rjk

I was falling in love with Zonalarm internet security suite, and then I
found:-
http://www.vtc.net/~cdgoldin/caveat/zap0719.htm

....the information here deserves a very careful and thorough read !

regards, Richard

nowayspammers

Does anyone know if this is REALLY true?

Cheers

richard urban

With the amount of spyware/malware and virus infections as they are today, I
am glad that ZoneAlarm updates as frequently as it does. When I was using
Norton/Symantec products, I was always catching something. In the two years
I have been using ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite I have had zero
problems. When new infections abound, I have seen ZA update 5-6 times a day.
Without constant talking back and forth to their servers, I may have been at
risk.

Let the communications continue!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

rjk

After my, "careful and thorough read," and other re|Google|search I think
I'm heavily leaning back towards ZA.
It's the "consumer statistics/surfing habits/tracking" invasion of privacy
that REALLY sticks in my craw!
There's never anything in my PC that I wouldn't want anyone else to see, or
would be ashamed of, or would want hidden, other than personal details such
as credit card no. and bank details etc. ...tho bank account could be a
source of shame ! ...just kidding !

....it occurs to me that when large companies like ZA have acquired a vast
number of subscribers, they must be strongly tempted to sell on details of
their customer base - however sanitised, or stripped of individuals details
to filth like doubleclick - if that's the case.

regards, Richard

infosink

But there's a principle. Regardless of the oft heard pronouncements, of
nay-sayers who say there is no privacy etc. and the like .. and regardless
of the will to control of many governments and corporations, an individual
person does have the right to privacy. In the 'States it is vaguely
expressed on some censure against seizing a person's papers etc. etc. But
however it is expressed, you have the right to privacy and these companies
really have no business installing spyware on you. I'm not saying Zone Alarm
is spyware, I'm speaking generally.

robertva

I'm no fan of programs that automaticly dial out either, but it IS
prudent to be familiar with your source's reputation when you read
exposes like that. Some are quite accurate, but a few aren't. Zone Labs
has adopted a model of allowing the use of a reduced function free
version to advise users of the additional features of their paid version
and other security utilities. Reporting on the user's activities while
using the browser, mail client or other internet applications wouldn't
further their "security management" reputation. That doesn't rule out
such behaviour as much as makeing it unlikely.

jim byrd

There's evidence which seems to show that it is, at least to some degree.
Certainly the statement that ZA continues to connect after ALL of the ZA
specified settings to stop this are turned off has been shown to be true. I
most likely wouldn't have objected to moderate local information necessary
to ZA operation being forwarded to them; however, ZA's lack of transparency
about this matter and apparent unwillingness to fully respond to concerns
about this was just too bothersome for me. I reverted to 4.5.495.000 in Dec
2004 after notifying ZA as to why I was doing so because of ZA's lack of
appropriate response to this issue (and for some other reasons having to do
with speed and bloat).

The simple solution for part of the issues raised on the cited page is to
add the following to your HOSTS file somewhere after the 127.0.0.1
localhost line:

#ZA Test
127.0.0.1 avu.zonelabs.com # 208.254.57.168, 208.254.57.174
(avu.zonelabs.com.edgesuite.net)
127.0.0.1 cm2.zonelabs.com # 208.185.174.65
127.0.0.1 hs2.zonelabs.com # 208.185.174.66
127.0.0.1 ls2.zonelabs.com # 208.185.174.67
127.0.0.1 pa2.zonelabs.com # 208.254.57.200, 208.254.57.200
(pa2.zonelabs.com.edgesuite.net)
127.0.0.1 ps2.zonelabs.com # 208.254.57.189, 208.254.57.191
(ps2.zonelabs.com.edgesuite.net)
127.0.0.1 update.zonelabs.com # 208.185.174.52
127.0.0.1 register.zonelabs.com # 208.185.174.51
#End of ZA Test


FWIW, this is what I do. In addition, I've added the IP's associated with
these URL's (see above) to ZA's Blocked IP's list in theFirewall|Zones tab,
but I'm not sure how effective this is. I've tested that this approach
appears to work for update.zonelabs.com when set on Manual and Check
for Update is clicked; however, I've no means of forcing an attempted
connection for the others in order to test them in this fashion. Thus, I've
continued use of the HOSTS file approach for blocking them (in this
particular case - I normally only use my HOSTS file for URL-to-IP
translation of my Favorites, and do Ad/Malware blocking with the Treewalk
local DNS client). You might want to modify this list to suit your
particular situation/needs (register, update, alert advisor functionality,
etc.), and the IP's should be rechecked every now-and-then. I have had
these entries in my HOSTS file in one form or another ever since reverting
to the previous 4.5.495 version without any evident problem. YMMV, of
course, and you're certainly free to chose how you handle the issue. Note
that this post doesn't address the dialup issue.

--
Regards, Jim Byrd, MS-MVP/DTS/AH-VSOP
My Blog, Defending Your Machine, here:
http://DefendingYourMachine.blogspot.com/

capitan

Richard, I looked into this not long ago, and here is the information I
came up with. I could never get a return contact from Checkpoint
(current owners of Zonealarm).

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/a898b2b55c1e5c64/01028344fc6cdaac?lnk=st&q=capitan+zonealarm+microsoft.public&rnum=1&hl=en#01028344fc6cdaac

Or

http://tinyurl.com/jmjy3


HTH!

--
capitan

rjk

I'll take a look through those, thanks,

regards, Richard