full-disclosure - Zone Alarm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20030604191139.5a5c31f5.michaelr@cisco.com>
From: michaelr at cisco.com (Michael Reilly)
Subject: Zone Alarm

AtGuard - now that was a good SW firewall for Win32.  I have been trying to keep running it as I upgrade PCs but it is getting harder and harder (It doesn't help that the latest versions I have are upgrades and require the original copy I purchased.  That original copy doesn't install on Win 2k since Win 2k was not released at the time.)  The last one I upgraded to was version 3.2.

I tried the Norton product - so much garbaged was added that you couldn't find the necessary features.  In newer versions some nice cookie and ad blocking features have been removed and put in yet another product.

I'll try searching to see if I can find a standalone install for my Win 2k machine.

michael
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:56:34 -0700
"Eric N. Valor" <ericv@...zio.com> wrote:

> 
> > From: Sven Hoexter <sven@...egate.de>
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:20:07AM -0700, morning_wood wrote:
> > >?Zone Alarmbuy a $40 hardware router. Software firewalls are not a
> > > security solution IMHO.
> >
> > Well I would say it's very questionable if so called "hardware routers"
> > running with software aswell are much better. They probably have bugs
> > aswell and often it's not easy to upgrade them.
> >
> > As always a "firewall" is the whole construct with portfilters and
> > users who know on wich "Install this cool Dialer button" they should
> > klick and on which not. Ah and a system wich receives regular vendor
> > patches is a part of the whole, too.
> 
> I always did like AtGuard.  Of course, this was prior to it being swallowed 
> up by McAfee (or was it Norton) for their Personal Firewall product whereupon 
> it got "feature-creeped" into (IMHO) useless confusion.  The last version of 
> pure AtGuard is available out there on the web if you know how to look for 
> it.  
> 
> It is/was a nice little basic packet filter for Win32 systems.  I've used it 
> in combination with certain NATting DSL routers for many home/small-business 
> networks I've installed and haven't had a customer complaint yet.  
> 
> There was some discussion regarding possible exploits around AtGuard, but 
> IIRC those were based more on social engineering techniques (adding trojaned 
> programs to default paths, etc.) than straight vulnerability
> 
> -- 
> Eric N. Valor
> ericv@...zio.com
> PGP Key 2048/1024 227B04CB
> Key Fingerprint = 766C CA15 0FFF E54B 2FEE  C7D7 0F87 3AFB 227B 04CB
> 
> : This Space Intentionally Left Blank :
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


-- 
---- ---- ----
Michael Reilly    michaelr@...co.com
    Cisco Systems, Santa Cruz, CA