outpost or zonealarm

True. I share only my experiences.

 

Another reason is Agnitum is offering a 50% discount to switch to Outpost Firewall:

http://www.agnitum.com/purchase/migrate.html

 

That doesn't sound like a good reason to do anything...

 

If your on a budget and want an ass kickin firewall it sure does!!!

 

Hahaha... I was only kidding mostly hayc..

I bought it myself less than a year ago. Don't use it now because I just bought myself a wireless router and don't care about the outbound control.

I wanted to see if I would get any reactions from the die hard Outpost folks.

Good job..

 

[MOVE]

[/MOVE]

 

looking forward to the beta of outpost 3.0 coming this month.

hopefully its better than zonealarm in every way.

in resources.

In features

plus hopefully the antispyware of outpost will be way better than zonealarms.

i wonder if tauscan will be implemented in the outpost antispyware 3.0

coz then that would mean spyware and trojan detection on the outpost pro version.

 

I have used ZA (paid version) for several years. Up to 5.1, it did the job, although it has been getting a bit flakey (requiring tweaks) to make it work OK since 5. Past that, forget it. If you get it to work acceptably, you are lucky. Can't say what is wrong, but they have not had adequate testing before releasing last couple of versions (in fact, based on my experience with it, the last programmer to touch it got to approve his own work without a walkthrough and without any testing, because some of the problems are so obvious, it's hard to imagine any responsible company allowing this crap out the door), and I would avoid v6 like the plague. When I "upgraded" to this because of a "critical update" notice, it blocked internet access completely. It also blocked some startup programs from loading.

Appeared to be interfering with my network bridge, and if I manually reset it, my PC would hang (BSOD) and automatically restart. The only way to get internet access was to disable ZA at startup. You can start it after the PC has fully booted, but if it doesn't load at startup, many of the protections that it is supposed to offer don't work properly.

Apparently a few people have been able to get it working, but from what I see on the ZA boards, they are the minority. Unfortunately, I didn't check the user boards before downloading and installing the current release. (You don't have to believe me, but you should check here first if you are even considering using this product http://forum.zonelabs.org/zonelabs/board?board.id=inst ). The company has finally acknowledged the major problems they are having with a small post on the support forum, but they still have the new version posted for download without warning, and are screwing up thousands of peoples' PCs because of it. IMHO, it is unforgivable that this has been going on for about 3 weeks now, and the company still advises that there is a critical update waiting, and has no warning that your PC may be screwed if you do. It is impossible to back out of this release successfully (it kills all your previous settings, and even after a clean uninstall and reinstall of 5.5, I can't get things to work properly). ZA tech support has offered none - they seem barely aware that there is a problem (and they aren't that bright anyway). If you get through to an actual person, you can spend hours banging your head against the desk and not getting any help.

Anyone who recommends ZA in its current state is doing a disservice to the entire computing community. It is far too much of a crapshoot, and frankly, right now it is a waste of money. Unfortunately, I still have 1/2 year remaining on my subscription, but I'm afraid I will have to abandon it, because I need a working and safe PC.

No matter what anyone says, stay away from this product.

 

I'm not defending ZA because I really don't care, but how do you explain the fact that many people have used the product thru version 6 without a single problem?

 

Well, personally I have to echo pppp. I can't get it to work with my internet connection. Everything is fine with the other firewalls I have tried.

 

I think what you see on the message boards is the few who are having problems vs the 1000's who don't so they don't post. Same for other firewalls though. Visit the Outpost forum and you will see those people who are having problems with Outpost vs the many who don't so they don't post. So I don't think ZA is any better or worse than Outpost in that regard.

 

I'm not so sure about that. I imagine the problems are bigger than you say.

 

I've used ZA for quite a while. I am getting tired of how much of a resource hog it is, especially with all the other cra* they've added.

So I installed Outpost on one of my other PC's (using the 50% discount discussed above ). I have found Outpost to be lighter, but ZA's rules easier to understand and use, at least for a dumb-blonde like me.

Jury is still out...

 

See here for test results.

 

i never noticed ZAs results since i switched firewalls before hearing about the tests but ZA seems to do pretty well. the firewalls/tests could use a bit of updating tho.

 

Zone Alarm Pro's application rules are easier as long as you're willing to settle for simple allow/disallow rules. If you wish to have more specific rules, e.g., specifying the protocol, server, remote or local port etc. etc., Outpost is actually much easier to use. Zone Alarm has the capability of making rules which are more specific which they call "Expert Rules." Unfortunately, Zone Alarm gives no guidance as to any of the details mentioned above. It's up to you to fill in all the blanks.

In contrast the Outpost Wizard fills in all the details for you. For example, suppose you're trying to update program X on your computer. You use the update function on the program. Zone Alarm will give you an allow/disallow option, but if you want a more specific rule, you're on your own. If you have Outpost, it will alert you and give you the options of a preset list of rules for the particular application, a preset list of rules for the type of application it is, e.g., browser, email program, and a custom option (the third will always be there, the first two are often not there). If you select the custom option you will see a dialog in which all the necessary parameters for that request for that program are filled in. If you check allow, as you normally should if you started the update or you scheduled it to start, Outpost will only allow an update if it meets the parameters specified in the custom rule you just created. At least theoretically, the narrower Outpost approach is safer. If a piece of malware tried to hijack program X and use its update function to direct you to a server of its choosing, Outpost would ask you again if you wish to permit it. If you didn't directly or indirectly start the update, you ought to become suspicious and block the request. If all you had was an allow/disallow option, the request would get right through if you previously allowed the program to access the internet.

To be fair two points have to be made. Zone Alarm and Outpost both have warning systems to warn of changed applications. The system might allow the firewall to catch a piece malware attempting to hijack a previously allowed program. Second, you could always have the firewall ask for permission to let the program access the internet every time you tried to have it update, etc. This, however, is a pain in the a**, and I found that when I used ZA, I simply checked the remeber this box for each application to which I was trying to give internet access.

Is the extra degree of safety provided by the more specific rules of Outpost worth the hassle of dispensing with a simple allow/disallow system? Since, I'm no expert, I can't really say. Perhaps others here can answer that one.

 

You've made some valid points, profhsg.

I guess I never quite understood all that extra mumbo-jumbo involved in configuring these more specific rules. I am going to keep working with it, though.

 

if only your avatar really was you

oh, if only

 

the advantage of having more specific rules is that u control what internet access the app has. if a malicious process got injected into a fully trusted app then it too would have full internet access.

 

That's why ZAP has advanced program control, application interaction control and component control in the Program Control settings. Injection will occur only if approved by the user as a program module change - just like allowing outside of the specific rules.

 

See here for some examples where restricting application access can come in useful.

 

With the setting of outpost pro 2.7 and the setting out of the box from zonealarm pro 6.0 which one block more bad things??


i know that outpost is a more stable program and a lighter program and it passes more leak test but i want to know which block prevent more trojans,viruses, hackers, spyware etc...

as well one of the main things which one is better for blocking a hacker?

 

Too bad that deal isn't around anymore(well at least the webpage is gone). I'd consider switching for that price.

 

both firewalls will block hackers but ZA might have the edge in leaktests since it has the OSFirewall which gives it some processguard functionality.

 

well hopefully outpost 3.0 will have that cutting edge.