ZoneAlarm Pro 70_337_000

Friend Diver, how nice to see you. Good post Escalader. I look forward to his reply.

 

I have ZAAS7.0.337 installed for a couple of days. It works great. I used ZA Pro 4.0 sometime back, so this ZAAS 7.0 is nothing really new to me. I never used those privacy functions in Pro version. That's why I select ZAAS. I have turned on Antispyware function as a bonus.

 

Hi yahoo ( good name!)

Why did you not use the privacy features? was it you didn't need them to filter outgoing personal information or some technical issue?

I would like to try again on them?

 

I do not save important personal data on computer, so those privacy features are redundant to me.

 

While the good news is ZA now uses KAV 6.0, isnt KAV 6.0 an older or last years version of Kaspersky ?

 

Nope. KAV 6.0 is the current Kaspersky engine.

 

It is interesting that ZA 7.0+ listed PCflank.com as a spyware site and non-accessible (or at least it was when I trialed it a month ago or so). ZA 6.5 did fairly well on PCflank's leaktests (22/24) but maybe ZA 7.0+ has not?

 

Yes ZA PRO does it now! I just tested it on ZA Pro 7.0.337. PCflank.com is now logged in ZA as a blocked site due to spyware.

It reminds me of a previous case when McAfee SiteAdvisor blocked a ZA site!

They applied huge pressure on McAfee to "fix" this and succeeded!

Who will now advocate for PCflank.com to force ZA to fix this error?

How does ZA 7.000.377 do on the pcflank leaktests? Does any ZA user here have actual detailed results they could share with the forum?

I hope this doesn't generate a lecture series on why leaktests don't apply to ZA!

 

I have been using ZoneAlarmPro since version 5. All without any problems to date. Currently using.........

ZoneAlarm Pro version:7.0.337.000
TrueVector version:7.0.337.000
Driver version:7.0.337.000
Anti-spyware engine version:5.0.162.0
Anti-spyware signature DAT file version:01.200704.1385

Have stayed away from the Suite but intend to give NOD Suite a try down the road.

 

Just edit spy site blocking part in the program (its under anti spyware). There should be pcflank site listed and change access part to allow. After that it will work normal.

 

Hi, folks: Who is PCFlank.com ? and What is PCFlank.com ? Has it been certified by any third-party independent organization as such? And how much does its test results or so-called reports affect your mood or decision of using a particular FW? Can its scientific(?) data be nothing more than tea-time materials? How important is this .com ?

 

Sure.... after you edit the list and allow access to the PCFlank site.... then conduct PCFlank's leak test.... You'll find that Zone Alarm fails that leak test. To prevent you from conducting this leak test.... Zone labs just simply blocks the entire site.

 

Unless ZA has changed it's policy, it doesn't participate in or submit to 3rd party certification.

There are many leak test security scanners available this PCflank.com is one of.

For me, if I was choosing a FW today, (I'm facing this issue later) and it came down to a functional and service tie between say ZA's FW and brand X and brand x did better on more than one leaktest than ZA I would go with brand X. If they were still tie on that score I would go with X which was certified by a 3 rd party testing process and was open about it's plans and support issues. How they treat customers!

As to mood and value it is up to the user.

 

What kind of certification your are talking about? Most of them is just pay and test and if fails, test again, up to when you get certified....

A typical example of certification that is basically meaningless is for CA AV. It is certified by different cert. 'authorities' , but have a look at www.comparatives.org (single AV test) and you will see that is one of the worst AV on the market.

Fax

 

Hi henryg

It is indeed very puzzling! I did some work on your question:

1) changed the ZA Pro setting to allow the web site to be viewed here it is

http://www.pcflank.com/leaktests_info_adv.htm

Here are the 3 tests that ZA pro 6.5 failed out of 18 different tests.

1 The test controls the browser's activity and dialog windows via the technique of OLE automation of application control.

2 The test creates a flood of erratic packets and sends them off to network adapter, bypassing standard TCI/IP stack monitored by a firewall. The test has a problem running on Windows XP machines with latest updates applied.

3 The second Breakout leaktest creates a locally-placed HTML page pointing to a certain URL and sets this page as Active Desktop so when it is turned on the default browser accesses the link contained in the HTML file.

The puzzling thing is ZA pro 6.5 did pretty well in these tests, so why block the site!

Outpost Firewall Pro (v. 4.0.964.6926 (582)) in this set of tests did better so maybe that is what they are trying to avoid.

Note that Outpost is advertising on this site offering a free download.

 

Hi, folks: Thank you for all the tech testing. This will put a seal of approval to OUTpost and ZA pro. Then it comes the non-tech issues: all depends upon which club you belong to. Some clubs carry the so-called exclusivity, often anchoring member can dictate club's policy. Outpost did well in that test and subsequently allow the test site to d/l its product, a normal , human way to say "thank you", and perhaps its exclusivity clause has kept ZA out. Who cares, as long as these firwalls can perform their assigned duties, those test sites are just sprinkling stars in the far far sky, backdrop-style decro.

 

Anyone know how ZA Pro 7 performs on the PCflank tests?

EDIT-

This was found in the recent Matousec post in regard to ZA Pro's results of the PCflank test-

"Another strange thing with ZoneAlarm is that it might seem that it passes PCFlank test, but in fact it does not. This leak-test tries to establish network connection with www.pcflank.com. ZoneAlarm invisibly includes this Internet address in its Spy Site Blocking list. So, if PCFlank contacted another website instead of the original one, it would bypass the protection. ZoneAlarm does not block the technique PCFlank presents, it blocks the target website which is harmless in fact."

 

Escalader, it's called: "cheating".


Here is a quote from Matousec:

"Another strange thing with ZoneAlarm is that it might seem that it passes PCFlank test, but in fact it does not. This leak-test tries to establish network connection with www.pcflank.com. ZoneAlarm invisibly includes this Internet address in its Spy Site Blocking list. So, if PCFlank contacted another website instead of the original one, it would bypass the protection. ZoneAlarm does not block the technique PCFlank presents, it blocks the target website which is harmless in fact."

 

No, KAV 6 is the current engine. ZoneAlarm uses the latest available build of KAV 5.0, not 6.0. Last I remember, it was using KAV 5.0.676 as its base development product....

 

Given ZA is at KAV 5.0, what do they lose in functionality that KAV 6 provides?

Sorry for poorly written question, I guess it comes down to what's the difference twixt KAV 5 and 6?

 

Basically, almost nothing. 6.x series scans files faster due to optimizations and also has support for Proactive Defense module. Also, I hear that 6.0 products are better at removal of some adware, spyware and rootkits (though detection rates are the same).

 

Yep, scanning is slower also due to the fact that they did not implement the ichecker/iswift technology (available in the SDK KAV package)...

On the removal issue, its a bit more complicated given that ZASS has also other system drivers and scan engine to tackle spyware, adware, etc... removal (i.e. vsdant.sys). On the KAV 5/6, the most important thing to me is that the main KAV driver in ZASS/ZAAV (klif) is version 6 and not 5.

I think the more radical changes are happening with version 7. Scanning speed, heuristics and cleaning efficiency.
Will KL provide an SDK 7 package for OEM? Uuuhm, let see... for sure not in the near future, otherwise who would buy their products?

Fax

 

Hi Firecat:

me thinks you have an understatement here

"....... 6.0 products are better at removal of some adware, spyware and rootkits (though detection rates are the same)"

If you will pardon my example, suppose KAV had 100% detection (impossible of course) but 0% removal! , then for sure no one would buy their products OEM or not! Kind of like a diagnosis with no prescription!

So if KAV 6 is better at removal at what it finds that is very significant IMHO

Scan speed is only important if it becomes so bad people loses patience and close off the scan.

I'm waiting for the next AV comparatives to see how the NOD's, KAV's and BD's all do when subjected to independent testing.

Now that ZA is using KAV does this mean they are now willing to participate in objective testing as does their partner?

 

Yep, it would be nice to have it tough the results will be equivalent to KAV6 as for the other KAV clones tested at av-comparatives.
I think IBK has limited resources and users have already suggested to test only products with 'original' engine... so, I beleive, it is unlikely to happen.

But, you never know! May be a single product test....

Fax

 

Hi thread posters.

Be very careful here. Best to wait till the mathematics is done correcly!

Wait for actual AV comparatives results. Never base technical actions on any predictions let alone an individual forecast. Comparatives are always better than single tests except for vendors who look good in the singles.

If any engines are not tested then they aren't tested.

Observations on the AV comparatives original engines are not automatically transferable to untested or modified engines. There would have to be proof from IBK that they apply.

Only IBK or his people can comment accurately on their resources or lack of same.