NOD32 LSP's and Zonealarm

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 v3 Beta Forum' started by rayg, Aug 23, 2004.

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

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    I believe that NOD32 LSP's are conflicting with Zone Alarm Security Suite's capabilities. I am not able to see why there should be a conflict. Will (does) this new version (beta) resolve these conflicts?

    I appreciate that I can only have 1 AV scanner active so I would be quite happy for that scanner to be NOD32 however IM security would seem to be a completly different matter.

    If someone knows the answer or can explain why this cannot be fixed I would very much appreciate an explanation. (You can also tell me if I am incorrect in my information ;) )

    I am running WinXPPro SP2 and ZoneAlarm Security Suite 5.1.011.000 with NOD32 V2 with latest updates. (Not the new NOD32 Beta).

    If there is a fixed version I would like to try it out - which beta version should I try? The current one on the web site or the one that is about to be released?
     
  2. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    No the beta doesn't fix this either. The only way I have found to resolve it is to turn off IMON's http scanner.
     
  3. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    There are conflicts between this version of ZA and SP2, it is also known to have major problems, it locked up solid 2 of my machines. I have gone back to ZA 4.5.594 and everything is back to running smooooth ;)

    Hope this helps...

    Cheers :D
     
  4. sard

    sard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Posts:
    175
    Location:
    UK
    It locked up my Win2K machine too. I swiftly switched to Kerio. Can't believe I ever bothered buying ZA pro :rolleyes:
     
  5. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    In running ZA (free) for 10 years I have never come across a problem until this version (5.1.011), and I have installed it for 100's and 100's of people in that time period.

    They are working on a new version from what I understand ;)

    Cheers :D
     
  6. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    There is no issue with ZA 5.1 and XP SP2 as far as I am concerned. I am interested in the conflicts between ZA and NOD32 - I would like to know why ZA has a problem and if it is ZA with the problem or NOD32? LSP are supposed to be transparent to services either infront or behind in the chain. Something must be wrong or incorrectly coded in one or other of these applications.

    I would like to see this fixed one way or another - after all the issue has been around for quite a while now - long enough for someone to know what or why I feel sure.

    If I uninstall NOD32 then the ZA issues go away!

    Can anyone from ESET enlighten us all on this issue please?
     
  7. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    ZA security suite has a built-in antivirus and will conflict with NOD. Use ZA Pro 4.5.
     
  8. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    You do not have to use the AV Component of ZA SS 5.1 but you should be able to use the IM facility. Also you need ZA 5.1 to show as a firewall in XP SP2. This NOD32 beta when released, will by the sound of it, also show as a working AV in XP SP2.

    The issue is why do the LSP's conflict! Not which S/W combination works. Unless someone can explain why this particular issue cannot be resolved either by NOD32 or ZoneLabs.

    What I require is an explanation or a solution - preferably a solution. That gives all users a full choice of what facilities and S/W they use on their system(s).
     
  9. Alec

    Alec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Posts:
    355
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I understand your complaint as well. I have SP2, ZA 5.1, and NOD32 2.12.0 beta and also have occassional problems as I have expressed before. Generally, my setup works. In fact, I even told Blackspear so on a couple of occassions until I started getting hit with some fairly random lockups. My lockups have always occurred right after boot-up and logon, during the desktop loading phase. Not every single time. Just occassionally enough to be highly irritating. Once up, I haven't come across any problems. I'm inclined to think that it is primarily a ZA 5.1 problem as most people suggest. I am definitely considering rolling back to 4.5, but just haven't done so yet. I keep dragging my feet in hopes that Zone Labs will wake up and fix their problems. :doubt:
     
  10. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    The AV is integrated into the FW, and therefore, may not be 100% defeatable. ZA 4.5.594 Pro is the most stable. Look for another FW/AV if IM is important to you. What's the big deal about SP2 detection? Dunno why people want to put up with junk software.
     
  11. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    Alec,

    Until SP2 came out I was completely unable to run any ZA V5 version - it always locked up in 5 minutes or so. However This installation as described above has been 100% OK. But the difference is that I am not yet running the NOD32 Beta. What I can say as stated before is that if I remove NOD32 then all the LSP issues go away.

    Until someone can explain what the conflict is with NOD32 and ZoneAlarm we will not be able to resolve the problem. I really do not care who's fault it is if someone would just investigate what the issue is and either fix it if it is their problem or state what the issue is then we can move things forward. Until someone gets off the fence we cannot go anywhere.

    If I had a working installation and was unhappy with my AV Scanner and wanted to try NOD32 - I would have a problem that would be placed fairly and squarely in NOD32's court. After all installing NOD32 broke my system.

    Therefore as NOD32 is in the beta phase of a new version and I am reporting a problem that at this time I believe lies in their software, my feeling is that ESET should take a look and report back.

    What would be even better is if they would work with Zone Labs to resolve whatever the issue is.

    So come on ESET lets see you fix or explain the issue as to why it cannot be resolved.
     
  12. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,770
    Location:
    Texas
    From the beta page.

    Please, send your comments regarding this version to beta2011@eset.sk ; all your comments are greatly appreciated
     
  13. Alec

    Alec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Posts:
    355
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Agreed. It shouldn't be too hard to replicate given the number of people that have been unable to get it to work. Even if someone could just come out and say, "We are aware of the issue... and we [ESET | Zone Labs | both] are working on it," then I would be happy enough for the time being.
     
  14. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    I had the exact same situation with one machine, it was perfect for a week, then locked solid twice at boot up. Went back to 4.5.594 and problem solved...

    Cheers :D
     
  15. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    So why are you taking part in this forum? The main course of which seems to be aimed at the software you seem to think is junk but runs on 1 or 2 systems in the big wide world.

    It might not be the best but then it is not always the best solution that wins. Look at betamax and vhs for video machines as just one example.

    What we need is to work at making it better. I expect that all the other solutions have their issues. There are certainly enough patches provided for all of them Solaris/HP-UX/VMS/Linux(all flavours) its the ones used by the majority that get the publicity. Apart from operating systems you can include just about any piece of software commercial or otherwise - they all have hundreds of patches applied over time. In that light MS Software is not all that bad. But now I am going off topic for this thread.
     
  16. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    Done :D
     
  17. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    nod32_9 may have been talking about, if it is not recognised by SP2 and MS then the public will eventually come to consider that a particular piece of software to be junk, being that SP2 must recognise software in order for it to have reached a particular standard…

    Cheers :D
     
  18. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    For the masses it is much easier to have positive feedback that the system is configured and working as expected. It is also easier for support staff to solve issues remotely if there is some easy way to identify working/installed/failing software.

    Therefore the recognition by SP2 is important (IMHO)

    The definition of junk is also in the eye of the beholder. One persons rubbish is another persons gold.
     
  19. rayg

    rayg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    Well as suggested earlier in this post I have sent an e-mail to the beta team. Since then I have heard aboslutely nothing. I know it is released now but that was after I sent the e-mail.

    Any idea where we go next?

    I will send one to the general support address - I feel that is justified now as the product is out of beta. I still feel disappointed at the lack of response. This is a product I am paying for and have paid for for several years.
     
  20. Alec

    Alec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Posts:
    355
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I'm not sure if this helps or not... but I am now running WinXP SP2, NOD32 2.12.1, and ZA Pro 5.5.007.000 beta. That is, I have upgraded both NOD32 (from 2.12.0 beta to 2.12.1 release) and ZA (from 5.1.011.000 release to 5.5.007.000 beta). I have not yet noticed any apparent problems. Everything appears to be going quite well actually (knock on wood). I am still inclined to think my issue had more to do with ZA than with NOD32, but your problem may be totally different than mine was. I have been bouncing through quite a few new releases, and/or betas, for both products so I suppose that I should have expected at least a few issues here and there. I sure hope that someone can help you resolve your problem. If you are interested, I found the link to the ZA 5.5 beta on the "Other Firewalls" forum here at Wilders.
     
  21. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,770
    Location:
    Texas
    I am a little disappointed in the support also. I would expect more communication from Eset on this new product.
     
  22. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    I agree with you, as I suspect does TazDevil, see his latest post in the main forum... I have absolutely no answer as to what to do about Eset not answering their support email address, and not answering here in THEIR official forum, I just think it is purely very slack...

    So RayG, have you tried either rolling back to ZA 4.5.594 or going forward to ZA 5.5?

    Does this fix your problem?

    Cheers :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2004
  23. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    The reason Eset is not answering is because they have already told you all they can. The LSP conflict between NOD and ZAP is due to the LSP's for email AV checking, you can not have two active monitors at the same time, ZAP realizes that NOD is checking email and will not let it's own AV program go active because of the system instablilties that would occur. You just have to decide which AV you want checking your email, NOD or Computer Assoc. The mailsafe portion of ZAP still functions as designed as does IMSecure if you enable it with the IMSecure option panel. Attempting to enable AV protection tells you that IMSecure will not be activated, but it can be with the option for enabling it by itself, IMSecure will not function as designed however because it also has the capability to use the CA scan engine to scan any attachments to IMs or links embedded. There is nothing NOD or ZA can do to make this compatible, you must choose one AV or the other to check your email.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.