Is ZA Pro a good firewall

I sometimes get onto another forum where users of ZA do nothing but bitch about it like its the worse FW out there on this planet, this doesn't work and that doesnt work because the blame was put on ZA.

So really is ZA that bad or would you rate it as one of the best FW's out there in terms of protection and against Sygate, Kerio and Outpost.

I have used ZA Pro for 2 yrs now and have never encountered any probs what so ever. Also have found ZA Pro 6.1.737 to be one of the best version they ever bought out.

 

Simple straight answer. Yes, ZoneAlarm Pro is a good firewall.

 

What you are seeing the "big boy syndrome". Most people like to complain against the big company (Zone Labs has the largest market share of firewalls) especially when a buggy release is produced. Of course when a smaller company produces a buggy release, the response is much nicer and more positive. A well known example would by NAV. When a security flaw is found in NAV, people would write in with nasty remarks, saying why are you still using NAV, how "bloated" it is etc. But when a security flaw is found say in Kaspersky, people will say just wait, a fix will be out, nothing of the "I'm gonna switch AV" thing. Thats why you got to praise people like BigC for still sticking out for NAV. Incidentally I have NAV and Kaspersky at home.

ZA 6.1 while it fixes most bugs in ZA 6.0, can still be a bit buggy for some users. But obviously you don't have the problems (so do I) so why stop using it?

 

I havent stop using it and never will, always liked ZA and its done a fantsastic job in the past and will do so in the future.

 

For years I've been using various different firewalls, including Sygate, Kerio, Jetico etc. I tend to like configuring every aspect of the firewall, right down to each rule per app.

I recently converted to ZA Pro and love it, it has the right everything for me. I can still add expert rules where I want, and it has enough bells and whistles to keep me happy. I know in the past, it's had a bad rap, and it did have some problems at the time but the latest version is great.

As for unhappy_viewer comments about bigger companies, I agree with that sentiment to some degree but sadly in the case of NAV. It used to be a really great product, and the last few years it has gone down hill. It's really easy to use and has a great UI but it does use a lot of resources and it's anti-virus ability is starting to be called into question.
Kaspersky is top notch though, with NOD32 for speed and overall footprint.

 

I think the latest version of ZA Pro might be the best yet. I still use it occasionally, along with the others I have licenses for and notice no slowdowns compared to the others. I've also had no problems at all with the Pro version, other than when I'm running AVAST antivirus, and then I only have to make a small adjustment to AVAST and things are fine.

Never thought I'd see the day when I would like ZA, but I do like the current version.

 

You don't have to believe every forum post. If somebody says "ZA is crap", ask for more info. In most cases you won't get a decent answer. Most of these posts are written to impress other members without background.

If somebody writes "NAV is crap", I know that isn't true, because NAV is still the best software ever made by Symantec.
NAV isn't bloatware either, when your computer is powerfull enough and the very last version of NAV has been improved for this matter.
I don't like Symantec either, but I will never tell people that NAV is crap.
In Belgium NAV is one of the most popular AV's and used by one the largest banks in Belgium. Banks and their computer experts, don't install crapware.

According my readings ZA is one of the better firewalls and most security websites, will recommend ZA as a possible choice.
I use ZA Free, because it's the only firewall, I'm able to understand more than 50%.
Any other firewall would play with me and treat me as an idiot. I don't have any problem to admit that.

 

No software is bloated for a PC powerful enough. But NAV is one of the most resource hungry AV app there is. Want proofs- test it yourself, if you do not want to rely on opinions of others.

Yes they do. Because no one was ever fired for buying Microsoft, err, Symantec...

X.

 

Hi,

ZA has always been my favorite firewall, and IMO it´s still a good firewall. It´s very easy to configure plus I actually like the GUI (but it could have been better).

I also think that the GUI has to change now that it has become an IPS, because it can become a bit unhandy with a lot of application rules in the Program Control section. And it really needs a "save config" button in the same section btw.

 

Doesn't have the best GUI and performance, but it's a good firewall...

 

I was looking into ZA

[edit: PRO 6.1]

a few weeks ago and might get back to it, since I need a firewall to replace Outpost 3(spasm!, eye twitching! ....)
Well, I found ZA failed a handful of leaktests I used on it, but maybe I'll try it on another system sometime and try to make sure. I also saw a post with some interesting pts against it, that maybe I'll ask the company about:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=632711#post632711
I'm looking forward to OA 2, see how that helps my security.
I really hate security popups that no one without a degree can have a clue about.
If someone wants to tell me how much they like a firewall or another product, tell me about tests or factual reasons, which some people do, but a lot that I see in favor of software is oppinions, and then I try it and it just is not good.
Thanks.

 

A related question that is also of interest is:

"Is ZA Free a good firewall?'

 

ZA free is not a component control firewall, as is, it will fail leak tests, however in its own, apart from the test factor, its a very good firewall, ZAP will pass all the tests.

 

ZA Pro should not fail leak tests anymore(or at least most of them) due to the new OSFirewall feature.

 

That's what I suspected. ZA Free would not be my first choice because it lacks some features that other free firewalls have. For example, in the free versions of Kerio or Sygate I can create advanced rules, but with ZA I would have to pay to get that capability. BTW, I am not saying that Kerio and Sygate are the only ones. They are just the two that I am most familiar with.

And if I am not mistaken, Kerio and Sygate (the free versions) also have some degree of component control. Is that correct?

Phil

 

You are right about the free Sygate and kerio versions but then actual component control like Outlook or ZAP is not present in either Kerio or Sygate but still, would rate them better then free ZA.

 

But have any of you guys -personally- run the tests on ZA Pro or any other firewalls? I hear "should pass" and so forth. Yeah, I thought the same about a number of walls, but test it yourself and see. Then post your results. Thanks.

 

I did test the latest ZA Pro and I went back to Tiny PF Pro. ZA is just too resource hungry compared even to Tiny, which is in fact a very light program (you don't see slow downs...)

 

ZAP6 max load on my sys is 22mb, Tiny last time I tried was taking up 42mb and far more CPU calls from my dual Xeon system making an impact on it as well.

 

Strange. At my PC Tiny isn't even at 22mb...

 

The toal memory used by ZA on my machine is 12mb. I guess different system's configuration results in different RAM usage.

 

I don't mind how much memory (memory is cheap), it uses to run the application but I am concerned about application speed. I watch DVD movies a lot on my pc and since installing Zone alarm about every 20 minutes or so, there is a brief slowdown and skipping of frames so I need to figure out if and why ZA monopolizes the CPU during those times. This didn't happen before I installed ZA even under NIS.

 

Try turning OFF AV Monitoring. I know in past builds of ZA 6, there was a resource issue with it's monitoring part. I don't know if that was taken care of, with the more recent builds tho.

 

Hi,
It's a nice firewall. The only problem I had with it was configuring it to work alongside P2P. Otherwise, it's probably the best out-of-the-box solution for an average user.
Mrk

 

Ok, again, I see "nice firewall", but I would now be interested in you running the leaktests and reporting here what the results were, because "it's a nice firewall" gives readers no idea as to if it actually protects, passes the leaktests, or if it just looks nice and does not bring up error messages for you.
Have you tried any other "out of the box" firewalls and tested them?