IGGYNo Guru Just Here To HelpPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-30
Chatham, IL
| reply to ghost16825
Re: ZAF - Windows Explorer trying to connect Instead of flaming these comments as you've done a lot recently. Instead of having a hidden agenda. Why not come clean?
The fact is this product is extremely easy to use and has less instances of conflicts than many of it's competing products. This has come about since the company takes development seriously and has done there best with each new build to better the user experience. Thus the reason you see very few threads related to this type of thing ( what this thread is covering ). Your dislike for the product and your opinion have dully been noted in other threads. But your current comments do nothing to solve the problem the user is having. They basically are just software bashing.
""easy to use" "strong" firewall is an oxymoron and there is no product which can allow "strong" security for those who don't know anything about protocols, ports etc."
The word I like to use in response to this I can't use in the forum. You don't need to have a degree to run this product. You also don't need that degree to have this product offer you a very high level of security. Just because a user has had a settings issue or needs to refresh there Truevector files - doesn't mean the product is hard to use or offers less security.
--
Test Your Security
Team Z Member
Cable Modem Diagnostics
InsightBB 3000/384 XP PRO
[text was edited by author 2003-10-30 01:27:02] |
|
| reply to antiserious
said by antiserious:
Check this KEY in the registry:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\BrowseNewProcess
It should have a value of "yes" if it doesn't change it to yes REBOOT, then remove authorization for explorer from ZA and re-authorize Iexplore.
As a result of antiserious  ' gentle nudging  I made his recommended edit to the registry and now IE (instead of WE) asks for permission to access the internet. I still don't know why it got changed (even though I DO care) ... but I'm leaving well enough alone and hope to be able to sleep now.
I hate beating my head against a wall ... and I hate it when it takes messing with the registry to fix something that ideally should be achieved in some other way (or should never have happened in the first place.) It has been emphasized so much by others in my life that one should NOT TOUCH the registry unless they know what they are doing, that I avoid it at all costs. I go there so seldom, I can't even remember how to get there without asking or looking it up.
Thanks to antiserious for holding my hand and getting me beyond my fear of something that was SO SIMPLE!  |
|
| reply to ghost16825
said by ghost16825:
Who would have thought a "easy to use" but "strong" firewall would be so difficult to configure?
The problem I was having was resolved by the regedit that antiserious suggested.
In the 2+ years I've used ZAF, along with NAV and a router, I've never had a significant problem. The frustration I experienced with this in the past few days is unusual. Granted, I still don't have an explanation ... but I learned a little bit more (it's a day by day thing) as I explored the possibilities. |
|
ghost16825Use security metricsPremium
join:2003-08-26 | reply to IGGY
If you would have actually read what I posted, I wasn't actually attacking ZoneAlarm specifically, but graphically based firewalls in general. (Yes, ZoneAlarm is NOT the only firewall which relies on a largely graphic setup for ease of use; it does have competitors regardless of what you think of their superiority to ZoneAlarm)
Recently, I have come across more people having difficulty configuring their flashy graphically based firewall to their needs. This may be a unusual occurrence however I believe it is part of a general trend.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with my view it should be discussed in a new thread. |
|
|
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to katarina
Maybe I'm hallucinating Randy Bell, but NAV 2003 doesn't seem to depend on ccApp. Rather, SOME protection relies on some hidden process that doesn't show up with ctrl-alt-del (at least on 98). I kill ccApp regularly (it always comes up as not responding, too, when I kill it) and have even removed it from my registry startup keys.
It still woke up when I tried to run an hta script. (It was a harmless test program, but NAV woke up and warned me) Now, maybe it hooked itself into the file associations of such scripts so that it can do that, but still. That was pretty automatic I'd say.
As for explorer accessing the internet, can I use that registry key with ANY IE version? Some versions don't have a checkbox to force IE to run in a separate process and always run as explorer.exe. Back when I used to use ZA and IE, I remember I had to allow explorer access. Course, that was a long time ago. Years.
--
Protected by Win98SE/NAV 2K3/Router/Mozilla/Kerio/A brain |
|
| reply to LowWaterMark
IE 6 - Browse in New Process said by LowWaterMark:
Depending upon the version of Windows, IE and amount of memory on the system, this might be related: »support.microsoft.com/?kbid=240928
Since I'm using IE6 (which this article... at the bottom ... says it refers to), I'm under the impression that I do not have an option to enable or disable 'Browse in New Process.' Certainly can't find it, anyway. My understanding is that the option is automatically configured based upon the amount of RAM on the system (I have 128MB).
Now ... I don't pretend to even understand the nuances of discussions about RAM and the memory referred to in the error messages that I have been getting telling me that there is not enough memory to open a new program when I try to open it. Rebooting the system is the only thing that frees the resources that are tied up and not being released even when I start shutting things down.
Is this what you were referring to and how this article could relate? Is it possible that when my system resources have gotten so low that I'm getting low memory messages, that the registry setting for 'Browse in New Process' was automatically changed to 'NO' causing WE instead of IE to request permission to access the internet? Changing that Registry Setting to 'YES' is what allowed IE to access the internet instead of WE ... behavior that seems more 'normal' to me, based upon past experience. |
|
| reply to katarina
Re: ZAF - Windows Explorer trying to connect The MS article I pointed to and the registry key that antiserious posted are really pointing to the same phenomenon. Internet Explorer will under some circumstances use the same process as Windows Explorer when you are browsing the Internet. Now none of us can say what changed recently on your system so that you are now seeing this access being alerted in ZA, however, I think more likely than not something did change and that this is harmless, but that is a guess.
To be sure, I think you need to go into REGEDIT and at least locate the key mentioned above and tell us it's value. If you don't change anything, and just view your way through the registry keys, there is no danger. Knowing that key value would be helpful in determining what to look at next.
As for those low memory warnings, that sounds like you are running out of system resources because you have so much running. I'm not sure if every Win9x system has this, but if you can run this: Start menu > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Resource Meter, it puts a little meter in the systray which can tell you at any moment what your resource levels are and it even alerts if they get too low. Start that then run all the different things that together seem to cause the low memory error and see (hover mouse pointer over the meter) what happens to your resources.
--
Use the most powerful combo Firewall/AV/AT package available - "Common Sense" - It can be upgraded daily!
[text was edited by author 2003-10-30 13:08:51] |
|
| said by LowWaterMark:
Now none of us can say what changed recently on your system so that you are now seeing this access being alerted in ZA, however, I think more likely than not something did change and that this is harmless, but that is a guess.
I can accept that and agree that it seems harmless ... and I did already change the setting in REGEDIT from 'NO' to 'YES.' Did that last night and it worked like a charm. I was still trying to understand how it got changed in the first place. But I'll give up on that one.
said by LowWaterMark:
As for those low memory warnings, that sounds like you are running out of system resources because you have so much running.
Using your suggestion, I installed Resource Meter from the CD. When I first started it up, it showed System: 55% User: 55% GDI: ???Don't remember. That was with everything closed except what shows in my system tray.
After rebooting and starting it again it showed System: 70% User:70% GDI: ??? Darn ... I didn't write that one down again.
I'll watch it closely ... especially after my son gets home, since once he gets on here it goes bankrupt. However, last night he only had two windows open. One was a Yahoo! game and the other could have been as well ... or something like AIM Express. I'll make him take notes this time. Thanks for your help! |
|
| reply to sivran
said by sivran:
Maybe I'm hallucinating .. but NAV 2003 doesn't seem to depend on ccApp.
Yep, you're hallucinating .. j/k = just kidding. 
Seriously, NAV 2003 and above does most certainly depend on the Common Client {a.k.a. CCAPP.exe}:
said by Symantec Knowledge Base:
ccApp.exe is the common hosting application that is used by both NAV and NIS. It is responsible for calling the different program features in NAV and NIS. For example, in NAV, if Auto-Protect and Email Scanning are enabled, then ccApp.exe makes sure that those programs are running. If ccApp is disabled, then Auto-Protect and Email Scanning will not run.
If you have already disabled ccApp.exe, then follow the steps in the document Auto-Protect does not load after installing Norton AntiVirus and then restarting the computer to re-enable the program.
I know this to be absolute fact, as antdude , our resident Symantec Guru, specifically posted that recently: starting with NAV 2003 and later, the Common Client {CCAPP.exe} is used for these services. NAV 2002 used a process named NAVAPW.exe to do the resident services {auto-protect and pop3 filtering}; but that changed with the 2003 version and remains the same with 2004.
said by sivran:
Rather, SOME protection relies on some hidden process that doesn't show up with ctrl-alt-del (at least on 98). I kill ccApp regularly (it always comes up as not responding, too, when I kill it) and have even removed it from my registry startup keys.
Then you'll kill Auto-Protect if you're running NAV 2003 or 2004. Which is not a good thing, you should have your Auto-Protect running at all times. That is your resident real-time monitor (RTM) that protects you as you surf, open and run files, examine email, etc.
--
"But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13)
[text was edited by author 2003-10-30 15:12:14] |
|
 HutchPremium
join:2000-10-14
australia
·Bigpond
 ·Internode
| reply to katarina
WE Settings |
--
*TeamZ*Member |
|
| reply to katarina
I have a similar problem with XP and Sygate (as opposed to ZA, which wouldn't work with XP!) Why does WE have to access the internet at all? Why does it try every time I press File or Edit in WE? (Well, not every time. Only on first launch.) MS doesn't know and can't tell me how to turn it off. If I set the firewall to automatically deny access to WE, it takes a full nine seconds for WE to open the File or Edit menus, as it bangs up against the (fire)wall. Too ridiculous. Closing the firewall will solve the problem of course, because WE will connect at will. This is wrong. I have no idea what WE is going to do on the net, so I can't just let it go. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to katarina
Well, it's easy enough to get Windows Explorer to access the internet - I'm typing this in an Explorer window. Simply open My Computer and type h t t p : / / www.dslreports.com in the address bar (spaces added to keep the web site's auto-linking feature from changing it)
The problem is that if you think that Explorer is a local browser and Internet Explorer is a web browser, you're wrong. Rather, they're both more like containers into which certain functions can be poured. They retain some distinction largely, I suspect, for historical reasons.
Plenty of people, including Mr. Tim Berners-Lee, believe that there should be one UI that works for both local and remote information. I'm not sure I agree, but no-one asked me. Certainly, that's where Redmond's plans head towards.
OK, so here I am deliberately using Explorer to visit a web site. How dod you do this accidentally? Dunno, but often I find myself using Outlook (not Outlook Express) as a web browser by mistake, simply because I gave keyboard focus to the wrong window. I suppose you can do the same with Explorer.
Once you've done that, I wildly speculate that some least-recently-used document list or 'favourites' sort of feature retains a link that gets probed on application startup.
Personally, I think the concept of expecting to know why every network message is issued by a system is doomed. It is no more sensible than thinking you know where every disk I/O comes from, in an OS with lazy flush, background processes, and demand paging. The OS owns the disks, not applications. The OS owns the network, not applications.
|
|
 WildcatboyPremium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | reply to katarina
This is a two month old thread. Please start a new one with your questions. |
|
