Bandwith Eater-Why is Zone Alarm so Bad ?

[MB1_618]

Why is Zone Alarm Firewall so bad ? I`m using ZA for years and right now, and I dont want to change my firewall.Is there some trick to solve this "bandwith eater".

[mccoffee]

Not only is zone alaram a bandwith eater it uses up way to many resources and slows your whole system down. If you don't belive me unistall it and try sygate

Sygate Firewall http://www.sygate.com/ sygate has FREE and Pro versions

You could always unistall sygate and put z.a. back in :thumb:

[Dan]

or get a router,

0 resourses used,

with my router and my AV app,my system is plenty safe,

"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2004-07-08 at 19:21:11

Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445,
1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000

0 Ports Open
0 Ports Closed
26 Ports Stealth
---------------------
26 Ports Tested

ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH.

TruStealth: PASSED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.

----------------------------------------------------------------------"

[mccoffee]

That's another option:thumb:

[MadDoctor]

Then there is me... I use a router and Sygate. If a little security is good then a lot of security is better!

;)

[Andrzej]

:D also same ISPs have avaiable additional security options.
NO effects on : resources, speeds, pings.
(last two can changed by own router)

so more security barriers from :
the ISP's option,
own dedicated device (eg router),
installed on PCs firewall (but also anti~ s,t,v,w ect)
& one can be a litle bit paranoic.

but the most costs/efective - do not connect to Internet (not recomended).
unfortunately in this case transmision's speed to Inrernet =0

so own security to transfer efficiency ratio
is an example of the 'balanced compromise'