kerio vs zonealarm

Hi guys,

I see from the earlier post on kerio, that Shane is happy with kerio 2.1.5.

Anyone out there any preference between kerio and zonealarm?

Personally, have been using ZA "happily" for some years. (auto updated) I
seem to recall a comment somewhere that ZA "inhibits" SR. and I know it has
to be shutdown to allow scandisk & defrag to run to completion; does this
apply to kerio?

Any comments pro & con received with interest.

--
Delboy

A common mistake that people made when trying to design something completely
foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Douglas Adams

Well, Delboy,

Seems to me the best advert for 2.1.5 is the link I posted (if you haven't
read it):
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005...completed.html

Just scroll down to the heading *The whole 2.1.5 issue* just over half way
down. This is by the president of the company that now owns Kerio,
effectively offering no reason whatsoever to buy his version rather than
stick with the old freeware 2.1.5, and agreeing that it's excellent. I'm not
the only one happy with it, of course - although I don't know for sure they
still use it - Noel and Silj are too. In fact Silj is the one recommended it
to me about four years ago (iirc).

Way back, when Steve Gibson hit the headlines for exposing the penetrability
of software firewalls, the only two that passed the test were Zone Alarm and
Tiny Personal Firewall. Well, Kerio 2.1.5 *is* Tiny Personal Firewall about
two versions improved (although there remains a non-freeware Tiny firewall
too, still called Tiny - and nothing to do with Tiny Computers, btw!).

I have regularly tested new versions of Zone Alarm and always found they
cause problems in Win ME. Now I simply assume they'll never write another
specifically 9x version, so that's that anyway.
Kerio 2.1.5 is - more than any software firewall I've ever used - conducive
to writing one's own rules. So it's an expert's firewall (that can be used
by the merely competent) - although there are pointers on how to set it up
and what ports should be blocked.

Apart from being for those who want an excellent software firewall - rather
than the one whichever publication they place their faith in currently
recommends (along with McAfee and Norton AntiVirus) - Kerio 2.1.5 is for
people who want be in control of what goes through it rather than
metaphorically closing their eyes and hoping for the best.

But hardware firewalls/routers are doubtless more secure.


Shane



Delboy wrote:
Hi guys,

I see from the earlier post on kerio, that Shane is happy with kerio
2.1.5.

Anyone out there any preference between kerio and zonealarm?

Personally, have been using ZA "happily" for some years. (auto
updated) I seem to recall a comment somewhere that ZA "inhibits" SR.
and I know it has to be shutdown to allow scandisk & defrag to run to
completion; does this apply to kerio?

Any comments pro & con received with interest.

I still think, Sygate is just as effective, but easier to handle, Shane. How
about it?

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Well, Delboy,

Seems to me the best advert for 2.1.5 is the link I posted (if you haven't
read it):

http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005...completed.html

Just scroll down to the heading *The whole 2.1.5 issue* just over half way
down. This is by the president of the company that now owns Kerio,
effectively offering no reason whatsoever to buy his version rather than
stick with the old freeware 2.1.5, and agreeing that it's excellent. I'm
not
the only one happy with it, of course - although I don't know for sure
they
still use it - Noel and Silj are too. In fact Silj is the one recommended
it
to me about four years ago (iirc).

Way back, when Steve Gibson hit the headlines for exposing the
penetrability
of software firewalls, the only two that passed the test were Zone Alarm
and
Tiny Personal Firewall. Well, Kerio 2.1.5 *is* Tiny Personal Firewall
about
two versions improved (although there remains a non-freeware Tiny firewall
too, still called Tiny - and nothing to do with Tiny Computers, btw!).

I have regularly tested new versions of Zone Alarm and always found they
cause problems in Win ME. Now I simply assume they'll never write another
specifically 9x version, so that's that anyway.
Kerio 2.1.5 is - more than any software firewall I've ever used -
conducive
to writing one's own rules. So it's an expert's firewall (that can be used
by the merely competent) - although there are pointers on how to set it up
and what ports should be blocked.

Apart from being for those who want an excellent software firewall -
rather
than the one whichever publication they place their faith in currently
recommends (along with McAfee and Norton AntiVirus) - Kerio 2.1.5 is for
people who want be in control of what goes through it rather than
metaphorically closing their eyes and hoping for the best.

But hardware firewalls/routers are doubtless more secure.


Shane



Delboy wrote:
Hi guys,

I see from the earlier post on kerio, that Shane is happy with kerio
2.1.5.

Anyone out there any preference between kerio and zonealarm?

Personally, have been using ZA "happily" for some years. (auto
updated) I seem to recall a comment somewhere that ZA "inhibits" SR.
and I know it has to be shutdown to allow scandisk & defrag to run to
completion; does this apply to kerio?

Any comments pro & con received with interest.

Well, Harry, I thought I'd mentioned - but apparently didn't - that all the
modern freeware software firewalls now - afaics - cause winmgmt to run,
which slows the system down, that this is because they're all really written
for high-RAM NT systems where it doesn't really impact performance. But I
haven't been overwhelmed with agreement on this, which is probably why I
didn't mention it!

As for 'just as effective', I reckon this is a little imprecision in terms.
Sygate - in being 'easier to handle' - assuming the current version works in
9x without causing slowdowns anyway - is for people who *don't* want to
construct the rules themselves, as is Zone Alarm, Kerio 4.x, and almost
every other software firewall. Kerio 2.1.5 is for those who *do* want to
deliberately block individual ports according to this or that protocol and
in this, that or both directions. Otherwise 2.1.5 is a bad choice.

No inference should be made here, re choosing one of the more-automated
products - while you have to have a certain competence to run 2.1.5, to
choose an alternative firewall does not denote a lack of competence, so much
as a lack of that aspect of paranoia or control-freakery. There's a lot of
it about! A great many users verge on the neurotic where security updates
are concerned, either for the operating system itself or for third-party
anti-spyware and (eg, on acv/aca-v) anti-virus products.

There is a lot to be said for 'set-it-and-forget-it' tools - but they're
supposed to prevent problems, maybe not all problems (hence Safe Hex), but
they're not supposed to actually cause them. And Zone Alarm seems
near-universally recognised to cause problems in 9x these days, Kerio 4.x
has had bugs (though possibly Sunbelt's build's do/will overcome those)
and - whether or not all three cause slowdowns by starting winmgmt - Sygate
is now a Symantec product and Symantec are the arch 9x-slowdown software
house. If it hasn't already been ruined, it almost certainly soon will be.
It won't be being built for efficient operation in 9x!




Shane





webster72n wrote:
I still think, Sygate is just as effective, but easier to handle,
Shane. How about it?

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Well, Delboy,

Seems to me the best advert for 2.1.5 is the link I posted (if you
haven't read it):

http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005...completed.html

Just scroll down to the heading *The whole 2.1.5 issue* just over
half way down. This is by the president of the company that now owns
Kerio, effectively offering no reason whatsoever to buy his version
rather than stick with the old freeware 2.1.5, and agreeing that
it's excellent. I'm not the only one happy with it, of course -
although I don't know for sure they still use it - Noel and Silj are
too. In fact Silj is the one recommended it to me about four years
ago (iirc).

Way back, when Steve Gibson hit the headlines for exposing the
penetrability of software firewalls, the only two that passed the
test were Zone Alarm and Tiny Personal Firewall. Well, Kerio 2.1.5
*is* Tiny Personal Firewall about two versions improved (although
there remains a non-freeware Tiny firewall too, still called Tiny -
and nothing to do with Tiny Computers, btw!).

I have regularly tested new versions of Zone Alarm and always found
they cause problems in Win ME. Now I simply assume they'll never
write another specifically 9x version, so that's that anyway.
Kerio 2.1.5 is - more than any software firewall I've ever used -
conducive to writing one's own rules. So it's an expert's firewall
(that can be used by the merely competent) - although there are
pointers on how to set it up and what ports should be blocked.

Apart from being for those who want an excellent software firewall -
rather than the one whichever publication they place their faith in
currently recommends (along with McAfee and Norton AntiVirus) -
Kerio 2.1.5 is for people who want be in control of what goes
through it rather than metaphorically closing their eyes and hoping
for the best.

But hardware firewalls/routers are doubtless more secure.


Shane



Delboy wrote:
Hi guys,

I see from the earlier post on kerio, that Shane is happy with kerio
2.1.5.

Anyone out there any preference between kerio and zonealarm?

Personally, have been using ZA "happily" for some years. (auto
updated) I seem to recall a comment somewhere that ZA "inhibits" SR.
and I know it has to be shutdown to allow scandisk & defrag to run
to completion; does this apply to kerio?

Any comments pro & con received with interest.

Quite an eye-opener, Shane.
I may consider reverting to KerioPF 2.1.5.
Nevertheless, for the time being I'll stick with what I've got.
Thanks for the in-depth analysis.

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Well, Harry, I thought I'd mentioned - but apparently didn't - that all
the
modern freeware software firewalls now - afaics - cause winmgmt to run,
which slows the system down, that this is because they're all really
written
for high-RAM NT systems where it doesn't really impact performance. But I
haven't been overwhelmed with agreement on this, which is probably why I
didn't mention it!

As for 'just as effective', I reckon this is a little imprecision in
terms.
Sygate - in being 'easier to handle' - assuming the current version works
in
9x without causing slowdowns anyway - is for people who *don't* want to
construct the rules themselves, as is Zone Alarm, Kerio 4.x, and almost
every other software firewall. Kerio 2.1.5 is for those who *do* want to
deliberately block individual ports according to this or that protocol and
in this, that or both directions. Otherwise 2.1.5 is a bad choice.

No inference should be made here, re choosing one of the more-automated
products - while you have to have a certain competence to run 2.1.5, to
choose an alternative firewall does not denote a lack of competence, so
much
as a lack of that aspect of paranoia or control-freakery. There's a lot of
it about! A great many users verge on the neurotic where security updates
are concerned, either for the operating system itself or for third-party
anti-spyware and (eg, on acv/aca-v) anti-virus products.

There is a lot to be said for 'set-it-and-forget-it' tools - but they're
supposed to prevent problems, maybe not all problems (hence Safe Hex), but
they're not supposed to actually cause them. And Zone Alarm seems
near-universally recognised to cause problems in 9x these days, Kerio 4.x
has had bugs (though possibly Sunbelt's build's do/will overcome those)
and - whether or not all three cause slowdowns by starting winmgmt -
Sygate
is now a Symantec product and Symantec are the arch 9x-slowdown software
house. If it hasn't already been ruined, it almost certainly soon will be.
It won't be being built for efficient operation in 9x!




Shane





webster72n wrote:
I still think, Sygate is just as effective, but easier to handle,
Shane. How about it?

Harry.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Well, Delboy,

Seems to me the best advert for 2.1.5 is the link I posted (if you
haven't read it):


http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005...completed.html

Just scroll down to the heading *The whole 2.1.5 issue* just over
half way down. This is by the president of the company that now owns
Kerio, effectively offering no reason whatsoever to buy his version
rather than stick with the old freeware 2.1.5, and agreeing that
it's excellent. I'm not the only one happy with it, of course -
although I don't know for sure they still use it - Noel and Silj are
too. In fact Silj is the one recommended it to me about four years
ago (iirc).

Way back, when Steve Gibson hit the headlines for exposing the
penetrability of software firewalls, the only two that passed the
test were Zone Alarm and Tiny Personal Firewall. Well, Kerio 2.1.5
*is* Tiny Personal Firewall about two versions improved (although
there remains a non-freeware Tiny firewall too, still called Tiny -
and nothing to do with Tiny Computers, btw!).

I have regularly tested new versions of Zone Alarm and always found
they cause problems in Win ME. Now I simply assume they'll never
write another specifically 9x version, so that's that anyway.
Kerio 2.1.5 is - more than any software firewall I've ever used -
conducive to writing one's own rules. So it's an expert's firewall
(that can be used by the merely competent) - although there are
pointers on how to set it up and what ports should be blocked.

Apart from being for those who want an excellent software firewall -
rather than the one whichever publication they place their faith in
currently recommends (along with McAfee and Norton AntiVirus) -
Kerio 2.1.5 is for people who want be in control of what goes
through it rather than metaphorically closing their eyes and hoping
for the best.

But hardware firewalls/routers are doubtless more secure.


Shane



Delboy wrote:
Hi guys,

I see from the earlier post on kerio, that Shane is happy with kerio
2.1.5.

Anyone out there any preference between kerio and zonealarm?

Personally, have been using ZA "happily" for some years. (auto
updated) I seem to recall a comment somewhere that ZA "inhibits" SR.
and I know it has to be shutdown to allow scandisk & defrag to run
to completion; does this apply to kerio?

Any comments pro & con received with interest.

Thanks for feedback Shane. What problems have you seen with ZA/ME
combination? Save the scandisk & defrag "problems", I have not seen anything
untoward using ZA. But then I do scandisk & defrag safe mode.

--
Delboy

A common mistake that people made when trying to design something completely
foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Douglas Adams

Well, I haven't used it in at least a year anyway. For a long time there's
been the SR issue - although that seemed at times limited to particular user
groups, eg of the earlier build free version rather than the later build
paid one. I stopped using it - way back - in part because it kept going
online (before I was on BB!) and I don't like anything, at anytime,
connecting unless I specifically select it. Zonelabs seemed then, to me, to
be going the way of the big software houses, making the assumption that
everyone had broadband and if you were still on dial-up...well...tough! I
wasn't getting the SR problem at first, but with the next build I did and
that was the last straw.

Silj encouraged me to try Kerio and there's no real going back once you know
how to set it up. It works. If you want better, a hardware firewall/router
is required.

I have tried 4.x Kerio versions and various builds of ZA and Sygate. ZA has
struck me as becoming a bloated resource hog. I've found all three causing
winmgmt to run and slowing the computer considerably. I suspect those who
are still happy with ZA have always used it in Win ME, and specifically the
later builds, having come to ME relatively late, and won't necessarily
appreciate the difference until switching and being astonished at how much
more resources are available with 2.1.5. Though similar would be true using
any firewall that old, most if not all the others I imagine will be buggy
and vulnerable today while 2.1.5 isn't.

Shane


Delboy wrote:
Thanks for feedback Shane. What problems have you seen with ZA/ME
combination? Save the scandisk & defrag "problems", I have not seen
anything untoward using ZA. But then I do scandisk & defrag safe mode.

Thanks for your opinions Shane. Guess it's "make your mind up" time.

--
Delboy

A common mistake that people made when trying to design something completely
foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Douglas Adams

You're welcome. Though I seem to have been repeating myself. Just lately I'm
so tired I don't remember I already posted to this thread!

Shane


Delboy wrote:
Thanks for your opinions Shane. Guess it's "make your mind up" time.