I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said they
can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

When you install ZA, it will automatically turn off the Windows firewall.
You don't want to run two firewalls at the same time.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said
> they
> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

When you install ZA, it will automatically turn off the Windows firewall.
You don't want to run two firewalls at the same time.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said
> they
> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

"Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said
> they
> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

As Richard pointed out Zone Alarm will disable the Windows Firewall.

In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows Firewall,
it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

"Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said
> they
> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

As Richard pointed out Zone Alarm will disable the Windows Firewall.

In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows Firewall,
it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:22:02 -0700, Dave C
<DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
>though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said they
>can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

It's usually not a good idea although it won't hurt anything if you
do.
The reason it is not a good idea is becuase sometimes the firewall
rules can potentially conflict with one another. That usually happens
when you create custom rules. EG. XP firewall allowing access but the
user has disallowed access in ZA. It overcomplicates things and gains
nothing to have both running.
The reason I prefer ZA is because it monitors and prevents outgoing
traffic allowing you to choose whether it goes out or not. This is
great for preventing apps from phoning home or preventing other
malicious software from sending private information.

Good Luck,

Trev

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:22:02 -0700, Dave C
<DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
>though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said they
>can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?

It's usually not a good idea although it won't hurt anything if you
do.
The reason it is not a good idea is becuase sometimes the firewall
rules can potentially conflict with one another. That usually happens
when you create custom rules. EG. XP firewall allowing access but the
user has disallowed access in ZA. It overcomplicates things and gains
nothing to have both running.
The reason I prefer ZA is because it monitors and prevents outgoing
traffic allowing you to choose whether it goes out or not. This is
great for preventing apps from phoning home or preventing other
malicious software from sending private information.

Good Luck,

Trev

Paul Smith wrote:
> "Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
>> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
>> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person
>> said they
>> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?
>
> As Richard pointed out Zone Alarm will disable the Windows Firewall.
>
> In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows
> Firewall, it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.
>
Windows firewall will not stop your computer from going places that
might be unwise to go to. ZA stops both directions in and out.

Rick

Paul Smith wrote:
> "Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
>> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
>> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person
>> said they
>> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?
>
> As Richard pointed out Zone Alarm will disable the Windows Firewall.
>
> In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows
> Firewall, it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.
>
Windows firewall will not stop your computer from going places that
might be unwise to go to. ZA stops both directions in and out.

Rick

Dave C wrote:
> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said they
> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?


The Windows Firewall included with SP2, while vastly superior to
the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability and configurability,
is still rather lacking, as a solid security component. It still can't
supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it intended to do so; rather, it's
intended to complement them. And, like the original ICF, it will not
monitor out-going traffic.

WinXP's built-in firewall is _not_ designed to act as a compliment
to 3rd party firewalls, and Microsoft actually recommends disabling it
if you use another software firewall, although a great many people have
reported no problems using ICF in conjunction with other products. My
position is that running two or more software firewalls simultaneously
is generally unnecessary and can _sometimes_ cause conflicts, possibly
negating the protection of both. In any event, having two firewalls
running simultaneously is most certainly an unnecessary drain on system
resources.

WinXP's built-in firewall is usually adequate at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall
does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or
someone else using your computer) might download and install
inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than
to check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the
bad or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any
application you have on your hard drive is there because you want it
there, and therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet.
Further, because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will
also assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate.

Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always
be running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should
not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself.
Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn
how to secure his/her own computer.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Dave C wrote:
> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall even
> though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The person said they
> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?


The Windows Firewall included with SP2, while vastly superior to
the original ICF in terms of visibility, usability and configurability,
is still rather lacking, as a solid security component. It still can't
supplant 3rd-party solutions, nor is it intended to do so; rather, it's
intended to complement them. And, like the original ICF, it will not
monitor out-going traffic.

WinXP's built-in firewall is _not_ designed to act as a compliment
to 3rd party firewalls, and Microsoft actually recommends disabling it
if you use another software firewall, although a great many people have
reported no problems using ICF in conjunction with other products. My
position is that running two or more software firewalls simultaneously
is generally unnecessary and can _sometimes_ cause conflicts, possibly
negating the protection of both. In any event, having two firewalls
running simultaneously is most certainly an unnecessary drain on system
resources.

WinXP's built-in firewall is usually adequate at stopping incoming
attacks, and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall
does not do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or
someone else using your computer) might download and install
inadvertently. It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than
to check for IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the
bad or the questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any
application you have on your hard drive is there because you want it
there, and therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet.
Further, because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will
also assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
ZoneAlarm or Sygate.

Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always
be running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should
not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself.
Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn
how to secure his/her own computer.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Paul Smith wrote:
>
> In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows
> Firewall, it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.
>

Only because it does so much less.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Paul Smith wrote:
>
> In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows
> Firewall, it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.
>

Only because it does so much less.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Paul Smith wrote:
> "Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
>> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall
>> even though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The
>> person said they
>> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?
>
> As Richard pointed out Zone Alarm will disable the Windows Firewall.
>
> In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows
> Firewall, it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.

That's baloney; ZA is one of the best freebie firewalls around these days.
It's also a 2-way, where win firewall is only 1 way protection.

Paul Smith wrote:
> "Dave C" <DaveC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CC5B3419-9FEA-4B11-B7B2-0136F597C19A@microsoft.com...
>> I've been advised to install the free edition of Zone Alarm firewall
>> even though I still have XP Home Edition firewall installed. The
>> person said they
>> can both run at once. Is this true? Is it a good idea?
>
> As Richard pointed out Zone Alarm will disable the Windows Firewall.
>
> In my experience however I'd recommend sticking with the Windows
> Firewall, it's much less hassle than 3rd party ones.

That's baloney; ZA is one of the best freebie firewalls around these days.
It's also a 2-way, where win firewall is only 1 way protection.