I have downloaded the free version of zonealarm, but I am having trouble with cookies (i.e I cant post on here for example!!!) This website recognises me, so therefore I am logged in but when I post it asks me to log in again! and even then posting a message dont work!.

A user on here suggested altering the cookie control via the Privacy tab on ZoneAlarm, however, that tab is only on the Pro version and not the free version.

HELP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Had to disable the bugger to post this!

Hmm...

It's entirely possible that you unwittingly chose the pro demo because that now comes with the free version...

Try downloading the latest update for Zonealarm and upgrading but be sure to choose the lite version when you get to configure it during the installation process (or just after)...

Hope that helps.

try AVG (http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/) free version much less hassle and I think quite well respected

Originally posted by venger
try AVG (http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/) free version much less hassle and I think quite well respected
*polite cough*...

Oooh venger, that's an anti-virus system, whereas Zonealarm is a firewall... Not quite the same thing ;)


Good to see you again though bud.. for someone I once blocked ;)

ooops never realised that bit, I just use xp built in firewall

used to use zonealarm but was a pain setting and maintaining

an amatuer is me am afraid.....

i use the sygate firewall and have no problems, it even works happily with sp2!!!

dave

I would advise against using two firewalls at once.

The XP Firewall is easily bypassed, download a decent one asap if you want my advice.

why is that? does one upset or negate the other?

dave

Quite possibly, thus creating a gap/weakness in your firewall.

Originally posted by alchemist
why is that? does one upset or negate the other?
Short version...

2 guards who don't talk to each other, watching the same door... both respond to a visitor at the same time.. both want to deal with the issue...

Both possibly get into a fight and visitor slips through while things get ugly... or the whole system suffers a conniption fit while peace negotiations go on...

Repeat ad nauseum...

Well that is another way of putting it! :cool:

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Well that is another way of putting it! :cool:
Yep.... took a lot of thought to create a mother friendly explanation that she could understand...

We use Zonealarm and it's only stopped me posting here on one occasion. (I'm using it now in fact). It drives my daughter mad however because we have to turn it off or she can't get into Yahoo Mail. It lets her log in but not atually view anything!!

It seems to block cookies on some sites but not others for some reason.

Originally posted by FetishFairy
It seems to block cookies on some sites but not others for some reason.

You could try setting ZA Cookie control to be set as in the image available
here (http://www.line1.co.uk/images/cookies.gif) (I'd have posted it here, but the image tag is disabled)!

Is ZA a better alternative to XP own then?

Or is there another in particular that I should be looking for?

Originally posted by venger
Is ZA a better alternative to XP own then?

A sign saying "Please Do Not Enter" would be better than the Windows built in Firewall.

From GRC.COM
The Windows XP built-in firewall:

The rate of LeakTest downloads jumped significantly on October 25th, 2001, presumably due to the release of Windows XP on that date.

It is understandable that new Internet savvy users of Windows XP, who are aware of our work here at grc.com, would be curious to learn about their new system and its Internet defenses.

Just so you know, WinXP's built-in firewall does not attempt to manage or restrict outbound connections at all. It appears to be a useful firewall for hiding the machine from the Internet (it has "stealth mode" unsolicited packet handling), but you will still need to use a good third-party personal firewall if you wish to manage and control outbound connections from your system.


Have fun ;-)

Originally posted by Martin_s
Short version...

2 guards who don't talk to each other, watching the same door... both respond to a visitor at the same time.. both want to deal with the issue...

Both possibly get into a fight and visitor slips through while things get ugly... or the whole system suffers a conniption fit while peace negotiations go on...

Repeat ad nauseum...

hmm, as i understood it (open to correction tho) the xp firewall being the OS one has first shot at it and if it passes it thru then my more powerful sygate one gets its hands on it and will only let it proceed if it fulfills its own more fussy criteria, i didnt think that the firewall went for it at the same time as the OS one does as 2 programs cannot access the same port at the same time and the OS defaults to giving its own inbult suff priority

dave

Originally posted by alchemist
hmm, as i understood it (open to correction tho) the xp firewall being the OS one has first shot at it and if it passes it thru then my more powerful sygate one gets its hands on it and will only let it proceed if it fulfills its own more fussy criteria, i didnt think that the firewall went for it at the same time as the OS one does as 2 programs cannot access the same port at the same time and the OS defaults to giving its own inbult suff priority
To be completely honest it's entirely possible that your version of events re: that particular scenario is true but in general my little storytime was based more around a generic scenario where any 2 firewalls were vying for attention..

At the end of the day if anyone were thinking of aiming for more security in this way my suggestion would be a hardware firewall or one further down the network chain suck as a router or smoothwall on a dedicated box... Anything else is probably going to just soak up processor cycles unnecessarily..

Originally posted by alchemist
hmm, as i understood it ........ 2 programs cannot access the same port at the same time and the OS defaults to giving its own inbult suff priority

dave

Maybe....

However, what happens is that program 1 tries to access the port, then on the next machine cycle program 2 tries to access the port, if either program 1 or program 2 is poorly coded, then there is potential that conflicts could arise (especially if either employ powerful stack manipulation)!

Originally posted by Martin_s
At the end of the day if anyone were thinking of aiming for more security in this way my suggestion would be a hardware firewall or one further down the network chain suck as a router or smoothwall on a dedicated box.

It's also the way we do it here on our LAN!