Leonardo_daVinci
August 18th, 2007, 01:22 AM
I am using my PC hardware in a challenging manner and am running it hard (more details on this page: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=182518&page=4 )
Thanks to this excellent website (and not to forget the excellent moderators who have made it the succes that it must be) I am now revisiting my security / backup strategies and am attempting to improve my environment.
I started out using ZoneAlarm Pro in the days that NT came on 20 floppies and was running well on a PC with 32 Mb memory (after having moved from OS/2) and that 400Mb hard disks were about the maximum size you could buy. But then I had a software conflict betwen ZA and something else and moved to Sygate Pro. Sygate Pro disappeared when I moved to XP. (not recognised in XP).
Only a few days ago I discovered that there are versions 3311 and 3408. Downloaded both and installed 3311 and used my key to activate it. Works like a charm.
I noticed that when my machine is idle I keep on having this 2 ~ 4 % CPU utilization. With the XP SP2 firewall + Ghostwall it drops to 0% (meaning below 1%).
I consider myself an extreemly carefull internet user (only going to well known websites but even they can get hacked and infected)
I often have to rely on slow dial-up (sometimes not even making 33k) and do continiously CPU intensive calculations with extraordinary amounts of disk access. (Replaced my core duo with a core 2 duo CPU because the latter has a 4Mb L2 cache.)
I am paranoid about information going out without my knowledge (espionage).
Up to a few days I was quite charmed with the Ghostwall / XP SP2 firewall setup but wonder if the Sygate setup is better. It appears to offer all that I want (SIF, logging, one click traffic blocking, application control at the top of the list).
Have also been considering other products (both paid and unpaid) and those that I did look at all had something that did not fit my scheme of things: low internet latency, minimal disk access, low CPU utilisation (some went over the top when there was a constant datastream coming in). Others had conflicts etc.
Perhaps some of the experts under you may advise if I would be more "secure" having a firewall with outbound application control or if it is only a perceived improved security but in reality adding nothing at all?
Second question is: does Sygate present a high load when lots of data goes through? Sofar I have only been experimenting with this for a day but I need to make a new backup image if I decide to go that way (and cannot make changes during the week, no "try it out" here, can cost me dearly).
Third question: do I need to replace my firewall with something like Sygate or are there other solutions that may work better (saw something like Appdefend and Prosecurity but looking at the webs explanation of the latter it looks like it will introduce some latency. Don't know how much though.)
edit: forgot to mention that I am using Sandboxie. Used VMware in the past but the overhead is too high besides being "clunky" when browsing (getting market information).
Many thanks in advance for your input,
Leonardo
Thanks to this excellent website (and not to forget the excellent moderators who have made it the succes that it must be) I am now revisiting my security / backup strategies and am attempting to improve my environment.
I started out using ZoneAlarm Pro in the days that NT came on 20 floppies and was running well on a PC with 32 Mb memory (after having moved from OS/2) and that 400Mb hard disks were about the maximum size you could buy. But then I had a software conflict betwen ZA and something else and moved to Sygate Pro. Sygate Pro disappeared when I moved to XP. (not recognised in XP).
Only a few days ago I discovered that there are versions 3311 and 3408. Downloaded both and installed 3311 and used my key to activate it. Works like a charm.
I noticed that when my machine is idle I keep on having this 2 ~ 4 % CPU utilization. With the XP SP2 firewall + Ghostwall it drops to 0% (meaning below 1%).
I consider myself an extreemly carefull internet user (only going to well known websites but even they can get hacked and infected)
I often have to rely on slow dial-up (sometimes not even making 33k) and do continiously CPU intensive calculations with extraordinary amounts of disk access. (Replaced my core duo with a core 2 duo CPU because the latter has a 4Mb L2 cache.)
I am paranoid about information going out without my knowledge (espionage).
Up to a few days I was quite charmed with the Ghostwall / XP SP2 firewall setup but wonder if the Sygate setup is better. It appears to offer all that I want (SIF, logging, one click traffic blocking, application control at the top of the list).
Have also been considering other products (both paid and unpaid) and those that I did look at all had something that did not fit my scheme of things: low internet latency, minimal disk access, low CPU utilisation (some went over the top when there was a constant datastream coming in). Others had conflicts etc.
Perhaps some of the experts under you may advise if I would be more "secure" having a firewall with outbound application control or if it is only a perceived improved security but in reality adding nothing at all?
Second question is: does Sygate present a high load when lots of data goes through? Sofar I have only been experimenting with this for a day but I need to make a new backup image if I decide to go that way (and cannot make changes during the week, no "try it out" here, can cost me dearly).
Third question: do I need to replace my firewall with something like Sygate or are there other solutions that may work better (saw something like Appdefend and Prosecurity but looking at the webs explanation of the latter it looks like it will introduce some latency. Don't know how much though.)
edit: forgot to mention that I am using Sandboxie. Used VMware in the past but the overhead is too high besides being "clunky" when browsing (getting market information).
Many thanks in advance for your input,
Leonardo