RSSTime may be running out for a 64-bit Vista-based ZoneAlarm
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 27, 2008, 12:18 PM
The difficulty for third-party developers to produce security software for the most feature-rich Vista kernel continues to this day, and a lack of news from ZoneAlarm suggests it could persist well into next year.
At one time, ZoneAlarm was among the single most downloaded pieces of software, of any category whatsoever, in the entire world. But for well over a year after Microsoft's release of the 64-bit version of Windows Vista, whose kernel includes significant upgrades for security purposes, there still is no 64-bit edition of the ZoneAlarm firewall that works on Vista.
And the product's current manufacturer, Check Point Software Technologies, remains as secretive and as cryptic as some of the stealthy packages its own products hunt down, as to when a 64-bit Vista edition is forthcoming, or even if there will be one this year.
For months, the official word from the company had been that such an edition would be released "in 2008," and the only official tailoring of that message shifted that target to "the end of 2008." Then Check Point unveiled its latest Zone Alarm Pro 8.0 beta on Monday...without the 64-bit version.
Last week, in response to the latest inquiry from a user, among threads in Check Point's forums that are now over a year old, a forum moderator responded that there are "plans for a beta test version for 64-bit in four months."
If that's the case, and the public beta for a 64-bit ZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro 8.0 truly is set to begin in late December, then based on the company's recent history with betas (the cycle for 7.0 lasted six months), a true Vista edition might not be ready until next summer.
But in a response to BetaNews' inquiry yesterday, Check Point spokesperson Heather Haas would not confirm the forum moderator's version of the timetable, nor provide any other details. "We are continuing to work on development of a 64-bit version of ZoneAlarm, but we do not have a release date set," Haas told us.
The delay continues to be a severe problem for Check Point, if the forum threads are any indication. Retailers continue to stock ZoneAlarm as a firewall for Windows XP and Vista, and indeed, it does work on 32-bit Vista. But some users only come to discover their computers came with 64-bit Vista pre-installed, once their newly purchased firewalls display the bad news during setup.
ZoneAlarm's marriage with Vista has never been on solid ground. In the beginning, it was one of many security programs that had difficulty cooperating with even the new 32-bit kernel; and last February, the 32-bit Vista edition found itself defeated by Vista Service Pack 1.
Some of ZoneAlarm's competitors have faced similar trouble with building a 64-bit Vista edition. For example, Online Armor -- which has received highest recommendations from both third-party firewall tester Matousec Security (PDF available here) and Computerworld editor Scot Finnie, is only rated now for use with Windows XP. Like ZoneAlarm, Online Armor has a free general purpose version (downloadable from FileForum) and a commercial edition. But the XP support limitation is not something that's readily discernable from the manufacturer's Web site.
But a 64-bit firewall is not altogether impossible to build. The latest firewall from Comodo, rated as a close #3 by Matousec (PDF available here) and a close second by Finnie, has commercial-grade features that it gives away entirely for free -- its commercial bundle includes anti-virus. BetaNews has been experimenting with Comodo Firewall Pro (downloadable from FileForum) on one of our 64-bit Vista-based production systems, with nothing but good news to report so far.
Meanwhile, ZoneAlarm 7.0 has found itself lately slipping down the scale of functionality, failing on 22 tests in Matousec's suite last June (PDF available here), and scoring a 63% in its overall test battery. This compared to 95% for Comodo, 98% for Online Armor (albeit on XP only), and 99% for Outpost Firewall Pro (64-bit shareware downloadable from FileForum).
While some FileForum users continue to praise ZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro for being easy to configure, others have begun taking it to task for having to be constantly configured, and some for having a relatively difficult time being uninstalled. If Check Point intends to catch up with competition that may have surged ahead in the firewall field, it may need to go ahead and launch its 64-bit beta with whatever it's got, in a matter of weeks if not days.
Being a Sr. Software Engineer, I necessarily adopted 64-bit early. This meant my loyalty to ZoneAlarm Pro was forcibly at an end, because at the time Zone Labs could not (or, rather, refused) to support 64-bit. While I'd rather be using ZoneAlarm, I was forced to go with Comodo. I've tried others (under 32-bit), and I personally like(d) ZoneAlarm Pro as my firewall software.
Each time Zone Labs has sent me marketing material, trying to regain my patronage, I've always written them back that they can only do so by supporting 64-bit. If Comodo can do it, why can't they? Granted, I don't think Comodo has the security features ZoneAlarm sports, and perhaps Zone Labs has tied some of their features too tightly to 32-bit systems, but this delay (and, let's face it, outright hostility toward 64-bit) shows dangerous lack of foresight on their part.
Score: 0
|I just use hardware firewalls. They just are so much better IMHO. If zonealarm switched to making those on a personal level at lower costs then the enterprise level units it would be a tremendous benefit to all. Thats just IMHO.
Linksys is a start now that they are integrating some zonealarm stuff in them. Its good enough for the personal level in most cases... Just plug in setup and your ready to go. Your machines are safe, your wireless network is safer, and you don't have to worry about your private network being up 24/7 as you used too if a vulnerability was exploited overnight before you could patch.
Score: 0
|Sticking with just a hardware firewall isn't the best solution.
Advantage with most software firewalls is that they get updated more frequently [my hardware firewall firmware hasn't been touched in over a year] for new issues. Most software also check what's leaving your system. Some will also inspect what your running.
My hardware firewall is my first line of defense.
Also just look at software firewalls. Not all can stop everything [hence why ZA has only 63%]. I'm sure it's the same for a hardware firewall in a router [different for enterprise grade firewalls].
Score: 0
|I use 64 bit and even if I didn't I wouldn;t consider Zone alarm as my security so what's the big deal.
Have a nice Day:)
Score: 0
|hundreds of millions of XP users, there are only tens of millions vista users (70% XP less the 20% vista), how many of these use 64bit ? 2% ? 3%? and anyway, vista is so secure that anti-virus, firewalls, anti-rootkit.... are no longer needed.:-)
Score: 0
|and anyway, vista is so secure that anti-virus, firewalls, anti-rootkit.... are no longer needed
lol... I literally laughed out loud at that one.
Score: 0
|LOL.
Santa Claus is real too. :p
Score: 0
|I think that prob a little inflated. I mean especially on the 64bit level... Vista is out there, its on everythign that goes out the door anymore. Like it or not. and MOST people don't have the knowledge on how to go back to XP even if they want too. so they deal with what they got.
Unfortuantly the truth is that the vast majority uses whatever is sent on the thing when they get it. We techy people that like to play with OSes are actually the minority of the masses. And even if every one of us downgraded to XP on all new equipment. that would still not be the numbers your stating...
I have to admit I didnt care for Vista, but I did get it for free with one of my systems. I am the minority in that I actually took the time to downgrade and was happy to do it. I retained my Vista install on a separate HD that I hotwap out on occasion to do updates and such, but I just don't use it for anything. I'm sure there is less then 1% of all end users out there that does such things. But I do because I wanted the most out of my machine for what I paid. So I did it. the average joe not going to go to all that trouble. Instead they go to the added expense to get new stuff that will work with their new machine as is. I just too cheap to do such a thing myself. Of course thats exactly what everybody wants too. they want you to trash perfectly good equipment and buy something else just so it works on the new stuff. If they had their way, that would happen every few years ensuring you buy new equipment every time.
Sorry but I'm just not rich enough to be so wasteful. sorry if that doesn't fit the ideal of these companies.
Score: 0
|Actually, Microsoft released some stats a few weks back and noticed a big increase in x64 users connecting to Automatic Update & Windows Update. Almost everything microsoft releases has a x64 version available. Other companies (Adobe, Symantec, ...) are also adding support. If ZA can't get their act straight, their installbase will drop further.
Score: 0
|Kaspersky Internet Security has been 64-bit compatable for quite some time now as has OneCare -- not sure about Norton Products. So... I guess the sky isn't falling just quite yet? Maybe it's just a slow news day...
Score: 0
|And Avira which is free and rated high against the paid programs works just fine.
Score: 0
|I do believe more developers should focus on 64 bit. I believe 32 bit should be laid to rest, but I guess Microsoft won't let that happen for a while yet!
I did try Comodo on my Vista 64 and did not have any issues. I currently use Eset Smart Security 64 bit.
Score: 0
|good microsoft software is getting so good it will keep crap programs like this off there OS. software firewalls are one of the worst things you can install on your PC
Score: 0
|"But some users only come to discover their computers came with 64-bit Vista pre-installed, once their newly purchased firewalls display the bad news during setup."
This is Microsoft's fault, they never should have released a 32 bit version of Vista. One version would have kept things clear. 32 bit = XP. 64 bit = Vista.
But that would have been too easy, so why do it when you can have 4 editions each in two flavors (32 and 64)?
Its not like anything was bought with the 32 bit version. Sure it gave OEMs today a shortcut by not having to get 64 bit drivers stable right away, but they're still going to have to do that eventually anyway because the days of 4GB RAM (and more) being standard are coming soon. Taking advantage of it requires a 64 bit OS.
Score: 0
|Maybe you'll start begging for MSDOS64? :)
XP is dead obsolete system. Because of delayed upgrades on customer side, Microsoft decided to extend life of XP for another year. And for the same reason Vista has 32 bit edition.
Score: 0
|XP is dead obsolete system.
Umm...tell that to the hundreds of millions of XP users out there.
Score: 0
|Blaming MSFT for the lack of a specific 3rd party product is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think?
Well...apparently not.
I feel 32 should have been dropped with Vista as well, but I hardly think it's justified to start trolling MSFT because Zone Labs can't get their s*** together...
Score: 0
|Honestly, the word "obsolete", when used regarding anything computer related has been abused for decades.
Calling a 3 month old PC "obsolete" is absurd, by definition, but such rhetoric is in constant use.
XP has been supplanted by a newer version of windows and is on it's way to the un-supported graveyards, but that hardly means people are going to suddenly find that it no longer does what they need it to do or that it is no longer capable of performing the functions for which it was designed.
While a newer and subjectively better product exists, the old one is hardly obsolete.
Score: 0
|Why not tell it to the millions of windows 2000, and windows 98 and 95 workstations out there still. there OS has been dead for a long time. Just cause it's used does not mean it's Dead. DEAD means its no longer the main and only focus in their OS department. I hardly think MS is spending more time playing with XP then Vista when it comes to improvements and security. Well maybe security.
Score: 0
|LOL!
This will certainly confound the MS fanboys!
Score: 0
|I see a person to lazy to see which version they have is MS's fault. Great logic there.
Score: 0
|MSDOS64? That's not a bad idea, but they need to develop 32 bit version of MS-DOS first I would think.
No Internet Explorer. Check.
No Outlook Express/Windows Mail. Check.
No Media Player. Check.
No Visual Basic scripting. Check.
No RPC/DCOM/Active X. Check.
No built in network stack. Check.
No Autoplay. Check.
No need for firewall/anti spy ware software. Check.
Ok so it's pretty primitive for today's environment but it's really hard to get a Virus in DOS. Heck you could leave a DOS computer connected to the internet unprotected and you will probably never see an successful attack on that computer in your lifetime.
Score: 0
|And Vista is a buggy, immature and incomplete system. Really leaves users with little choice, doesn't it? :P
FYI - XP support continues to 2012. That's when it's dead, IMHO. I imagine the reason for such a long support cycle is because MS realises how many problems they still have with Vista, and not everyone can just upgrade hassle-free (and certainly not cost-free).
Score: 0
|well yea. lol but I do agree Vista 32 bit should have never been.. even MS reps admit that.
I blame the OEMs with their persistent badgering of MS to make it so their already antiquated equipment would still sell once Vista was near shipping. MS caved and had to pay for it very publicly with Vista bad reputation on existing 32bit P4 gen equipment. Now that the equipment out there caught up and most of it is 64bit... Vista works very well on those. Which is what they should have ALWAYS been on from teh beginning.
32bit XP
64bit Vista.
Would have made things good all around for MS if they would have stuck to that game plan.
Score: 0
|FYI - XP support continues to 2012.
Where did you hear that? Last I heard it was done Mid 2009....
Score: 0
|