firewall without all the bloat
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Microsoft Office Live Beta
Next: Avira AntiVir
From: Bear Bottoms on 31 Aug 2006 17:52 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 05:04:28 -0500, Sauron <Sauron(a)dontfeed.me> wrote: > Bear Bottoms schreef: >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:19:52 -0500, Sauron <Sauron(a)dontfeed.me> wrote: >> and that test would be where? >> --I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com > > Sorry forgot to mention : shields up common port test,also have to > mention that mcafee, kaspersky, jettico and so on have the same result > there. > > I ran those tests and got complete stealth...I think you may have other secrutity issues that may not have anything to do with a firewall? -- I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
From: Al Smith on 31 Aug 2006 17:52 >>I think you have to understand the sentiments of the subscribers to acf in >>> matters of "bundled software", *and* you have to be willing to acknowledge >>> these sentiments... at least, if you are interested in distributing your >>> programs as freeware and get (much like Grisoft) free advertizing for your >>> company! Also the fact thst you don't disclose the extra program needed >>> (the Launchpad) on the web site isn't in your advantage, it reminds a lot >>> of people of bundled spyware. Melih, being open about the program, sharing >>> the source, would be in your advantage; the way you act now isn't. As admin >>> of two domains you should be able to understand that! >>> >>> The way you act now, and did in the past, makes that there is, and will >>> remain, a shadow of suspicion on your programs, how well written and good >>> they may be. >>> >>> > > If you had followed the discussions in the forum of Comodo for just a > very, very, very, very little bit, you should know that in the nex > release Launchpad is not running anymore, but the choice is to the user. > This next release is planned for today, so maybe it's already out. > I have twenty years of experience with security, and I wish eveery > company would listen to its users the way Comodo does. > I don't mind if you have critics on Comodo, but what you say is > outdated. > By the way: I don't get paid by Comodo, I just think their firewall is > state-of-the-art. Just as I think their Antivirus is not yet ready for > everyday use. > > Peter I've been running Comodo for a few weeks, and I just uninstalled it. I've been getting a little hourglass popping up on my cursor from time to time. At first I thought it was the AOL Antivirus, but when I uninstalled that, the hourglass was still there. It's gone now. It must have been caused by Comodo and Launch Pad. Too bad, I liked Comodo. But Sygate seems very good, also.
From: Bear Bottoms on 31 Aug 2006 17:55 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:58:34 -0500, Allan Higdon <alhigdon(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:12:45 -0500, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:08:18 -0500, Allan Higdon >> <alhigdon(a)mailinator.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:18:45 -0500, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)cox.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Ashampoo...it's the best right now. http://bearbottoms1.com >>>> >>> >>> I tried it out myself. >>> When I used the ShieldsUp site (Common Ports), the ports were mostly >>> Closed, with a few actually Open. >>> No Stealth at all. >>> A post from "Justme" on 8/24 mentioned the same result. >>> >>> >>> >> >> I just ran the shields up and leak test again and am completely stealth. >> Leak test 1.x failed. >> I'm not sure what you are talking about and now am suspect. >> > > Here's what I'm talking about. > The following is the results from selecting the "Text Summary" button > after the Common Ports test: > > > GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2006-08-31 at 19:43:05 > > Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113, > 119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445, > 1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000 > > 2 Ports Open > 24 Ports Closed > 0 Ports Stealth > --------------------- > 26 Ports Tested > > NO PORTS were found to be STEALTH. > > Ports found to be OPEN were: 135, 445 > > Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > TruStealth: FAILED - NOT all tested ports were STEALTH, > - NO unsolicited packets were received, > - A PING REPLY (ICMP Echo) WAS RECEIVED. > > > > I would like Ashampoo to work correctly, as I do like the GUI. > > I think you have other security issues beyond a firewall. I tested completely stealth and am using Ashampoo. But I have taken many other security steps with my computer to insure everything is closed as best as possible. -- I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
From: Allan Higdon on 31 Aug 2006 18:12 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:55:15 -0500, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > > I think you have other security issues beyond a firewall. I tested > completely stealth and am using Ashampoo. But I have taken many other > security steps with my computer to insure everything is closed as best > as possible. > I have also taken other security steps, such as disabling many of the unnecessary services, according to BlackViper's site. As a comparison, I exited from Ashampoo and restarted Windows XP firewall. Here's the "Text Summary" for it: GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2006-08-31 at 20:41:12 Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113, 119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445, 1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000 0 Ports Open 0 Ports Closed 26 Ports Stealth --------------------- 26 Ports Tested ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH. TruStealth: PASSED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH, - NO unsolicited packets were received, - NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received. Apparently, this firewall works fine, as does Sygate. -- "Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." ~ Flannery O'Connor "The moral rot of political correctness runs deep today in both national parties." ~ Patrick J. Buchanan
From: In_Parentheses on 31 Aug 2006 18:39
Goeroeboeroe <zwitser1-remove-al-this(a)xs4all.nl> wrote in news:MPG.1f61776b746d8c979896f9(a)newszilla.xs4all.nl: > In article <Xns9830A9A2FF9A6QED(a)85.31.186.76>, quoder(a)demonstrand.um > says... >> "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote in >> news:1157052659.815132.308290(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> > >> > John Fitzsimons wrote: >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:51:44 -0500, "Bear Bottoms" >> >> <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> < snip > >> >> >> >> >I posted a link, but here it is again: >> >> >http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/05/12/security_aadgdfdddh_ah/ >> >> >> >> >The question is: does comodo include bundled software that does >> >> >something other than what a firewall does? It seems they do. >> >> >Some may think it harmless. I don't want any bundles and who >> >> >knows what it really does. >> >> >> >> Exactly. IF the "LaunchPad" is as "innocent" as suggested then >> >> Comodo would respond to people's complaints and remove it. Their >> >> not wanting to suggests that there may be something going on that >> >> isn't being disclosed. >> >> >> >> Regards, John. >> > >> > John >> > >> > I do not know what your motives are, but on many occassions I have >> > made it clear that we asked our users about what they want to do >> > with Launchpad here >> > http://forums.comodo.com/index.php/topic,201.0.html >> > >> > and we will carry out whatever they decide! as simple as that! >> > >> > Your negative insinuations, without any factual basis, about our >> > product is not appreciated. If you got proof about something make >> > it public! Otherwise pls be reasonable and don't spread FUD! >> > >> > Melih >> > >> > >> >> Melih, >> >> Following the accusations back-and-forth now for quite some time >> here, I wonder whether you haven't come up with the idea to make the >> complete source of that Launchpad available for the programmers here >> to look at? >> >> The mere fact that you (Comodo) insist of bundling the Launchpad with >> any of your products, without offering the possibility of letting the >> enduser decide whether or not this by-product should be installed is, >> to say the least, suspicious. And please don't tell us that the >> Launchpad "is fully integrated" into the functionality of your >> products, that type of BS has been tried before in the past by a >> company much bigger than yours... and they lost! >> >> I think you have to understand the sentiments of the subscribers to >> acf in matters of "bundled software", *and* you have to be willing to >> acknowledge these sentiments... at least, if you are interested in >> distributing your programs as freeware and get (much like Grisoft) >> free advertizing for your company! Also the fact thst you don't >> disclose the extra program needed (the Launchpad) on the web site >> isn't in your advantage, it reminds a lot of people of bundled >> spyware. Melih, being open about the program, sharing the source, >> would be in your advantage; the way you act now isn't. As admin of >> two domains you should be able to understand that! >> >> The way you act now, and did in the past, makes that there is, and >> will remain, a shadow of suspicion on your programs, how well written >> and good they may be. >> >> > If you had followed the discussions in the forum of Comodo for just a > very, very, very, very little bit, you should know that in the nex > release Launchpad is not running anymore, but the choice is to the > user. This next release is planned for today, so maybe it's already > out. I have twenty years of experience with security, and I wish > eveery company would listen to its users the way Comodo does. > I don't mind if you have critics on Comodo, but what you say is > outdated. > By the way: I don't get paid by Comodo, I just think their firewall is > state-of-the-art. Just as I think their Antivirus is not yet ready for > everyday use. > > Peter > Hi Peter, No I haven't; if I have to run to every forum to see the result of each discussion here, then I would have little time left to actually read the posts here! Reason enough for me not to do so. BTW: I was replying to Melih, he seems a man very well capable of writing his own defense, if you don't mind me saying so. "Outdated" eh, well, Melih's reply was just like his replies in the past, and in that context my reply to him wasn't "outdated" at all, but perhaps you read something in it, I didn't put in there? Your BTW: If you don't live in Manchester (UK), I believe you ;-D -- Jay (IP) |