On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:19:06 -0400, Alan Meyer wrote:
[color=blue]
> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> ...[color=green]
>>
>> Consider Comodo Firewall (free). Also, IIRC, Avira has a combined free AV
>> and FW. Or maybe it's Avast - I always mix those two up.
>>[/color]
>
> Thanks Gene, JT and Mike.
>
> I just looked for review of Comodo Firewall and found an old
> one from Neil Rubenking at PC Magazine
> ([url]http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1969225,00.asp[/url])
> that was very positive.
>
> Alan[/color]

As you probably saw from Mike Torello's reply to my post, I was wrong about
the possible free combined AV and firewall in Avast or Avira software, so
the separate Comodo FW ends up being the valid idea.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

Alan Meyer wrote:[color=blue]
> My wife's computer is running Windows Vista.
> ...
> Periodically, on average every few days, she will lose HTTP
> connectivity. This happens in both IE7 and Firefox 3.08. She can still
> send and receive email and still use a web browser via HTTPS, but she
> cannot connect to ordinary web pages on port 80. The problem normally
> persists until she reboots, at which time connectivity is restored.
> ...
> My next step is to uninstall Zonealarm and, if that fails, uninstall
> AVG - which really scares me. But before I do that, I'm hoping someone
> can give me either some better ideas, or some information to indicate
> that one of those really is the problem.[/color]

For the record, in case anyone searches the archives for this,
it has now been a day over two weeks since I uninstalled
Zonealarm and we have not had to reboot Vista even once.
It might be a coincidence, but it's beginning to look like
Zonealarm did something that blocked any traffic to/from
port 80 on HTTP. I couldn't find anything in ZA that was
doing it, but there may have been something going on that
ZA didn't reveal.

It's bad when hackers hack you, but when you get bitten by
your own firewall, that's a pain.

Alan

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:42:56 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Alan Meyer wrote:[color=green]
>> My wife's computer is running Windows Vista.
>> ...
>> Periodically, on average every few days, she will lose HTTP
>> connectivity. This happens in both IE7 and Firefox 3.08. She can still
>> send and receive email and still use a web browser via HTTPS, but she
>> cannot connect to ordinary web pages on port 80. The problem normally
>> persists until she reboots, at which time connectivity is restored.
>> ...
>> My next step is to uninstall Zonealarm and, if that fails, uninstall
>> AVG - which really scares me. But before I do that, I'm hoping someone
>> can give me either some better ideas, or some information to indicate
>> that one of those really is the problem.[/color]
>
>For the record, in case anyone searches the archives for this,
>it has now been a day over two weeks since I uninstalled
>Zonealarm and we have not had to reboot Vista even once.
>It might be a coincidence, but it's beginning to look like
>Zonealarm did something that blocked any traffic to/from
>port 80 on HTTP. I couldn't find anything in ZA that was
>doing it, but there may have been something going on that
>ZA didn't reveal.
>
>It's bad when hackers hack you, but when you get bitten by
>your own firewall, that's a pain.
>
> Alan[/color]

Just curious : what firewall are you using now ?

Jim wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:42:56 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2******.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Alan Meyer wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> My wife's computer is running Windows Vista.
>>> ...
>>> Periodically, on average every few days, she will lose HTTP
>>> connectivity. This happens in both IE7 and Firefox 3.08. She can still
>>> send and receive email and still use a web browser via HTTPS, but she
>>> cannot connect to ordinary web pages on port 80. The problem normally
>>> persists until she reboots, at which time connectivity is restored.
>>> ...
>>> My next step is to uninstall Zonealarm and, if that fails, uninstall
>>> AVG - which really scares me. But before I do that, I'm hoping someone
>>> can give me either some better ideas, or some information to indicate
>>> that one of those really is the problem.[/color]
>> For the record, in case anyone searches the archives for this,
>> it has now been a day over two weeks since I uninstalled
>> Zonealarm and we have not had to reboot Vista even once.
>> It might be a coincidence, but it's beginning to look like
>> Zonealarm did something that blocked any traffic to/from
>> port 80 on HTTP. I couldn't find anything in ZA that was
>> doing it, but there may have been something going on that
>> ZA didn't reveal.
>>
>> It's bad when hackers hack you, but when you get bitten by
>> your own firewall, that's a pain.
>>
>> Alan[/color]
>
> Just curious : what firewall are you using now ?[/color]

Sorry, I haven't been monitoring the thread and just now saw
your question.

It's now three weeks since uninstalling Zonealarm and the http
connections are still up. I'm getting more and more convinced
that Zonealarm was the problem. I'm very sure we've never gone
three weeks before without loss of HTTP connectivity.

As to firewalls, I have two. There is a firewall in the WiFi
router that my wife connects through to the Internet, and there
is the built-in Windows firewall.

Neither one provides the protection that Zonealarm provided
against malware on the computer connecting outward, but they
do provide good protection against incoming threats - which
are the most dangerous I think.

Alan

Alan Meyer wrote:[color=blue]
> Jim wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:42:56 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2******.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>>> My wife's computer is running Windows Vista.
>>>> ...
>>>> Periodically, on average every few days, she will lose HTTP
>>>> connectivity. This happens in both IE7 and Firefox 3.08. She can
>>>> still
>>>> send and receive email and still use a web browser via HTTPS, but she
>>>> cannot connect to ordinary web pages on port 80. The problem normally
>>>> persists until she reboots, at which time connectivity is restored.
>>>> ...
>>>> My next step is to uninstall Zonealarm and, if that fails, uninstall
>>>> AVG - which really scares me. But before I do that, I'm hoping someone
>>>> can give me either some better ideas, or some information to indicate
>>>> that one of those really is the problem.
>>> For the record, in case anyone searches the archives for this,
>>> it has now been a day over two weeks since I uninstalled
>>> Zonealarm and we have not had to reboot Vista even once.
>>> It might be a coincidence, but it's beginning to look like
>>> Zonealarm did something that blocked any traffic to/from
>>> port 80 on HTTP. I couldn't find anything in ZA that was
>>> doing it, but there may have been something going on that
>>> ZA didn't reveal.
>>>
>>> It's bad when hackers hack you, but when you get bitten by
>>> your own firewall, that's a pain.
>>>
>>> Alan[/color]
>>
>> Just curious : what firewall are you using now ?[/color]
>
> Sorry, I haven't been monitoring the thread and just now saw
> your question.
>
> It's now three weeks since uninstalling Zonealarm and the http
> connections are still up. I'm getting more and more convinced
> that Zonealarm was the problem. I'm very sure we've never gone
> three weeks before without loss of HTTP connectivity.
>
> As to firewalls, I have two. There is a firewall in the WiFi
> router that my wife connects through to the Internet, and there
> is the built-in Windows firewall.
>
> Neither one provides the protection that Zonealarm provided
> against malware on the computer connecting outward, but they
> do provide good protection against incoming threats - which
> are the most dangerous I think.[/color]

Protecting you from malware is not a firewall's job. ZA is not a
firewall. It's only a personal packet filter with a lot of snake-oil in
it trying to protect you from *you*.

A firewall sits at the junction point between two networks. The firewall
protects from the network it is protecting from usually the Internet,
and the firewall protects the network it is protecting, the LAN.

A firewall must have at least two network interfaces. One interface must
face the WAN (Wide Area Network), and the other interface must face the
LAN (Local Area Network).

If the computer was running a host based firewall, then the computer
would have two network interface cards in it with one facing the WAN and
the other one facing that LAN.

Your router comes closer to being a firewall, because it has the WAN and
LAN interfaces and traffic is controlled between the WAN and LAN
interfaces on the router.

In article <#gJh1DCzJHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>A firewall must have at least two network interfaces. One interface must
>
>If the computer was running a host based firewall, then the computer
>would have two network interface cards in it with one facing the WAN and[/color]

Ummm, well. that's...wrong... If you run a host based packet
filter like iptables or windows firewall you've certainly got a firewall.
One interface isn't a nic, though, it's the API to the operating system.

To be pedantic, the network boundary is located AT the lan
interface rather than "between" two interfaces.

Now what you DON'T have is a robust security architecture but
that's another discussion :-)

On Sun, 03 May 2009 14:37:41 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jim wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:42:56 -0400, Alan Meyer <ameyer2******.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>>> My wife's computer is running Windows Vista.
>>>> ...
>>>> Periodically, on average every few days, she will lose HTTP
>>>> connectivity. This happens in both IE7 and Firefox 3.08. She can still
>>>> send and receive email and still use a web browser via HTTPS, but she
>>>> cannot connect to ordinary web pages on port 80. The problem normally
>>>> persists until she reboots, at which time connectivity is restored.
>>>> ...
>>>> My next step is to uninstall Zonealarm and, if that fails, uninstall
>>>> AVG - which really scares me. But before I do that, I'm hoping someone
>>>> can give me either some better ideas, or some information to indicate
>>>> that one of those really is the problem.
>>> For the record, in case anyone searches the archives for this,
>>> it has now been a day over two weeks since I uninstalled
>>> Zonealarm and we have not had to reboot Vista even once.
>>> It might be a coincidence, but it's beginning to look like
>>> Zonealarm did something that blocked any traffic to/from
>>> port 80 on HTTP. I couldn't find anything in ZA that was
>>> doing it, but there may have been something going on that
>>> ZA didn't reveal.
>>>
>>> It's bad when hackers hack you, but when you get bitten by
>>> your own firewall, that's a pain.
>>>
>>> Alan[/color]
>>
>> Just curious : what firewall are you using now ?[/color]
>
>Sorry, I haven't been monitoring the thread and just now saw
>your question.
>
>It's now three weeks since uninstalling Zonealarm and the http
>connections are still up. I'm getting more and more convinced
>that Zonealarm was the problem. I'm very sure we've never gone
>three weeks before without loss of HTTP connectivity.
>
>As to firewalls, I have two. There is a firewall in the WiFi
>router that my wife connects through to the Internet, and there
>is the built-in Windows firewall.
>
>Neither one provides the protection that Zonealarm provided
>against malware on the computer connecting outward, but they
>do provide good protection against incoming threats - which
>are the most dangerous I think.
>
> Alan[/color]

I use Comodo Pro ( free ) which gives outbound protection .

the wharf rat wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <#gJh1DCzJHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> A firewall must have at least two network interfaces. One interface must
>>
>> If the computer was running a host based firewall, then the computer
>> would have two network interface cards in it with one facing the WAN and[/color]
>
> Ummm, well. that's...wrong... If you run a host based packet
> filter like iptables or windows firewall you've certainly got a firewall.
> One interface isn't a nic, though, it's the API to the operating system.
>[/color]
You can call it anything you want, something like ZA or even Windows
firewall are just packet filters, and they are not firewall technology,
in the traditional sense. And NIC(s) allow traffic to and from the
device such as a computer connected to a network.
[color=blue]
> To be pedantic, the network boundary is located AT the lan
> interface rather than "between" two interfaces.[/color]

I disagree.
[color=blue]
>
> Now what you DON'T have is a robust security architecture but
> that's another discussion :-)
>[/color]

What is being talked about is firewall technology, and ZA and Windows FW
are just packet filters not firewalls, which again you can call them
anything you like. I won't, and they are just packet filters protecting
the machine at the machine level.

In article <OVwqq#EzJHA.5496@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>[/color]
>You can call it anything you want, something like ZA or even Windows
>firewall are just packet filters, and they are not firewall technology,[/color]

Sure they are. In fact, I just checked the Big Yellow Book
and on page 467 it specifically discusses host-based or "personal"
firewalls as part of a defense-in-depth security architecture. So
there. lol :-)

Why ISN'T a host based packet filter a firewall? There's
no reason even a hardware firewall needs two interfaces. Look at
Sonicwall for instance.
[color=blue]
>
>What is being talked about is firewall technology, and ZA and Windows FW
>are just packet filters not firewalls, which again you can call them
>anything you like. I won't, and they are just packet filters protecting
>the machine at the machine level.[/color]

Oh, horse****. What's a PIX? Just a packet filter... With
a clumsy CLI to boot :-)

the wharf rat wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <OVwqq#EzJHA.5496@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> You can call it anything you want, something like ZA or even Windows
>> firewall are just packet filters, and they are not firewall technology,[/color]
>
> Sure they are. In fact, I just checked the Big Yellow Book
> and on page 467 it specifically discusses host-based or "personal"
> firewalls as part of a defense-in-depth security architecture. So
> there. lol :-)[/color]

Your definition of a firewall and my definition of a firewall do not
concur and they never will.

[url]http://www.more.net/technical/netserv/tcpip/firewalls/[/url]
[color=blue]
>
> Why ISN'T a host based packet filter a firewall? There's
> no reason even a hardware firewall needs two interfaces. Look at
> Sonicwall for instance.[/color]

It's because of the definition of what a firewall is whether it be
hardware based or software based solution and what your definition is
really doesn't count to me.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> What is being talked about is firewall technology, and ZA and Windows FW
>> are just packet filters not firewalls, which again you can call them
>> anything you like. I won't, and they are just packet filters protecting
>> the machine at the machine level.[/color]
>
> Oh, horse****. What's a PIX? Just a packet filter... With
> a clumsy CLI to boot :-)
>[/color]

Was there a need for you to cuss? I have never liked or respected you in
the first place.

Therefore, don't bother to post again as I will not be reading it or
responding to you.

You should have been locked-up at birth.

On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:14:51 -0400, Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>the wharf rat wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Oh, horse****. What's a PIX? Just a packet filter... With
>> a clumsy CLI to boot :-)
>>[/color]
>
>Was there a need for you to cuss? I have never liked or respected you in
>the first place.[/color]

GEEZ! You're complaining about CUSSING? YOU?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Some of the most vile, disgusting language I've ever SEEN in a public
newsgroup has come from you!

Addison Steele wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:14:51 -0400, Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> the wharf rat wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Oh, horse****. What's a PIX? Just a packet filter... With
>>> a clumsy CLI to boot :-)
>>>[/color]
>> Was there a need for you to cuss? I have never liked or respected you in
>> the first place.[/color]
>
> GEEZ! You're complaining about CUSSING? YOU?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Some of the most vile, disgusting language I've ever SEEN in a public
> newsgroup has come from you![/color]

Shut-up and die while you're at it.

Addison Steele wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:14:51 -0400, Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> the wharf rat wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Oh, horse****. What's a PIX? Just a packet filter... With
>>> a clumsy CLI to boot :-)
>>>[/color]
>> Was there a need for you to cuss? I have never liked or respected you in
>> the first place.[/color]
>
> GEEZ! You're complaining about CUSSING? YOU?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> Some of the most vile, disgusting language I've ever SEEN in a public
> newsgroup has come from you![/color]

This is not a public place you moron. It's the Internet you moron
cyber-space. It doesn't count a thing.

On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:24:55 -0400, Planters <Dry@Roasted1.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Some of the most vile, disgusting language I've ever SEEN in a public
>> newsgroup has come from you![/color]
>
>This is not a public place you moron. It's the Internet you moron
>cyber-space. It doesn't count a thing.[/color]

He wrote "public newsgroup". Which part of that phrase do you have
difficulty comprehending?

Perhaps if you were paying attention in your Jr. High classes you'd
have better reading comprehension skills.