Compatibility with ZoneAlarm Firewall Pro ?

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by Kenr, Feb 3, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kenr

    Kenr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Does anyone know whether Nod32 Antivirus v3.0 has any compatibility problems with ZoneAlarm Firewall Pro 7? I would be using them on a PC with Windows XP Professional (Version 2002, Service Pack 2).

    Thanks,

    Ken
     
  2. Philippe_FR22

    Philippe_FR22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    249
    Hello,

    I'm currently using EAV (nod32) 3.0.363 FR with ZoneAlarm Pro 7.0.462.
    Although, some people mentionned some incompatibility issues, they work great for my experience. Non problems detected.

    2 different configurations :
    -> Compaq Evo N610C - 1GB RAM - Windows XP SP2 - EAV3.0.636 FR / ZAP 7.0.462

    -> (Vintage config ;-)) KT7 - AMD Athlon 800MHZ - 1GB - Windows XP SP2 - EAV3.0 /ZAP 7.0.462 (note that is old old configuration still in course !

    So no problems for me !!!
    Note : active mode is not activated (default config.) neither for pop3 client (MS Outlook XP and IExplorer 7) or http client (IEexplorer 7 and Firefox)
     
  3. Joan Archer

    Joan Archer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Posts:
    73
    Location:
    Pembrokeshire, South Wales, UK
    I have the latest versions of both running on my machine which is XPHome SP2 and there are no conflicts as far as I can see. ;)
     
  4. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    The combination of NOD v3 and ZAP 7.0.x did "appear" to work at first with the ZAP default settings. However, I eventually discovered a series of nagging compatibility problems on all my machines that had the ZAP privacy settings strictly configured such as with the Mobile Code Control settings enabled and third party cookie blocking enabled (in ZA Pro v7.0.462 and other ZAP 7.0.x versions). All the systems that experienced these problems use either Windows XP Pro SP2 or Windows XP Home SP2. I have not yet tested for this problem on any Windows 2K or Vista systems.

    The problems I experienced effected the ability to use some secured web sites that required a login for access (while using either Firefox 2.0.x or IE 7). The proxy based design of NOD v3 seems to effect the functionality of ZAP's Privacy Settings which causes the secure web site related conflicts. These same problems have been reported by other users as well and at the time of this post I have not found any work arounds or configuration changes for NOD v3 or ZAP 7.0.x settings that solved these problems.

    If you do not use a strict configuration of the Privacy Settings enabled in ZAP then you may not experience these problems with the NOD v3 and ZAP 7.0.x combination. If you do experience related problems then you will want to revert to using the combination of NOD v2.70.x and ZAP 7.0.x instead since this combination works perfectly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2008
  5. Kenr

    Kenr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Thanks for your detailed reply. Is NOD v2.70.x significantly less attractive than v3?

    Ken
     
  6. Kenr

    Kenr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    The other problem, of course, is whether v2.70.x can still be purchased. A brief glance at ESET suggests it isn't...

    Ken
     
  7. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    It is my understanding that if you purchase or renew a NOD license it is good for the download and use of either NOD v3.x or NOD v2.7. I haven't looked at the ESET site lately but NOD v2.7 has continued to be available for download by licensed users. Simply download and install NOD v2.7 instead of NOD v3.

    NOD v2.7 should continue to provide great AV protection. You may want to refer this question to the ESET reps in this forum but it is my understanding that although there are differences in the design of v2.7 and v3 they both use a similar core AV scanning engine.

    It has been posted in this forum that NOD v2.7 will be supported for at least one more year. I don't remember reading any confirmation about this but due to it's continuing popularity it very well could be supported for more than two years.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2008
  8. Philippe_FR22

    Philippe_FR22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    249
    Hello,
    I think this is always the conflict source : to use multiple applications, for the same job... Now, some FW do Privacy Control, Antispyware and even Antivirus (as Zone Alarm pro and Security suite), Eset Nod32 do Antivirus and Antispyware (and even Firewall, if ESS is used) and many people are using at the same time some real time anti-trojan/spyware detection as SuperAntispyware Pro, or Lavasoft Ad-aware pro etc...

    So how is it possible not to encounter problems ?
    It is important to decide what application should be in charge of which feature !

    For instance : ZA pro for firewall and Application Control / EAV 3 for antivirus and antispyware / IE7 for Cookies Management and Antipopup integrated features... And to send other real time anti"all" to the trash !!!

    And then everything will be OK !
     
  9. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    This is a much larger topic and there this is probably not the thread for this particular discussion but here is my reasoning... Some security applications allow for better control than others which is why many prefer to use a separate AV, FW, ASW, etc. as opposed to an all in one security suite. NOD v2.7 is very compatible with various add on firewalls. My computer systems experienced the problems I described while using ZAP 7.0.x and NOD v3 (just those two by themselves or along with other apps). However, I have had zero problems using the following combination of active real time security applications: NOD v2.7, ZAP v7.0.462, SAS Pro, ThreatFire, Windows Defender. If you want customization then you use separate applications. If you want redundant layered protection it is preferable to use separate security applications. If all you want is simplicity then just use an all in one security suite.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2008
  10. Kenr

    Kenr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    I'd be happy to use the complete Security Suite and not bother with the hassles of separate programs from different companies, but I've read that the ESET firewall is not that great. I don't know whether it makes any difference, but I'm just a home user with one computer and one ADSL connection. If ESET's complete security suite is a good option, I'll take it...

    Ken
     
  11. Philippe_FR22

    Philippe_FR22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    249
    Well, I have a question : how can you assume that in case of Spyware detection, for example, there will not occure any conflict ? Which of NOD32 / ZAP 7 / Windows Defender / Threatfire / SAS Pro will handle the threat ? Are you sure, for example, that if Windows Defender is the first alarming, the action it is planned to do will be performed without any annoyances from others ? Hmm I found that strategy is bad and dangerous except if you can schedule and configure the way all your applications will handle a threat. For instance, if you can decide : NOD32 is the first real time engine scanning and handle the threat, then if it cannot detect or handle, then a second application will handle the threat if it detects.... Etc... If you cannot schedule/configure such a global behaviour (based on each of your applications) your strategy is bad and dangerous and it can occures conflict that can, as a result, deny your capacity to handle a threat and can damage your PC.... This is my opinion and anybody can discuss about it. ;-)



    Yes I'm OK with "Redundant layered", but that mean that you know how to handle the redundancy (see above)! Too much real time engine will kill real time capability to catch a threat ! It is sure... And, speaking about redundancy : why don't you use for example NOD32 + KAPERSKY + BITDEFENDER + AVAST, to be sure will be able to catch all possible virus ?

    Regards
     
  12. Woody777

    Woody777 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Posts:
    484
    When I first tried NOD 3, Eav3, I originally did use ZA Pro. There was a problem logging into some sites namely one that had my friends School assignnment posted on. She couldn't log in for some reason I figured it was the interaction of of ZAP & EAV. I then went back to 2.7 & the problem disappeared. Just yesterday I gave Eav in its current release another try & I experienced no problems. So whatever these problems may have been they seem to be fixed probably by Zone Alarm rather than Eset. I Suspect the 2 products now work fine together.. As to redundancy try it but when I did I only used a ton of memory.. When I went back to just the Firewall & NOD the combination worked just as well as 4 or 5 security applications all doing the same thing.
     
  13. Philippe_FR22

    Philippe_FR22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    249
    Yes you are right... I forgot to speak about ressources CPU/Mem consumed by all of those application... Maybe a good solution should be to use a separate PC as a proxy for http and to split defense applications on both, as for redundance purpose... And taking into account that for an ADSL connexion, now most of people have ADSL modem/switch with NAT feature and statefull integrated firewall...
     
  14. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I manage more than twelve custom built Windows based PC systems that run 24/7 on networks (including full internet access) for business and I have various other systems for personal use as well. I have used the same layered security application approach (separate AV, FW, etc.) since 2001. Although some of the security applications have changed through the years every single one of those systems is still running on the original Windows 98SE or Windows XP installations with updates and service packs. There have been a few obscure inactive viruses (found in older and unarchived data from before 2000) and an occasional spyware that has been detected and removed among those systems but even after more than seven years of continuous usage not a single system has malfunctioned (to require a re-install of the OS) or had its security compromised. You can debate the theoretical effectiveness of using multiple layered security applications all you want to. I can only say what I prefer and what has worked well from my real world experience.
     
  15. Philippe_FR22

    Philippe_FR22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    249
    Hello,
    Sorry for my english, and maybe it's the reason why I didn't understood... You are speaking of separate applications for FW / AV / Anti-spyware etc... I agree with this strategy... There is no problems
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.