[gkar]

I currently use Netveda SafetyNet (free), seems to cause me no problems.

Have used Jetico PF (caused graphics problems in Doom3), Kerio 2.1.5 (intermittent bluescreens) and Sygate PF 5.6 (shuts down intermittlently or locks up), all have caused me problems of one type or another.

This post has been edited by gkar: 23 November 2008 - 07:32 PM

[herbalist]

I use Kerio 2.1.5. It has always worked well for me. No problems on any OS I've put it on.
Rick

[alexanrs]

I use my router xDDDDDDD

[gkar]

I use both :-)

[thydreamwalker]

ZALARM 37 and WiseRegistryCleaner ,YahooCA SpyRemover with 98SE using 98ME's Defrag & Scandisk with a hand fulla bandaids and prayers; my 6 98SE/MoBo's survive an insane unsecure internet enviroment (p.s.:any browser than IE6sp1,if at all feasible!!!PreferOpera9.52or9.62)

This post has been edited by thydreamwalker: 24 November 2008 - 12:51 AM

[duffy98]

... I use an older version of ZoneAlarm ... before all the bloated and resource hog versions started. If you use Memload you can check the various firewalls ... I think this version was as good as Kerio 2.1.5 on resources. Works great on Windows 98SE and easy to get going "out of the box". I have the PRO version but the free version is just as good:

ZoneAlarm v4.5.594.000 .... the download link at ZoneAlarm still works ... wouldn't be a bad idea to download a copy and put it away somewhere to have for the future, if you decide one day to check it out. I can't say if it would work "very well" on a newer OS but for Windows 98SE, it's great. It is strictly a firewall ... nothing else ... no anti-virus or other junk included, as I said before, ... before all the bloat was added.

http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/info...aseHistory.html ....

gkar .... what version of NetVeda Safety.Net do you use? ... the newer version (s) might not be working with Windows 98SE ... this was posted on Google. I may experiment with it and check to see how much resources it uses ... I like programs that get the job done using few "resources" as possible and very little (or no) bloat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version: NetVeda Safety.Net 3.8

"Causes Shutdown Problems"

by Mike98 on October 10, 2007

Cons: Netveda Safety.Net 3.80.0001 causes Windows 98SE to crash during shutdown of Windows. This is very disappointing, because it looked like a good firewall, especial ideal for older operation systems like 98SE, where not a lot offer is.

Was this review helpful? YES | NO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please post your version.

This post has been edited by duffy98: 04 December 2008 - 10:43 AM

[gkar]

^^ Netveda Safetynet 3.80.0001, no shutdown problems for me. Seems light on resources. Gets along well with Avast AV Free.

This post has been edited by gkar: 24 November 2008 - 06:30 AM

[duffy98]

gkar .... thanks for the info. I never heard of that firewall and will experiment with it, if it isn't too complicated setting it up. ... yeah, maybe that guy's computer was all messed up to begin with .... I didn't find anymore complaints ... I will check the resources used with Memload ... neat little program that works with Win 98SE .... gives you a reading on all programs running so you can see what uses what! Hard to find a download link these days but there are a few around.

[gkar]

I'll check out memload if I can find it, thanks. Safetynet is easy to setup, just choose the adapter you want to bind it to. That's it. You can go into finer detail with it but to get it up and running is just choosing the net adapter after the reboot.

[duffy98]

.... I thought I had better give more info on the version of Memload I am talking about ... I did a Google search and found another version of something with the same name ... the version for 98SE is Memload v2.0 (July 2001) ... it is only 28 KB in size ... After several dead links I found a link in a foreign language that has the download.

... http://nosetup.org/programa/59 ..... in the Description top part click on "Descarga" .... that is still a good

download link and that is Memload. .... grab it while you can .... you can check all active running programs or compare one program version against another to check resources. May not be all that important but it can be interesting to see how many resources a program uses. What language is that ? ... Spanish ??

Hope this is helpful.

This post has been edited by duffy98: 24 November 2008 - 08:37 PM

[gkar]

Thanks for the link to Memload, nice little proggie!

[Analada]

If anyone wants to have their firewall/win98 system checked out, there's a useful (IMO) resource here:

www.grc.com

Click to enter, then scroll down to "Hot Spots" and "Shields Up". There's other resources on this site, including free downloads.

[Ninho]

Kerio 2.1.x of course! Never a problem on Win 9x (nor on Windows 2000).

Analada : I concur, grc's Shield's Up! is a good resource for testing firewall settings,
and generally http://www.grc.com is an interesting place to visit and peek around...

cheers,

[herbalist]

Except for one very odd WinME unit, the only thing I'm aware of Kerio 2.1.5 clashing with is a defragmenter, Perfect Disk I believe. Other than that, I haven't seen it conflict with anything. Some others haven't been so fortunate but that can happen with any software.

Shields Up is OK for scanning the lower ports. Beyond port 1055, it can only scan 64 ports at a time. Scanning all the upper ports with Shields Up would take forever. The port scanner at AuditMyPC scans ports 2500 at a time. It doesn't show "stealth", only open or closed. Stealthed ports are not as important as GRC makes them out to be. Most trojans use ports above 1055 which are too time consuming to scan at GRC. Some DSL modems and routers have an open port in the upper ranges too, especially ones supplied by ISPs. Scanning all the upper ports may surprise you.
Rick

[98Guy]

Windows 98 doesn't need a firewall.

I've never known anyone running a firewall (9x, 2K, XP, etc) that's ever had their firewall alert them of any real malware threat.

If you're running a firewall, it's mainly because you are a control freak and want to prevent various third-party accessories, utilities, etc (adobe, flash, quicktime) even m$ software from "phoning home". That's ok, if you want to preoccupy yourself with petty stuff like that, but a software firewall isin't going to really give a win-98 system any protection from malware.

To keep junk like port scans and intrusion attempts off your local home or SOHO lan, you use a NAT router. Once you've got that, your software firewall won't see any incoming unsolicited attempts.

And your software firewall won't keep malware OFF your system. if your software firewall tells you that there's some unauthorized outgoing attempts, then your system has already been hacked, and you're lucky your software firewall is telling you because odds are the malware will deactivate your firewall anyways (along with your AV software).

[herbalist]

A software firewalls primary duty is controlling traffic, not keeping malware off of your system. If a software firewall is detecting unexpected outbound traffic, then the rest of the security package or the user has failed to protect the system. Hardware firewalls which includes routers, and software firewalls fill different roles. Hardware firewalls can only control traffic on a global level. A software firewall can control traffic for individual applications. Some call that being a control freak. I call internet access control a necessary part of my security policy.
Rick

[gkar]

herbalist, on Nov 26 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

A software firewalls primary duty is controlling traffic, not keeping malware off of your system. If a software firewall is detecting unexpected outbound traffic, then the rest of the security package or the user has failed to protect the system. Hardware firewalls which includes routers, and software firewalls fill different roles. Hardware firewalls can only control traffic on a global level. A software firewall can control traffic for individual applications. Some call that being a control freak. I call internet access control a necessary part of my security policy.
Rick

Agreed.....

[Dude111]

duffy98, on Nov 24 2008, 04:49 AM, said:

ZoneAlarm v4.5.594.000 .... the download link at ZoneAlarm still works ... wouldn't be a bad idea to download a copy and put it away somewhere to have for the future, if you decide one day to check it out. I can't say if it would work "very well" on a newer OS but for Windows 98SE, it's great. It is strictly a firewall ... nothing else ... no anti-virus or other junk included, as I said before, ... before all the bloat was added.

That link doesnt load @ the moment..

Here is a link right to this version > http://oldversion.com/download.php?idlong=...e9744ee5f2a2221


Is this the LAST GOOD VERSION of Zonealarm??

It might run well on a newer OS in "Compatibility mode"..

[duffy98]

Dude111

.... yes, you are right about that link "not" working anymore. It did work when I posted the earlier message. It has worked for well over a year. Maybe it is only temporary or maybe ZoneAlarm shut it down because of increased traffic for that "older" version. Who knows ...

... I have never tried that version on a "newer" OS ... it may work perfect on a newer OS, I am strictly a "modern day" Windows 98SE person ... meaning I keep up with all MDGx updates and other programs that people mention that sound interesting for 98SE.

.... I remember back when ZoneAlarm started to make some drastic changes in their program .... after the v4.5.594.000 ... people were complaining about all kinds of problems ... it was slow, it didn't work, it was bloated ... they went through one version very fast and started a newer version number very fast to answer some of the complaints. I had read some time back (Google) when I was doing some firewall research that many people liked this older version of ZoneAlarm since it was sort of the last version of a "pure" ZoneAlarm firewall before they started to fool around with it. Also, if I remember ZoneAlarm was bought out somewhere after that version came out and we know what can happen when a company, who has a nice program, changes hands .... things usually go downhill with add-ons and bloat.

As for the newer versions of ZoneAlarm, maybe they are perfect for XP and Vista ... hopefully I will never know ... as long as we have MDGx, herbalist, Charlotte, and so many others, including you ... working to keep Win 98SE humming along in the new century. ... it's not perfect, never was completely perfect ... but considering the alternative ... well, !

..... thanks for posting the new link to v4.5.594.000 ... maybe the old one will work again or it might be gone for good ... ZA could be working on their site over the holiday or perhaps they were "alarmed" at all the interest in an older version of ZoneAlarm ....

Who can say ...

*** I was checking the number of "reads" on this firewall topic ... over 400 ... if 50% of those people decided to download that version, either to try it or just put a copy away .... the page might be gone for good.

This post has been edited by duffy98: 29 November 2008 - 05:48 AM

[98Guy]

> A software firewalls primary duty is controlling traffic, not keeping
> malware off of your system.

I said exactly that in my previous post, except that I made a distinction between in-bound and out-bound fire-walling.

In-bound fire-walling _will_ keep malware off your system (network worms) but the degree to which your system is vulnerable to them will depend mainly on what OS you're running.

> If a software firewall is detecting unexpected outbound traffic,
> then the rest of the security package or the user has failed
> to protect the system.

I said exactly that.

> Hardware firewalls which includes routers, and software firewalls
> fill different roles. Hardware firewalls can only control traffic on a
> global level. A software firewall can control traffic for individual
> applications.

A software firewall's in-bound filtering is exactly comparable to a hardware device's in-bound filtering in terms of scope and function.

If you have a NAT router, then half the capability or functionality of a software firewall (in-bound fire-walling) has been rendered irrelavent and useless and nothing more than a drain on system resources.

> Some call that being a control freak. I call internet access control
> a necessary part of my security policy.

You just admitted that a software firewall is not part of a system's security infrastructure, because it doesn't directly detect the presence of malware or keep it off a system. So it's not really part of a system's security infrastructure.

How many times has it alerted you (or anyone else reading this) to suspicious activity that you later discovered was malware related (viral, trojan, etc) ??

You also disregard the fact that software firewalls (like AV software) are usually deactivated by active malware that has just infected a system.

You might consider the automatic contact that certain trusted software makes with the outside world to be a security issue (MS WGA or other checks, Adobe, Quicktime, Java update checks, etc) but it's nothing more than micro-management of the system and has nothing at all to do with security.

This thread started with the question "What firewall do you use in Win9x". A better question would have been "why do you use a firewall with Win9x". I bet many people think that firewall software is as much a normal or necessary part of a (win-98) system as AV software is, which is naturally not correct by a long shot.