Norton AV/Zonealarm Pro to Nod32/Outpost pro

Hi

New here and need some help with the above.
I have been using Norton Professional 2001 and Zonealarm Pro for some time now but have downloaded trial versions of Nod32 and Outpost Pro.

I did a port scan using 'shieldsup' which showed port 1028 open and, as I was unable 'stealth' it in Zonealarm, I loaded Outpost. The same scan then showed all ports stealthed. So far so good.
Is it worth purchasing Outpost and dumping ZA based on the above?

Then loaded Nod32 but got the impression it doesn't support email scanning in Outlook if Outlook is not set up in corporate configuration. I use it in internet only config as I am using a home PC. Am I right in my thinking here and again is it worth buying for my setup and if I do, am I leaving a security hole as far as my e-mail is concerned?

One other thing...I am considering using Firefox but will Pestpatrol work OK with this?

Regards

Frank4553

 

Hi frank4553, and welcome to Wilders.

You've got a 3-part (possibly 4-part) question there, and I'm trying to figure out which forum your thread should be moved to.

Since the title of your thread and your first question is more related to firewalls, I will move your thread over into the "Other Firewalls Forum" where you will receive the best replies for firewall issues.

For the Antivirus questions; since you are asking a comparative question regarding Nortons and NOD32, you can start up a new thread in our Other Antivirus Software Forum.

The same with regards to FireFox and PestPatrol, which you can open a new thread in our Software & Services Forum.

The reason for starting individual topics in the appropriate forums is for you to receive the best replies in relation to the different types of security programs, and also to prevent the threads from going off topic and becoming too confusing to follow.

I will move your thread now over into the Other Firewalls forum along with my reply post here.

Regards,

snap

~thread moved to Other Firewalls forum~

 

Hi
I am sure you can configure ZAP to give you all stealth results as well, so unless you really would rather not tinker with ZAP, I wouldn't say that alone is the reason to switch. However, I am an Outpost user and I would say that for me Outpost represents the best combination of "ease of use" and fine user control (if you want it). That, along with the useful active content filtering and otherplug-ins make switching to Outpost worthwhile, IMO. Mind you, I haven't used ZAP in a long while.
-O

 

You've probably just given a program permanent permission that you shouldn't have. Try resetting some of the permissions to "?" then try the shields up test again.

 

Hi Frank4553,

I will answer only the firewall question in this thread.
If that is your only reason to switch firewalls, the one open port, then no it is not worth it to switch. I had a similar problem a while ago.

It was with NAV2003 and ZAP 5. The internet gateway computer (with ICS internet connection sharing) had ZAP and NAV2003. ZAP was set up to make this computer the ICS host. The ICS clients (the computers on the LAN connecting to the ICS host) also had NAV2003 and ZAP. ZAP was set up to make those computers the ICS clients. Whenever one of the clients would boot up NAV would try to connect and leave port 1034 open. NAV was checking for updates but would not clean up after itself. It would stay open until the ICS computer was shut down. It was identified using DCS Port Explorer. The solution, strangely enough, was to set ZAP on the ICS client computers to NOT BE AN ICS CLIENT. The problem disappeared.
Your version of NAV is different, the open port is different, and maybe your ZAP version is different. But I would suspect it is an issue related to this.
Use Port Explorer or a similar port monitor utility to isolate who is opening the port.

That being said, I think Outpost Pro is a much better firewall than ZAP. It is a rules based firewall so it will be a little harder to setup. It is definately worth it though.

Hope this helps.

 

NOD32 is imo better then norton antivirus, it uses less resources and with its http scanning and heuristics it works quite well.. I definately recommend it over norton.

 

I use ZoneAlarm Pro and am in stealth. Used it for over a year and quite satisfied so far.

 

Why Use The Rest When You Can Have The Best
Outpost by Agnitum
But I Am Bias.hehehe

 

The last time we checked Outpost Pro can pass more firewall leak tests than ZAP.

 

Others have tackled the ZA / Outpost question, so I thought I would address the NOD32 question. The Outlook scanning to which I believe you are referring is a new module called EMON (for Email MONitor). There is already a module called IMON (for Internet MONitor) which scans incoming POP3 email. So, yes, you are protected against email viruses while using any email client which makes use of the POP3 protocol for incoming internet email (this includes Outlook in Internet configuration, Outlook Express, etc.). EMON is useful because in Corporate mode, Outlook communicates with Exchange server using a different protocol (MAPI, I believe). Also, I believe that EMON scans outgoing email as well, whereas IMON does not (normal internet email uses a different protocol, SMTP, for outbound email).

It is sort of confusing, and the NOD32 naming scheme doesn't really help, but you should be covered on your normal inbound emails while using Outlook. If you want feedback as to what email is being scanned and what email is not being scanned, you can configure NOD32 to append a signature to all emails that it scans. That way you will know precisely which emails were scanned and which ones weren't.

 

Many thanks for all your replies.
I am getting a signature saying 'checked by NOD32' on all e-mails so I am happy with that.
I have re-installed ZAP and tests now show all ports are stealthed and passed.

Will decide on Outpost at a later date.

Again, many thanks

Frank4553