 
LiberalKing
Intocable
Premium
join:2005-09-12
Bronx, NY | FIRST POST  | |
|
 | 
BloodRoses
Gods lend wings to tainted hearts
Premium
join:2003-03-17
clubs: | Re: FIRST POST SECOND POST
I WIN
--
- Stephie | |
|
| | 
Phylop
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Reston, VA | Re: FIRST POST Isn't there a rule against "first post" posts? | |
|
| | | 
Kompressor
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: FIRST POST Yes, there is.
The rule is, smart people aren't allowed to do it.  | |
|
| 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by LiberalKing  : First moron, more like it.said by the article :
it was not really designed to stop programs from getting out (phoning home) Is "was in no way designed for" different from "was not really designed for" ? I think the latter suggests a minor effort which expects to fail, while the former suggests that the issue was not addressed in any way.
The XP/SP2 firewall is strictly inbound - by design - and though one can make a fair case for a firewall in both directions, hinting that XP/SP2 doesn't do such a good job on the outbound side is really disingenuous.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
|
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: FIRST POST said by Steve :The XP/SP2 firewall is strictly inbound - by design - and though one can make a fair case for a firewall in both directions, hinting that XP/SP2 doesn't do such a good job on the outbound side is really disingenuous. I've read that the firewall that comes with Windows Vista will be a true 2 way firewall. The existing firewall vendors are already probably having their lawyers draw up anti-trust charges against Microsoft.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | | Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH | Re: FIRST POST I've also read that the two-way firewall is supposed to make an appearance in XP/SP3 when it's realeased later this year.
- Tate
--
"I may work for a cable ISP, but I'm still an okay guy." | |
|
| | | |
| | 
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| said by Steve :said by LiberalKing : First moron, more like it. said by the article :
it was not really designed to stop programs from getting out (phoning home) Is "was in no way designed for" different from "was not really designed for" ? I think the latter suggests a minor effort which expects to fail, while the former suggests that the issue was not addressed in any way. The XP/SP2 firewall is strictly inbound - by design - and though one can make a fair case for a firewall in both directions, hinting that XP/SP2 doesn't do such a good job on the outbound side is really disingenuous. Steve Amen Steve . I'd really like to know why an inbound only firewall failing an outboung firewall test, is news?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." | |
|
| | 
micl
Visit Lovely Downtown Port Starboard
Premium
join:2001-10-25
Silver Spring, MD
| I remember when a firewall meant it blocked in-bound *and* outbound. If it just blocks in-bound, is it really a firewall just because someone calls it a firewall? Or is it just NAT?
--
If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the pasture | |
|
| | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: FIRST POST said by micl :I remember when a firewall meant it blocked in-bound *and* outbound. That's never been the definition: a firewall is a device which applies access policy to network traffic, and the administrator can define it in any direction as he wishes.
In 1994 I was setting up Livingston Portmaster routers with fairly extensive filtering rules, and just because I chose to employ no outbound protection doesn't mean that it wasn't a firewall.
And the XP firewall isn't do NAT anyway.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
|
| | | | 
AnonName
@kaballero.com
| Re: FIRST POST Ah, the Portmaster... I remember them well. I managed a few of them.
Great device, I liked it better than the Cisco 52xx and 53xx RAS servers but a hundred and twenty modems is just a mess of wires and cables.
Ever work with a DiGi board? I still have a couple of those around
-m-
The complements were intended not snide. I'm looking to bury the hatchet, not sharpen it.
| |
|
| 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| This makes me want to bang my head on a table. Why is it news that software not designed to do something, lo and behold, doesn't do that thing? Arrrg! Here's a newsflash: I designed a great new test suite and found out that my television fails miserably at recording to DVDs. It wasn't really designed to be a DVD recorder, you see. | |
|
| | 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Re: FIRST POST LOL. I have a toaster oven that keeps shocking the crap out of me when I try to make margaritas with it. Why won't my TOASTER OVEN make margaritas???
Next. . .
--
I'd kill for a Nobel peace prize! | |
|
mooty
join:2001-01-28
Riverdale, GA | TADDDDAAA ! FOURTH POST !  Darn ! I just missed the Bronze medal! | |
|
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | Zonealarm Free vs Pro? Why does the free version of zonealarm fail miserably in the test, but the pro version does not, even though they are reporting the same version number? | |
|
| 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: Zonealarm Free vs Pro? Profit | |
|
| | taar
join:2000-11-21 | Re: Zonealarm Free vs Pro? Time to go Pro i guess. | |
|
| 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by Matt :Why does the free version of zonealarm fail miserably in the test, but the pro version does not, even though they are reporting the same version number? The Pro version is more sophisticated and of course they charge for it. | |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Question Is this guy someone I should care about and just managed to never hear about before, or what?
Based on his webpage he doesn't exactly strike me as someone I exactly trust; starting with the fact that he fails to mention the reason XP fails all the tests and several of the tests are testing not the firewall but vulnerabilities in windows that would cause the firewall to fail but doesn't make it easy to find that fact out. I mean the guy goes to the trouble of making you view an explanation page but fails to mention the reasons why might not care if a firewall doesn't pass a particular test.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. | |
|
lemonade
join:2003-12-13
Los Angeles, CA | Jetico??? i notice Jetico seems perform best among all the candidates, anyone used it before? recommend? | |
|
| 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Jetico??? said by lemonade :i notice Jetico seems perform best among all the candidates, anyone used it before? recommend? I noticed that. Amazingly, it's a freeware product (the *only* freeware product in the Advanced Category). As to why Free fails where Pro does not (Zone Alarm), there has to be a *reason* to upgrade to Pro (unfortunately, that reason is a more secure product). | |
|
| 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | I think I will be dumping my mccaffe personal firewall plus for jetico freeware has more protection than software you pay for is just crazy | |
|
| | jdmatl
join:2000-04-27
Deerfield Beach, FL | Jetico??? I believe that freeware version jetico is the *last* free version. Jetico is releasing a shareware version. don't know the price yet. They will probably keep the freeware version and offer a more "features" version of shareware. | |
|
| 
Mordy
Comfortably Numb
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-07
join:2001-12-02
Denver, CO
·Comcast Formerly ..
| I took Jetico off my machine. The reason that it is such a tight firewall is that it stops just about every activity you do on your machine, nonstop. Look at the task manager - get it blocked. Load your mouse driver - get it blocked. Access your control panel - get it blocked. It blocked programs that were not trying to get outside of the firewall, instead of monitoring those programs for some kind of exploit. It also had this nifty problem of not remembering the decisions that it made; every time I started my computer it asked if I wanted to execute my startup programs, no matter whether I added the program to my trusted programs. It blocked my AV program from scanning my inbound email. It also corrupted my Spyware Sweeper; and instead of letting me use Bit Comet by just approving it, it blocked every single peer IP that it connected to.
Yeah, it's a hell of a firewall for people who don't really have anything they need to do with their computer. | |
|
| | 
ironweasel
Weezy
join:2000-09-13
Belen, NM
| Re: Jetico??? I tried to install Jetico after reading the results of that test because the only firewall I have is the inbound firewall on my Linksys router.
It would load long enough to block almost everything that was running, including my Avast antivirus, Nvidia display control panel, and other stuff that shouldn't have been blocked. After it blocked pretty much everything, my machine would crash.
Having Jetico is good protection, if my computer won't run, nothing can get out......
--
I let my mind wander, and it didn't come back. -Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes) | |
|
| | | timcan
join:2005-07-26
| Re: Jetico??? Using jetico with no problems.Very light on resources,anywhere from 4mb to 8mb memory. This firewall doesn't just block programs & processes without user intervention as I've read in previous posts.There is a good thread on how to configure jetico at wilders security forum.;) | |
|
| | |
Holy Cow Batman
@cox.net | I also installed it and it reaked havoc on AVG anti-virus and made the audio on shoutcast radio stations pop and crackle with some speed changes. | |
|
commodog
Premium
join:2000-02-03
Oxnard, CA | Shocking! In other news:
In a series of scientific and expensive tests:
Automobiles will not run on pepsi. In fact it failed everytime.. | |
|
watcher2
@207.67.x.x
| grow up and stop name calling To call someone a moron for making a harmless playful post is a really classless thing to do. Maybe I could understand if they had called you a nasty name or used some bad language. Sounds like the name callers still have a lot of growing up to do. They should be ashamed and apologize to the 1st poster here. Maybe they feel because they spend half their life hanging out at some internet forum they have some kind of right to thoughtlessly insult others? I would politely suggest to them to "get a life" !!! | |
|
| 
not quite right
I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person
join:2001-06-23
Puyallup, WA
| Re: grow up and stop name calling said by watcher2 :
To call someone a moron for making a harmless playful post is a really classless thing to do. Maybe I could understand if they had called you a nasty name or used some bad language. Sounds like the name callers still have a lot of growing up to do. They should be ashamed and apologize to the 1st poster here. Maybe they feel because they spend half their life hanging out at some internet forum they have some kind of right to thoughtlessly insult others? I would politely suggest to them to "get a life" !!!
If you care so much then why don't you register....TROLL! 
--
Hey...look another dead horse...let's beat it to death. | |
|
| |
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs: | no sygate? how come he didn't test sygate???
I still like it, even though they've been bought out I guess...
curious as to how it would perform | |
|
|
DrewR
@216.170.x.x | Re: no sygate? I too am disappointed they removed it. Symantec bought Sygate out and basically discontinued Sygate. I still use Sygate and love it. | |
|
CrazyMonkeyCM
@comcast.net | I see 2 missing firewalls. Sysgate and Tiny.
(I use Tiny firewall myself, low cpu usage and more options then ive seen in any firewall) | |
|
anonymus
@csolve.ne | Looking forward to it a true two-way firewall won't use up any CPU resources or slow down my network speed, I am sure of it. Lag should be a thing of the past. As long as it ships with Duke Nukem Forever. | |
|
prout
@proxad.net
| and so what ? Ok, where did you read that XP SP2 is inbound only ?
Nowhere.
And it is inbound only, yet.
So, a lot of people come very proud of their windows xp sp2 with its brand new firewall, sure they are to get safe with it.
They just don't know they are not protected at all for the outbound traffic.
And yes, firewall are supposed to be inbound and outbound. When Gibson release his leak test, nobody claimed : "and so what ? a firewall is not supposed to check the outbound traffic ?", they all fixed this issue and that's all. (except for black ice who cheated).
So this test is useful, because people who didn't know it will at least know that they need a real firewall.
Period. | |
|
|
|
|
