|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
02-12-2002, 05:42 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (8 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 242
|
XP ICF v. ZoneLabs Zone Alarm
How does XP's Internet Connection Firewall compare ZoneLabs Zone Alarm? I ran into a little trouble with Zone Alarm - it was hanging up my cable connection (couldn't connect to my cable ISP's e-mail server and sometimes I would have to reboot to get web pages to load). I uninstalled Zone Alarm and everything is working fine now. However, knowing MS the way I do, is ICF just as good as Zone Alarm? Am I getting the same level of protection from hackers?
|
|
|
|
02-12-2002, 10:10 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member (4 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 12
 |
ZA firewall and XP's
Hey Jason, I can't speak for the firewall of M$, but I am aware that ZoneLabs is working on a resolution for those problems. Not sure if the option of having two software firewalls is viable or not. I guess, wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2002, 02:56 PM
|
#3 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
Hi
I use XP's fwall as it is statefull inspection in its action. The zone one is not a statefull type, and therefor less secure but still zone is very nice. I think the fwall native to XP is best. Zone is great for ME, 98, 2K or what have you. I got to the point that haxors I could care less about and have made the log file for the attacks only 1 meg and disabled logging altogether. I have a feeling that running two fwalls is asking for trouble. Just some thoughts.... Last edited by Blakhart; 02-13-2002 at 02:59 PM. |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
