dotTech - Topic: The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/ Simple:Press Version 5.2.6 MikeR on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13124 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13124 Thanks for the specific link, Pandora: it's just rewarded me with several minutes of fun reading. I guess that Checkpoint can be forgiven for not wanting competitor software to be identified on a forum which Checkpoint pays for, but even so: the constant snipping of references is unintentionally hilarious.

Like you, I stopped using ZA a lo-nn-g time ago, though with fond memories of it in all its Win98 glory. Comodo was also my destination of choice, but me and it simply didn't get along and I finally fled from its invasiveness and time-consuming obstructiveness to Tall Emu's Online Armor.

Haven't looked back, and have found the OA combination with Avast AV (its resident shields are outstanding) so consistently reliable that nowadays I find myself installing it on the machines of friends and family members unfortunate to have had to take the Vista OS on their store-bought PCs. None of 'em now even know what a UAC is, still less rubbish about rights / privileges / elevated admin. 

As to ZoneAlarm, I see from that forum link that Checkpoint's "explanation" is rehearsed in full, though too little, too late, and way too deceitful: ZA is a Titanic that having falsely warned of the existence of an ice-berg has just ploughed head-on into a real one.  RIP, ZA.

]]> Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:05:00 -0700 Pandora on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13123 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13123 This has also been running for a while on the ZA forums http://forums.zonealarm.com/sh.....hp?t=75332

- people have been signing up just to say they have un-installed ZA. All mention of what they have moved to is edited out (or seems to be which I have no problem with , but it's hardley an open forum!)

Some of the ZA people got quite agitated early on …even though there is this quote from one of them

"Please note that ZA does NOT systematically monitor this board. We are all users here.

If you want to contact ZA staff you need to click on the links in my signature."

After many years running it on all PCs I switched to Comodo a year or so back, ZA just got too needy

]]> Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:27:06 -0700 MikeR on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13111 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13111 Spot on, Karen: no reputable company would consider this kind of tactic. The message (not the pop-up one) is clear: Checkpoint doesn't give a damn about its own reputation, only its revenue stream. On which basis, the outfit and its products are to be steered clear of -- losing trust in a firewall, of all things, is about as serious a loss as a computer user can contemplate.

]]> Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:57:29 -0700 karen on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13105 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13105 They used to be such a great company. I used ZA happily on Win2K and WinXP machines. I skipped Vista and for my Win7 laptop, I just go with the built-in firewall.

I heard about this scareware tactic. A reputable company would never do that. Reasonably tech-savvy people would probably realize that they are full of s**t, but the general populace would not (such as my parents and in-laws that I have to do tech support for).

]]> Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:39:59 -0700 MikeR on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13101 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13101 Not even sure about Checkpoint (the current owners of ZA) being technically right. ZA is a firewall. What they were scaring folks with was a virus warning -- *and* misrepresenting the worth of AV publishers as well.

Checkpoint has now abandoned the scareware, claiming that "proactive engagement" with ZA free users has shown that the pop-up may have been "misinterpreted".

Yeah. Right. The only interpretation sensible folks will have of this is a determination to stay well clear in future: if ZA's owners have such contempt for those using its product, Gawd only knows what kind of snake-oil thinking goes into the creation of the product itself.  

]]> Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:18:07 -0700 Pwnana on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13096 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13096 It truly is a shame to see this sort of thing.  While they are technically right, the manner in which they presented it (using scary looking warnings and data from a single instant) is just dirty.

]]> Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:38:30 -0700 MikeR on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13088 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13088 Sadly, Jumbi, it's true.

El Reg (sorry, 'The Register'!) readers like myself have been following this tasteless saga for a while now. And reportedly, some users of ZA Free have posted to ZA forums their intention to uninstall ZA from their computers and never go near the company again.

A summary of that situation is here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/20/zonealarm_scareware_flap/

and now there's a response from the company here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/21/zonealarm_defends_controversial_malware_warning/

The response is so transparently unbelievable as to make an already shabby situation even worse.

What a shame: though I don't use ZA any more, I remember it fondly in its early days when it really was my computer's best friend. . .

]]> Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:35:23 -0700 jumbi on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13086 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13086 wow, if its true, its very pitty …

(agreed MikeR).

]]> Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:09:09 -0700 MikeR on The fall and fall of ZoneAlarm. http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13084 Gen-Tech http://dottech.org/forums/gen-tech/the-fall-and-fall-of-zonealarm/#p13084 Sad to see a once-upon-a-time great product in the hands of snake-oil salesmen.

Hucksters who now own ZA have decided they need more money, so have resorted to the sleaziest of scareware tactics to persuade users of the free version into forking out for the commercial version.

Checkpoint, owners of ZA, flatly deny they're out to deceive anyone. Oh, really? A splash screen of the most alarmist kind now pops up in front of ZA free-version users:

Global Virus Alert!

Your PC may be in danger!

Virus details: RISK HIGH

Virus: ZeuS.Zbot.aoaq

Discovered: September 13, 2010

"Your ZoneAlarm Free Firewall provides basic protection. But this new threat requires additional security."

Really, software selling gets no grubbier than this.

 

Frown

]]> Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:34:31 -0700