sygate personal firewall over cautious

"Eli Aran" <eli_yardena.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35l5bcF4nvgjsU1@individual.net...
> i suppose it is better than ZA because the latter ate up too much of my
> machine resources.
> SPF keeps blocking svchost and ntoskrnl that try to access the internet.
> (marking the "do not show this window again" checkbox has no effect what
so
> ever)
> all my (many) anti malware programs (up to date) scannings tell me my
> computer is clean.
> should the above mentioned processes be accessing the internet in the
first
> place?
> does SPF think they are trying to call back home somewhere?
>

The checkbox in the popup not sticking is a known issue. The workaround is
to
disable all notifications in the options. Activity is still logged.

HTH,

Alinator
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

thank you all for letting me know the check box in the notification windows
is not working.
i noticed that myself.
could anyone please tell me why i am getting notifications about blocking
NTOSKRNL and SVCHOST?
should the be able to access the internet in the first place?
if all my antivirus and anti popup/adware/spyware programs tell me my
computer is clean than why does sygate block the to mentioned services?
please don't tell me again that the notification window check box is not
working.
and if it is possible to enable them the access (in case this is safe to do)
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

it still slows down my computer browsing and my internet serfing.
i have a feeling that the actual blocking of ntoskrnl and svchost has
something to do with that - directly.
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

i decided to eventually remove sygate and not use any firewall (software)
because it took too much of my computer resources. surfing was no-longer fun
and applications took ages to open.
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

Though I have had good luck with Sygate, Zone Alarm, and others I don't use
any personal firewall on my computers and rely on my firewall device
instead. No more messages to confuse my family members - just using the
computer and web surfing. I also make sure we use strong passwords, keep
current with critical updates, and have antivirus keep itself current and
scan all email attachments and downloads. --- Steve


"Eli Aran" <eli_yardena.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36hrriF4uunpsU1@individual.net...
>i decided to eventually remove sygate and not use any firewall (software)
>because it took too much of my computer resources. surfing was no-longer
>fun and applications took ages to open.
>
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

Though I have had good luck with Sygate, Zone Alarm, and others I don't use
any personal firewall on my computers and rely on my firewall device
instead. No more messages to confuse my family members - just using the
computer and web surfing. I also make sure we use strong passwords, keep
current with critical updates, and have antivirus keep itself current and
scan all email attachments and downloads. --- Steve

"Eli Aran" <eli_yardena RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36hrriF4uunpsU1@individual.net...
>i decided to eventually remove sygate and not use any firewall (software)
>because it took too much of my computer resources. surfing was no-longer
>fun and applications took ages to open.
>
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

Steven L Umbach wrote:
> Though I have had good luck with Sygate, Zone Alarm, and others I
> don't use any personal firewall on my computers

How will you know when something malicious tries to call out?

Teach your family how to use the firewall.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

I have two networks. One is protected by my Netscreen 5XP [$100 on Ebay]
which also blocks outbound access to only to ports/protocols I authorize. I
can check the firewall logs of it and it will let me know if one of my
computers is trying to access a suspicious port/protocol. My secure "test"
network is a Windows 2004 ISA firewall behind the Netscreen 5XP which can do
deep application filtering and will log attempts at unauthorized
ports/protocols/url's/domains/url filters/etc. I can check it's very
extensive logs and if need be configure it to send me email alerts of
suspicious activity. The family computers use Windows XP SP2 and I enforce
Internet Explorer security settings with Group Policy. This has worked out
very well and I have not had any problems in quite a while [last couple
years]. I occasionally check the computers with some free tools from
SysInternals such as Autoruns, TCPView, and Process Explorer to see if
anything suspicious process is running and/or using a port on the
computer. --- Steve


"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.DeleteThis@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:36j54sF53tv6rU1@individual.net...
> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>> Though I have had good luck with Sygate, Zone Alarm, and others I
>> don't use any personal firewall on my computers
>
> How will you know when something malicious tries to call out?
>
> Teach your family how to use the firewall.
>
> --
> -bts
> -This space intentionally left blank.
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.TakeThisOut@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:36kmhaF4v454tU1@individual.net...
> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>
> > I have two networks. One is protected by my Netscreen 5XP [$100 on
> > Ebay] which also blocks outbound access to only to ports/protocols
> > I authorize. ...
>
> or retail $495.00.
>
> Ok, you didn't mention any of this in your earlier post. How would
> someone know what to advise, or why you don't need a two-way software
> firewall?
>


Ditto for DevilsPGD's comments. No mention of the hardware firewall was in
his earlier post. Only this comment: "...I don't use any personal firewall
on my computers."

Please people, many newbies to computer/internet security scour these posts
for useful info. Comments stating that you don't use firewalls, or worse,
that they are unnecessary, without giving further details of your
configuration, only serves to confuse or mislead the rest of us, whether or
not we are newbies.

--Mike
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

Hi Mike.

I did mention I had a "firewall device" in my first post. Sorry I did not
elaborate more after realizing this post went to many newsgroups other than
the firewall newsgroup who more than likely would know what a firewall
device was. --- Steve

"Though I have had good luck with Sygate, Zone Alarm, and others I don't use
any personal firewall on my computers and rely on my firewall device
instead."


"--Mike" <mjsuhm RemoveThis @zzexecpc.com> wrote in message
news:DSiNd.3854$Sq5.2828@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous RemoveThis @example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:36kmhaF4v454tU1@individual.net...
>> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>>
>> > I have two networks. One is protected by my Netscreen 5XP [$100 on
>> > Ebay] which also blocks outbound access to only to ports/protocols
>> > I authorize. ...
>>
>> or retail $495.00.
>>
>> Ok, you didn't mention any of this in your earlier post. How would
>> someone know what to advise, or why you don't need a two-way software
>> firewall?
>>
>
>
> Ditto for DevilsPGD's comments. No mention of the hardware firewall was in
> his earlier post. Only this comment: "...I don't use any personal
> firewall
> on my computers."
>
> Please people, many newbies to computer/internet security scour these
> posts
> for useful info. Comments stating that you don't use firewalls, or worse,
> that they are unnecessary, without giving further details of your
> configuration, only serves to confuse or mislead the rest of us, whether
> or
> not we are newbies.
>
> --Mike
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

In message <DSiNd.3854$Sq5.2828@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com> "--Mike"
<mjsuhm.RemoveThis@zzexecpc.com> wrote:

>
>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.RemoveThis@example.invalid> wrote in message
>news:36kmhaF4v454tU1@individual.net...
>> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>>
>> > I have two networks. One is protected by my Netscreen 5XP [$100 on
>> > Ebay] which also blocks outbound access to only to ports/protocols
>> > I authorize. ...
>>
>> or retail $495.00.
>>
>> Ok, you didn't mention any of this in your earlier post. How would
>> someone know what to advise, or why you don't need a two-way software
>> firewall?
>
>Ditto for DevilsPGD's comments. No mention of the hardware firewall was in
>his earlier post. Only this comment: "...I don't use any personal firewall
>on my computers."

My first post was only saying I am not concerned with malware calling
out, I didn't say anything about not using firewalls, be it software or
hardware.

In my case, I have both a stateful hardware firewall, plus I have
Windows' firewall configured to enable automatically if I'm not on my
home network.

I regularly connect this machine to the internet at large without
getting infected with anything -- In my person opinion, XP SP2's
firewall is probably sufficient for most users smart enough to avoid
inviting malware in, but aside from that I'd highly recommend both
software and hardware firewalls to most people.


--
HTML email should be treated in the same manner as sexual acts.
Only between consenting adults, in private places where willing
parties, whom agreed upon such an act BEFOREHAND, will see it.
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

Steven L Umbach wrote:

> I did mention I use a firewall device in my original post.

Yes, I see that now. Sorry for missing that. Still, a better
description of the device would have helped. <g>

> It is also my opinion that if you take other precautions, as I
> referred to, that a basic NAT firewall such as the $70 Netgear
> ProSafe model is sufficient for many users who do not want to be
> bothered by a software firewall pop messages. Many if not most
> users simply do not understand how to configure a software firewall
> to stop doing such and if they make the wrong selection they can
> either open a hole in their firewall or block an application they
> want to use.

Nevertheless, if the newbie has a software firewall, they have at
least a 50-50 chance to get it right, eh? Much better than no firewall
at all.

> Once that happens to them they tend to select yes to every popup.
> Many seem to use a software firewall to be a "trojan detector". I
> prefer to leave that to my antivirus program.

I prefer to leave that to my anti-trojan program. Most anti-virus
programs look for .. viruses .. and not most trojans.

> There certainly are situations where a software firewall excel such
> as when you have multiple users who use a computer, for a roaming
> laptop, and you want to restrict their internet access and to
> specific applications and when you want to protect your computer
> from other computers on the local network .

Good advice.

> In my opinion anyone who has a cable/dsl connection should be using
> first a firewall device such as a NAT router and then decide
> whether or not they want or need the extra protection of a software
> firewall balancing their desire of convenience versus additional
> security. With a high speed internet connection, using a software
> firewall alone brings the risk of misconfiguration and software
> firewall being disabled due to malware interference or even a
> conflict with other legitimate installed applications. --- Steve

Trouble is, many people will not spend the extra $$ for the router.
Mostly because they do not know they *should*. A software firewall is
free and easy. And .. routers do not generally check Outbound calling
at all.

And I guess we have beat this topic about as far as it can go now... <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: sygate personal firewall over cautious