vpn and client security 3.0

[rrfd43]

I cannot get my symantec client security to properly pass built in windows vpn (pptp) to my home xp box. (remote end) When I disable it I can remotly access it. I searched around the symantec website but it had little help. Anyone know of the items to open on this program to allow the data to pass?

I have 1723 fowarded to the machine IP, protocol 47 allowed on both the router and CS 3.0 and all protocols allowed at this time.

Works fine when the CS 3.0 is "disabled"

[kc7gr]

I cannot get my symantec client security to properly pass built in windows vpn (pptp) to my home xp box. (remote end) When I disable it I can remotly access it. I searched around the symantec website but it had little help. Anyone know of the items to open on this program to allow the data to pass?

I have 1723 fowarded to the machine IP, protocol 47 allowed on both the router and CS 3.0 and all protocols allowed at this time.

Works fine when the CS 3.0 is "disabled"

Oddly enough, I had a similar sort of problem with my laptop. The symptoms were bizarre -- PPTP VPN would work just fine for everything EXCEPT opening a network drive on one of our internal servers.

IPSec, on the other wing, would establish its initial connection, but would not allow any other type of data traffic through.

I finally traced the problem to a new firewall package I'd installed, specifically AVG Firewall+Antivirus. No matter how much I told it to allow the activities I'd always done before with VPN, it simply wouldn't let it happen.

The problem was completely cured by switching to ZoneAlarm Pro. Heck, even the 'Free' edition worked better than AVG's firewall.

To put this another way: Symantec has, in my eyes, suffered a steady decline in quality, stability, reliability, and customer support ever since they dropped their DOS and early Windows (as in 3.x and 95) product lines. Third-party tests have shown that their antiviral product does not perform as well against independent products (the same can be said of McAfee).

The bottom line is that I would not trust Symantec to protect a block of moldy cheese, let alone any system I run. My advice would be to try ZoneAlarm and see what happens.

Happy tweaking.

[OX]

The bottom line is that I would not trust Symantec to protect a block of moldy cheese, let alone any system I run. My advice would be to try ZoneAlarm and see what happens.

That's a good one.

Here's a thought though. If you have a router with firewall, why do you need a software firewall too? I ditched my Zone Alarm several years ago when I got a wireless router. I've had no problems ever since. It's kinda like an invisible fence for the dog.

[kc7gr]

The bottom line is that I would not trust Symantec to protect a block of moldy cheese, let alone any system I run. My advice would be to try ZoneAlarm and see what happens.

That's a good one.

Here's a thought though. If you have a router with firewall, why do you need a software firewall too? I ditched my Zone Alarm several years ago when I got a wireless router. I've had no problems ever since. It's kinda like an invisible fence for the dog.

Heck, that's easy. This is a laptop, remember? I almost never use it at home, and I would never connect to any outside wired or wireless access point without some sort of local firewall in place. ZoneAlarm has worked well, and appears to be the preferred package of Watchguard Technologies (the folks who made our router/firewall).

Paranoia is rarely, if ever, a Bad Thing where computing security is concerned.

Keep the peace(es).