symantec. I used to beta test for Peter Norton before Symantec bought them out, and it was a whole different ballgame back then. Now the company just seems intent on profits.

When people discovered the lower quality of Symantec stuff, the company retreated and tried to trade on the previously good name of Peter Norton again.. but it was just show. The quality remained low. Peter was a good programmer.. and hired good programmers.. and deserved his success and name recognition. I wonder if he regrets selling out to these people now.

I don't think I've ever seen a full install of SystemWorks, for example, that hasn't hosed the machine in some way. NAV sometimes updates and sometimes doesn't. Plus, I don't like spending my money on a company that I don't like.

I dunno, some people like NAV.. but if it were me I'd keep ZoneAlarm and dump NAV. Check out AVG 6 which is a free AV that a lot of us use. Works fine, frequent updates, and plays nicely with the other children. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Bob

dieselsmoke1 · Nov 13, 2003

Now it starts to make sense, Trev.

Norton was a first class product a few years ago, small footprint and very effective. However Symantec has morphed this into a bloated concoction that WILL wreak havoc on SOME pc's. I never knew "the rest of the story".

I build a few high end PCs as a hobby, mostly for local gamers, with hot boards, video cards, memory, etc. I don't put Symantec on these, burns too many resources, causes too many problems.

I actually own Systemworks, got it with another purchase, but don't use it. For those using Symantec happily, my blessings.

I've been using PC Cillin, but I'll check out AVG 6.

Bird · Nov 14, 2003

I guess things are a little different for us computer dummies. I don't doubt that there's something better available, but I'm running Norton SystemWorks 2002 and Norton's firewall, had no trouble installing them, and no known problems since, and my daughter just recently installed SystemWorks 2003 on her computer with no problem. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Trev · Nov 14, 2003

( I guess things are a little different for us computer dummies. I don't doubt that there's something better available, but I'm running Norton SystemWorks 2002 and Norton's firewall, had no trouble installing them, and no known problems since, and my daughter just recently installed SystemWorks 2003 on her computer with no problem. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif )

Yeah, Bird.. it works for some folks, and not for others. Shoddy workmanship. Should work the same on all supported platforms.

When I was beta testing for Peter Norton, I'd report a bug and it would be fixed the next day. Or I'd suggest a feature, and they would either add it or explain why they shouldn't the next day. They had me communicating directly with the lead programmer on a given project, etc.

When Symantec took over, I'd report a bug, and it would still be there on the next beta cut. I'd report it again. They'd say yeah, we know. When the final release came out, the bug would still be there. I finally wrote to Symantec and told them I was done beta testing for them.. a complete waste of time.

I dunno.. more power to those who have good luck with them.. and for the rest I suggest prayer. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Bird · Nov 14, 2003

Bob, I certainly don't doubt what you're saying, but I had to spend more time in the waiting room of the cancer clinic this morning than I wanted to (at least they have a pretty good assortment of magazines) so I was reading an article in the latest issue of PC Magazine and they were rating Norton's stuff pretty highly. Of course they were talking about the "2004" versions and of course mine's a little older than that.

dieselsmoke1 · Nov 14, 2003

Bird,

One thing I've learned over the years, don't knock something that works. If it works for you, it's a good solution. Likewise for anyone else for that matter.

If you buy a Dell or Gateway or whatever and run it straight out of the box, odds are in your favor it will work. Factory systems come with very conservative performance settings, more forgiving fault tolerances mean less calls to their tech support.

The thing geeks despise most is software that fiddles with and modifies the Operating System (OS). IMHO most current Symantec products go overboard on this. The result is it will run acceptably on MOST installs, maybe 80-90%.

Geeks tend to tweak their computers to the "ragged edge" for optimal performance, I'm definitly guilty of that. Symantec is not a good option for this type of application.

Long winded explanation, hope it helps.

EW

Bird · Nov 14, 2003

( Long winded explanation, hope it helps )

Thanks. I can understand that. In most (not quite all, but nearly all /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif) cases, I just go with the defaults and hope I don't screw anything up too bad.