Firewalls are useless - Update - March 2014 - Forums

- Collapse -

Why should it change?

by r. proffitt Forum moderator Mar 13, 2014 12:11AM PDT

That is, we are using what is called a Personal Computer and as such it will do whatever we or an application (good or bad) asks it to do.

Sometimes I find folk that forgot what a PC is.
Bob

- Collapse -

As I see it...

by Willy Mar 13, 2014 4:07AM PDT

If a firewall becomes too restrictive is often tells the user what is happening. It still up to the user which often enough wants what is being cautioned/warned about to proceed if in fact the user feels it's OK to do so. -OR- being annoyed just lets whatever go and finds out the hard way, the bad result. A real firewall was intended for networks which is turn are installed to finite setting and anything that hits that is handled as required. However, PCs as in those used by you and me at home, are just too loose and unless the user in on top of things allows too much to get by. Firewalls as part of an AV suite or such tend to handle threats better at least to a degree expected which isn't too annoying. However, the first few days, warning maybe norm until the user reviews and toggles a response on what to do the next time and thus allows less warning to become common because of "trusted" responses. Firewalls are still part of the overall protection anyone using a PC shouldn't be denied of and are a valid part of protection plans/schemes.

tada -----Willy

- Collapse -

I think you're both missing the point

by doniel Mar 13, 2014 4:42AM PDT

Bob, I haven't visited these forums in many years. Nice to see you're still here! The point is that ZoneAlarm professes to ask our computer to not allow certain programs Internet access and to not allow any program to grant itself access when ZoneAlarm's password-protected. It's not the PC I'm blaming - it's ZoneAlarm I'm blaming.

Willy, what I wrote to Bob addresses what you wrote, as well. The point here is that even when a user is on top of things and installs a firewall and utilizes it's password-protection feature, the firewall isn't delivering on its promise. It's allowing a program that the user didn't authorize to change its settings.

- Collapse -

It's still a personal computer.

by r. proffitt Forum moderator Mar 13, 2014 4:46AM PDT

And as what OS it is running allows such without restriction, no app like ZA will or should block it.

Given what you know now, will you change to something other than a PC that runs Windows?
Bob

- Collapse -

I don't understand

by doniel Mar 13, 2014 11:45PM PDT

Your first sentence isn't clear to me. I don't know what you mean by "such" or by "it."

I'd LOVE to ditch Windows, but I'm not convinced that anything would be gained by switching to another OS. They've all got bugs. True, less popular operating systems get less attention from the "bad guys," but they'll eventually set their sights on those, as well.

- Collapse -

(NT) Such = change. It = app or person changing file/settings.

by r. proffitt Forum moderator Mar 14, 2014 1:02AM PDT

- Collapse -

Okay, I understand

by doniel Mar 15, 2014 4:46PM PDT

But you're not addressing the point. ZoneAlarm represents itself as a program that will protect you from unauthorized Internet access. It doesn't.

- Collapse -

They lied, plain and simple.

by r. proffitt Forum moderator Mar 16, 2014 5:59AM PDT

I hope you understand now why any firewall can't meet your demands in the long run. That is, this is a personal computer with all the features we asked for in the 1980's. Fast forward to today and it appears some are willing to change to other than Windows/Linux in exchange for more security.
Bob

- Collapse -

Don't agree

by doniel Mar 16, 2014 6:18AM PDT

A program CAN protect its settings from being tampered with. ZoneAlarm simply isn't doing it.

- Collapse -

Odd.

by r. proffitt Forum moderator Mar 16, 2014 6:22AM PDT

Since any update program can replace any file on boot then how can it protect against that?

It appears you are new to Windows as an OS and how it works. I can't teach all that you would need to know in this small box but have to keep it simple. The simple reason is this is a personal computer which in short means any and all files, settings and such are changeable by us or an app.

If you can't get that concept down you are going to forever discuss how ZA failed to protect you and not understand why it fails.
Bob

- Collapse -

Again, I disagree

by doniel Mar 17, 2014 5:29AM PDT

I would say that 20 years of working with various flavors of Windows doesn't exactly qualify me as new to Windows.

I no longer recall which one it was, but I remember reading about a program that protected itself from being tampered with by having two pieces in memory, each monitoring the other for unauthorized changes. I would never say that something is impossible to circumvent, but that IS a very effective method for software to protect itself. So it is possible for a program to make itself virtually impervious to attack.

But even if that weren't true, the issue here is (at the risk of being repetitious) that ZoneAlarm is making a claim that many unsophisticated users (and I deal with them all the time) believe. And it isn't delivering on that claim. These are users that either don't have the time, inclination or ability to become very tech-savvy, and they rely on the claims that respected programs like ZoneAlarm make.

- Collapse -

Then take it up with Zonealarm.

by r. proffitt Forum moderator Mar 17, 2014 5:39AM PDT

Here I'm just a designer that happened to write router code in the 90's so my view was from deep inside Windows of many versions.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe as the results speak for themselves.

I see why it would fail, you don't (yet.)
Bob

Firewalls are useless - Update

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info