Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Decopi" data-source="post: 1043822" data-attributes="member: 67091">I agree with you, but:With regards to security software, personally I only care about protection capabilities and hardware performance... that&#039;s all.ZA hardware performance doesn&#039;t worry me.Therefore, I&#039;m only focused on ZA protection capabilities.Now and in my context, if you take the sneaky 65MB stealer malware case, and you see that a simple option in the firewall could have helped to minimize its damages, and in the other hand you see that current ZA firewall has just an ON/OFF... perhaps is time to add few simple options in ZA firewall.When a minimized UI or any default settings are having bad protection reputation... perhaps is time for changes.Two further comments:1. I believe [USER=99014]@Trident[/USER] is enthusiastic about ZA, because he knows Harmony Endpoint (product), and perhaps he can foresee where current ZA development is going (or at least he can foresee the potential of current ZA). And there is no doubt that ZA is improving ZAESNG at each new version, adding important features, and also being responsive to different user requests. So, for me there is no doubts that current ZAESNG is actively under development, and its protection capabilities can be improved soon.2. [USER=99014]@Trident[/USER] also mentioned that the 65MB stealer malware should be be blocked by ZoneAlarm threatcloud.Main ZA &quot;blades&quot; are based in Sophos and Kaspersky stuff. So, we can expect a solid ZA protection.Perhaps the stealer malware case needs to be reproduced under more strict lab conditions.I&#039;m trying to say that sometimes bad protection reputation is a consequence of specific tests (which are not reflecting real-life).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 1043822, member: 67091"] I agree with you, but: With regards to security software, personally I only care about protection capabilities and hardware performance... that's all. ZA hardware performance doesn't worry me. Therefore, I'm only focused on ZA protection capabilities. Now and in my context, if you take the sneaky 65MB stealer malware case, and you see that a simple option in the firewall could have helped to minimize its damages, and in the other hand you see that current ZA firewall has just an ON/OFF... perhaps is time to add few simple options in ZA firewall. When a minimized UI or any default settings are having bad protection reputation... perhaps is time for changes. Two further comments: 1. I believe [USER=99014]@Trident[/USER] is enthusiastic about ZA, because he knows Harmony Endpoint (product), and perhaps he can foresee where current ZA development is going (or at least he can foresee the potential of current ZA). And there is no doubt that ZA is improving ZAESNG at each new version, adding important features, and also being responsive to different user requests. So, for me there is no doubts that current ZAESNG is actively under development, and its protection capabilities can be improved soon. 2. [USER=99014]@Trident[/USER] also mentioned that the 65MB stealer malware should be be blocked by ZoneAlarm threatcloud. Main ZA "blades" are based in Sophos and Kaspersky stuff. So, we can expect a solid ZA protection. Perhaps the stealer malware case needs to be reproduced under more strict lab conditions. I'm trying to say that sometimes bad protection reputation is a consequence of specific tests (which are not reflecting real-life). [/QUOTE]

Verification