On 10 Aug 2009 17:29:01 -0500, Nelson
<replies-to-newsgroup-only@thank.you> wrote:

>>

>
>Here's what I decided, then replies:
>
> I chose Comodo. It does what ZoneAlarm used to do but does it even
>better. Other firewalls did the general job well enough but didn't
>have the fine-grain control desired.
>
>To G and Volker Birk: There's good reason to control apps. Example:
>My newsreader is permitted to access my ISP's DNS server and my news
>service's servers. That's all. No longer do I find it trying to
>access various applications' servers to report who-knows-what to their
>publishers, because those apps (even though blocked from access) have
>used other apps (such as my my newsreader) to access the Internet.
>
>In an experiment with the current ZoneAlarm Pro (yes, purchased), it
>still tries to access the Internet and reach ZA servers even when all
>of the access-related options are turned off. Also, ZA refuses to
>allow its firewall or program-control settings to prevent Internet
>access by its own programs or components. Further, when effectively
>blocked by a hardware (router) firewall from reaching its home
>servers' IP addresses, ZA enlists various other apps including
>operating system components to silently try to reach its home servers.
>And they call this a security program???
>
>Comodo may or may not be the only firwall that's really good at this
>aspect. If you know of others, do tell.


Exactly!

I run into the same crapola all the time.

I'm tired off arguing about why I need a firewall that doesn't let
anything out.