We tested ZoneAlarm with Antivirus's firewall against Steve Gibson's ShieldsUp security checker, which reported that our test PC was very secure and wasn't exposing its NetBIOS networking protocol over the Internet. In addition, our computer didn't respond to ShieldsUp's port-connection attempts, an indication of strong firewall protection.
| ShieldsUp common ports | ZoneAlarm with Antivirus | McAfee Personal Firewall Plus 6.0 | Norton Personal Firewall 2004 |
| Port 21-FTP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 23-Telnet | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 25-SMTP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 79-Finger | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 80-HTTP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 110-POP3 | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 113-IDENT | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 119-NNTP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 135-RPC | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 139-NetBIOS | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 143-IMAP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 389-LDAP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 443-HTTPS | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 445-MSFTDS | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1002-ms-ils | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1024-DCOM | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1025-Host | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1026-Host | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1027-Host | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1028-Host | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1029-Host | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1029-Host | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 1720-H.323 | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| Port 5000 UPnP | Stealth | Stealth | Stealth |
| LeakTest | Passed | Passed | Passed |
To test ZoneAlarm with Antivirus's firewall using ShieldsUp, we began with IP Agent, a free utility provided by ShieldsUp that determines the test machine's current IP address, then contacts the ShieldsUp Web site to begin testing. Next, the Port Probe utility from ShieldsUp tested our system's defense against Internet port scanners. The test originates from the ShieldsUp server and attempts to establish standard TCP/IP (Internet) connections on a handful of commonly exploited Internet service ports on the test computer. More information on these tests and what the results mean can be found at ShieldsUp.
Antivirus performance results
In the CNET Labs tests, ZoneAlarm with Antivirus caused less of a drag on system performance than Norton AntiVirus 2004 but more than McAfee VirusScan 8.0. But ZoneAlarm with Antivirus scanned our 1GB drive much slower than Norton and McAfee. Here are the test results:
| Test system | ZoneAlarm with Antivirus | McAfee VirusScan | Norton AntiVirus | |
| SysMark 2002 Internet-content-creation (ICC) score | 233 | 221 | 234 | 223 |
| Normalized score | 100 | 95 | 100 | 96 |
| Percentage of degradation | N/A | 7 | 0 | 4 |
| Average boot time (seconds) | 40.8 | 55.6 | 48.38 | 52.72 |
| Scan 1GB directory; average scan time (minutes) | N/A | 2.44 | 4.75 | 3.59 |
ZoneAlarm with Antivirus uses the Vet antivirus engine from Computer Associates. To determine whether Vet effectively blocks viruses, we gauged its performance in tests conducted by independent antivirus laboratories. In Virus Bulletin tests with live viruses, previous versions of Vet earned the coveted VB 100 percent rating in six of its six most recent Windows tests -- on a par with Norton AntiVirus, which also earned the title six out of its last six tests.
ZoneAlarm with Antivirus
Company: Zone Labs
Price: US$19.95 (~AU$28) (1 year Single User License)
Distributor: Zone Labs
6%
3%
Your article states ZA scanned slower than Norton andMcAfee, but the numbers in the table show ZA at 2.44 minutes and Norton at 3.59 and McAfee at 4.75, which seems to be just the opposite of what your stated. Did the numbers in the table getswitched somehow? The percentage degredation also seems different in the table than I would have expected from the statement made above it.
Antivirus performance results
In the CNET Labs tests, ZoneAlarm with Antivirus caused less of a drag on system performance than Norton AntiVirus 2004 but more than McAfee VirusScan 8.0. But ZoneAlarm with Antivirus scanned our 1GB drive much slower than Norton and McAfee. Here are the test results:
Test system ZoneAlarm with Antivirus McAfee VirusScan Norton AntiVirus
SysMark 2002 Internet-content-creation (ICC) score 233 221 234 223
Normalized score 100 95 100 96
Percentage of degradation N/A 7 0 4
Average boot time (seconds) 40.8 55.6 48.38 52.72
Scan 1GB directory; average scan time (minutes) N/A 2.44 4.75 3.59