Hi there,
I am looking for an freeware replacement of Tiny Personal Firewall. I
want to restrict which program should get access to the net and set up
some rules.
Ahh yes I know there is a windows firewall, its not good enough.
Zonealarm is way to annoying...
So any recommendations?
Thanks in advance!
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
>
> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security Hole
> ASAP.
Believe me, I know what I am doing.I don't want to set up a classic
Security Frameworkwith DMZ and so on, because I don't have the
ressources and time.
I also want to prevent access to the net of malicious Software (like
Spyware and Trojans. So if I want to surf via Port 80 the Spyware would
also get trough this rule. Correct if I am wrong but how else should I
prevent it?
"Sebastian Gottschalk"
news:4ra2adFqgepdU2@mid.dfncis.de...
> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security Hole
Tiny Personal firewall is the most flexible firewall
I have seen. I use it on my computer network,
because it works the best.
> ASAP.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"Sebastian Gottschalk"
news:4rathoFq2abfU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Charles Newman wrote:
>
> > "Sebastian Gottschalk"
> > news:4ra2adFqgepdU2@mid.dfncis.de...
> >
> >> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security
Hole
> >
> > Tiny Personal firewall is the most flexible firewall
> > I have seen.
>
> It's no firewall, it's a host-based packet filter. And it's as unflexible
> as any other "personal firewall" bullshit, you usually cannot even refer
to
> TCP flags and states.
>
> > I use it on my computer network, because it works the best.
>
> Well, beside the vulnerabilities, DoS and inflexibility?
But you can do things with it that hardware
appliances have not learned yet. Can your
hardware appliance filter by application?
I can tell Tiny to allow certain connections on the
HTTP proxy, while blocking them on the Socks
proxy, quite handy in the heydey of Kazaa.
By blocking port 80, plus ports 1000-5300
on the Socks proxy, while allowing the HTTP
proxy to use port 80, I could stop Kazaa where
hardward firewalls would fail. I have two seperate
programs runnign Socks and HTTP proxies on
my network, so this is possible with Tiny. No
hardware firewall could do that, since its seperate
from the network gateway machine.
When I had networking courses in college years
ago, they did not teach about TCP "state", only
by address and port number. It was also drummed
into us from day ONE, that Bill Gates is GOD
when it comes to computing. The way I was
taught to do things is the Microsoft standard.
That is what you will get from just about any
college graduate.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> Ahh yes I know there is a windows firewall, its not good enough.
>
> Why not? Well, except for your not realizable wishes.
Just as a sidenote: http://secunia.com/advisories/22592/
The Windows Firewall can be rendered useless by malicious code.
But of course, the same is true for any other Personal Firewall.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In article <4rb17uFqiohvU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
>
>
> BTW, someone posting on the Usenet with Outlook Express wants to tell us
> something about security? :-)
>
Wasnt it the same company that developed the windows firewall that you
promote, that also developed outlook express?.
me
"Sebastian Gottschalk"
news:4rb17uFqiohvU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> BTW, someone posting on the Usenet with Outlook Express wants to tell us
> something about security? :-)
Outlook Express is what 99.9 percent of all Windows
users use to read and post news.
mfunkmann@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security
>> Hole ASAP.
>
> Believe me, I know what I am doing.I don't want to set up a classic
> Security Frameworkwith DMZ and so on, because I don't have the
> ressources and time.
>
> I also want to prevent access to the net of malicious Software (like
> Spyware and Trojans.
If you really believe that blocking outbound access for spyware or
trojan horses would give you security then you most definitely don't
know what you're doing.
> So if I want to surf via Port 80 the Spyware would also get trough
> this rule. Correct if I am wrong but how else should I prevent it?
Prevent the Spyware from getting installed/run in the first place?
- Don't use an admin account for day-to-day work.
- Use NTFS, and adjust the default filesystem permissions (regular users
do NOT need to create files/folders either in %ProgramFiles% or
%SystemDrive%\).
- Use Software Restriction Policies.
- Keep your operating system and each software you're using up-to-date.
- Use AV software and update it regularly (preferrably on a daily
basis).
- Avoid Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) like the plague. Use
Mozilla, Opera, Firefox/Thunderbird or other browsers/mail clients
instead.
- Don't install software you don't trust.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Charles Newman
> "Sebastian Gottschalk"
>> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security
>> Hole
>
> Tiny Personal firewall is the most flexible firewall I have seen. I
> use it on my computer network, because it works the best.
Yeah, right. Last time I checked (version 6.0.140) Tiny didn't filter
ANY traffic AT ALL in the default configuration. Plus, it had at least
one interactive service running with SYSTEM privileges, thus making it
susceptible for shatter attacks. Not to mention that it installed a
boatload of drivers and services:
Registry-keys created: 1694
Registry-values created: 2283
Directories created: 32
Files created: 382
Drivers installed: 8
Services installed: 5
Of all personal firewalls I have tested Tiny is the one I'd LEAST
recommend.
cu
59cobalt
--
"Personal Firewalls are crap. Throw away any personal firewall. Personal
Firewalls are bad[tm]."
--Malte von dem Hagen on security-basics
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In article <4rc3shFqc33lU1@mid.individual.net>, usenet-2006
@planetcobalt.net says...
> mfunkmann@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security
> >> Hole ASAP.
> >
> > Believe me, I know what I am doing.I don't want to set up a classic
> > Security Frameworkwith DMZ and so on, because I don't have the
> > ressources and time.
> >
> > I also want to prevent access to the net of malicious Software (like
> > Spyware and Trojans.
>
> If you really believe that blocking outbound access for spyware or
> trojan horses would give you security then you most definitely don't
> know what you're doing.
>
> > So if I want to surf via Port 80 the Spyware would also get trough
> > this rule. Correct if I am wrong but how else should I prevent it?
>
> Prevent the Spyware from getting installed/run in the first place?
>
> - Don't use an admin account for day-to-day work.
> - Use NTFS, and adjust the default filesystem permissions (regular users
> do NOT need to create files/folders either in %ProgramFiles% or
> %SystemDrive%\).
> - Use Software Restriction Policies.
> - Keep your operating system and each software you're using up-to-date.
> - Use AV software and update it regularly (preferrably on a daily
> basis).
> - Avoid Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) like the plague. Use
> Mozilla, Opera, Firefox/Thunderbird or other browsers/mail clients
> instead.
> - Don't install software you don't trust.
>
> cu
> 59cobalt
>
If you believe in your ability/advice of not letting malware getting
installed in the first place ,why do you advise the use of up to date AV
software?
me
Im quite surprised by the total lack of any USEFUL information from
people who obviously think they are experts.
@ Sebastian Gottschalk - Security isnt about total protection, its abot
risk MANAGEMENT, and yeah while personal software firewalls arent the
best you can get theres times when its just not practical to use
anything else but them, and something is better than nothing.
On Nov 9, 6:56 am, bassbag
> In article <4rc3shFqc33...@mid.individual.net>, usenet-2006
> @planetcobalt.net says...
>
> > mfunkm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> Rethink your security concept. And get rid of Tiny Personal Security
> > >> Hole ASAP.
>
> > > Believe me, I know what I am doing.I don't want to set up a classic
> > > Security Frameworkwith DMZ and so on, because I don't have the
> > > ressources and time.
>
> > > I also want to prevent access to the net of malicious Software (like
> > > Spyware and Trojans.
>
> > If you really believe that blocking outbound access for spyware or
> > trojan horses would give you security then you most definitely don't
> > know what you're doing.
>
> > > So if I want to surf via Port 80 the Spyware would also get trough
> > > this rule. Correct if I am wrong but how else should I prevent it?
>
> > Prevent the Spyware from getting installed/run in the first place?
>
> > - Don't use an admin account for day-to-day work.
> > - Use NTFS, and adjust the default filesystem permissions (regular users
> > do NOT need to create files/folders either in %ProgramFiles% or
> > %SystemDrive%\).
> > - Use Software Restriction Policies.
> > - Keep your operating system and each software you're using up-to-date.
> > - Use AV software and update it regularly (preferrably on a daily
> > basis).
> > - Avoid Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) like the plague. Use
> > Mozilla, Opera, Firefox/Thunderbird or other browsers/mail clients
> > instead.
> > - Don't install software you don't trust.
>
> > cu
> > 59cobaltIf you believe in your ability/advice of not letting malware getting
> installed in the first place ,why do you advise the use of up to date AV
> software?
> me
ajspowart@gmail.com wrote:
> Im quite surprised by the total lack of any USEFUL information from
> people who obviously think they are experts.
I OTOH am not surprised at all by the total lack of understanding from
people who obviously are anything but experts.
> @ Sebastian Gottschalk - Security isnt about total protection, its
> abot risk MANAGEMENT,
Security is about assessing and MITIGATING risks in a RELIABLE manner.
Which is exactly where personal firewalls fail.
> and yeah while personal software firewalls arent the best you can get
> theres times when its just not practical to use anything else but
> them, and something is better than nothing.
Wrong.
cu
59cobalt
--
"Personal Firewalls are crap. Throw away any personal firewall. Personal
Firewalls are bad[tm]."
--Malte von dem Hagen on security-basics
On 11 Nov 2006 15:58:59 -0800, ajspowart@gmail.com wrote:
>Im quite surprised by the total lack of any USEFUL information from
>people who obviously think they are experts.
[snip]
Allow me to quote Mr Leythos:
'I wonder why the group trolls don't build a response that clearly
tells people how to secure their entire computer system without the
use of third-party tools...... Oh, wait, I already know, it's because
you can't secure a computer against all that people are exposed too,
and nothing they rant about really helps the nontechnical user because
they don't ever tell the user how to do anything - they just rant
about how third-party solutions are bad, windows firewall good,
grunt.'
'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
spend real time helping real people.'
Geo
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
In article <4rods2Fs7tuuU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
> GEO wrote:
>
> > On 11 Nov 2006 15:58:59 -0800, ajspowart@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Im quite surprised by the total lack of any USEFUL information from
> >>people who obviously think they are experts.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Allow me to quote Mr Leythos:
>
> LOL, quoting the troll himself...
>
> > 'I wonder why the group trolls don't build a response that clearly
> > tells people how to secure their entire computer system without the
> > use of third-party tools...... Oh, wait, I already know, it's because
> > you can't secure a computer against all that people are exposed too,
> > and nothing they rant about really helps the nontechnical user because
> > they don't ever tell the user how to do anything - they just rant
> > about how third-party solutions are bad, windows firewall good,
> > grunt.'
> >
> > 'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
> > posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
> > appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
> > spend real time helping real people.'
>
> Well, this FAQ already exists for de.comp.security.firewalls. I wonder why
> Leythos doesn't etablish such a thing here. Oh, wait, maybe because he's
> the group's #1 troll.
>
Ive always found leythos advice to be quite curteous ,practical and
helpful.Quite the opposite of yours, actually Mr Gottschalk.;)
me
"GEO" wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2006 15:58:59 -0800, ajspowart@gmail.com wrote:
>> Im quite surprised by the total lack of any USEFUL information from
>> people who obviously think they are experts.
> [snip]
>
> Allow me to quote Mr Leythos:
>
> 'I wonder why the group trolls don't build a response that clearly
> tells people how to secure their entire computer system without the
> use of third-party tools...... Oh, wait, I already know, it's because
> you can't secure a computer against all that people are exposed too,
> and nothing they rant about really helps the nontechnical user because
> they don't ever tell the user how to do anything - they just rant
> about how third-party solutions are bad, windows firewall good,
> grunt.'
>
> 'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
> posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
> appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
> spend real time helping real people.'
*yawn*
Quoting Leythos still doesn't make him right.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"GEO" wrote:
> Allow me to quote Mr Leythos:
Citating a k00k for what's worth.
> 'I wonder why the group trolls don't build a response that clearly
> tells people how to secure their entire computer system without the
> use of third-party tools......
If you know how to use a usenet archive, then you'll find such
explanation in this group. Not from the trolls, and, of course, not from
the k00k "Leythos".
> 'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
> posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
> appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
> spend real time helping real people.'
Maybe you want to maintain the FAQ then, "GEO", right?
Yours,
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On 12 Nov 2006 12:05:37 GMT, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
>> Allow me to quote Mr Leythos:
>>
>> 'I wonder why the group trolls don't build a response that clearly
>> tells people how to secure their entire computer system without the
>> use of third-party tools...... Oh, wait, I already know, it's because
>> you can't secure a computer against all that people are exposed too,
>> and nothing they rant about really helps the nontechnical user because
>> they don't ever tell the user how to do anything - they just rant
>> about how third-party solutions are bad, windows firewall good,
>> grunt.'
>>
>> 'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
>> posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
>> appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
>> spend real time helping real people.'
>Quoting Leythos still doesn't make him right.
Could you kindly indicate what it is in the above that you disagree
with, otherwise your reply is quite meaningless.
Geo
On 12 Nov 2006 16:45:18 +0200, Volker Birk
>If you know how to use a usenet archive, then you'll find such
>explanation in this group. Not from the trolls, and, of course, not from
>the k00k "Leythos".
>> 'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
>> posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
>> appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
>> spend real time helping real people.'
I don't make claims of being 'the' expert, you do. I have lurked
this group long enough to have seen plenty of examples of your
useless, arrogant, and sometimes incomprehensible, one line replies to
consider you one of the regular trolls of this group. Another one
would be Sebastian, who seems to have copied your writing style to
make it look as if knows what he is writing about.
>Maybe you want to maintain the FAQ then, "GEO", right?
Let me quote your own words:
'I offered tips for protection here many times already. Maybe you
want to read my postings in this group.
Maybe it's time for a FAQ.'
Geo
"GEO" wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2006 12:05:37 GMT, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
>>> Allow me to quote Mr Leythos:
>>>
>>> 'I wonder why the group trolls don't build a response that clearly
>>> tells people how to secure their entire computer system without the
>>> use of third-party tools...... Oh, wait, I already know, it's because
>>> you can't secure a computer against all that people are exposed too,
>>> and nothing they rant about really helps the nontechnical user because
>>> they don't ever tell the user how to do anything - they just rant
>>> about how third-party solutions are bad, windows firewall good,
>>> grunt.'
>>>
>>> 'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
>>> posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
>>> appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
>>> spend real time helping real people.'
>>
>> Quoting Leythos still doesn't make him right.
>
> Could you kindly indicate what it is in the above that you disagree
> with, otherwise your reply is quite meaningless.
I disagree with all of it. Leythos is just making a great deal of
unsubstantiated assertions to try and force his opponents onto the
defensive. Nice rhetorics, but nothing more. If he thinks this group is
in dire need of a regularly posted FAQ why doesn't he do it himself
instead of demanding it from others? I for one prefer to address
individual problems individually. Like I have done within this thread,
e.g. in MID:<4rc3shFqc33lU1@mid.individual.net>.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"GEO" wrote:
> I don't make claims of being 'the' expert, you do. I have lurked
> this group long enough to have seen plenty of examples of your
> useless, arrogant, and sometimes incomprehensible, one line replies to
> consider you one of the regular trolls of this group.
I better don't tell here, what I'm considering you to be.
> >Maybe you want to maintain the FAQ then, "GEO", right?
> Let me quote your own words:
> 'I offered tips for protection here many times already. Maybe you
> want to read my postings in this group.
> Maybe it's time for a FAQ.'
Nice. Then I'm expecting your FAQ, "GEO".
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper
On 13 Nov 2006 05:54:44 +0200, Volker Birk
>> Let me quote your own words:
>> 'I offered tips for protection here many times already. Maybe you
>> want to read my postings in this group.
>> Maybe it's time for a FAQ.'
>
>Nice. Then I'm expecting your FAQ, "GEO".
It's obvious that you have some comprehension problems. It was you
the one that said that one was needed. Also you the one to claim
expert status. Instead of more silly one liners, how about writing it?
Geo
"GEO" wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 05:54:44 +0200, Volker Birk
> >> Let me quote your own words:
> >> 'I offered tips for protection here many times already. Maybe you
> >> want to read my postings in this group.
> >> Maybe it's time for a FAQ.'
> >Nice. Then I'm expecting your FAQ, "GEO".
> It's obvious that you have some comprehension problems.
And it's quite obvious, that you have some quoting problems.
> Also you the one to claim
> expert status.
Well, just tell me where I wrote something like that. What I'm
offering, are just some facts and my own conclusions out of them. If
that makes me an "expert", well, then maybe you're right, then I am.
My profession is software development (as I stated already), not
security. Security is a hobby, which is related to my private fun with
the CCC, the Chaos Computer Club, which I like very much. But a blind
man already can see the design flaws of the common "Personal Firewalls",
and that it's a b0rken concept to let this person decide and so become
responsible for protection, who should be protected. This is so obvious,
that I'm beginning to doubt that I'm not talking to an idiot or a fool
here.
> Instead of more silly one liners, how about writing it?
Instead of more nonsense discussion, why not trying yourself what I
offered here as a proof, for example leak tests, which f*ck up all
"outbound control" of all "Personal Firewalls" including "Zone Alarm
Pro"? Even a person of Comodo admited here, that their product is
leaking.
Are you trying to lie and ignore that like the "Leythos" k00k here now?
Yours,
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper
The reason I even bothered to look in here was because I was interested
in what was the "best" personal firewall so I could install it on my
laptop, sure I could walk around with a hardware firewall along with my
laptop but WTF!
The context here is that the guy asking the question obviously also
wants to know whats the "best" personal firewall, to which one would
think people would be able to come up with constructive comments like
"If possible avoid personal firewalls, but when you have no other
option I recommend...", not a religious rants on how shit they are as
an option.
On Nov 12, 2:56 pm, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> ajspow...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Im quite surprised by the total lack of any USEFUL information from
> > people who obviously think they are experts.I OTOH am not surprised at all by the total lack of understanding from
> people who obviously are anything but experts.
>
> > @ Sebastian Gottschalk - Security isnt about total protection, its
> > abot risk MANAGEMENT,Security is about assessing and MITIGATING risks in a RELIABLE manner.
> Which is exactly where personal firewalls fail.
>
> > and yeah while personal software firewalls arent the best you can get
> > theres times when its just not practical to use anything else but
> > them, and something is better than nothing.Wrong.
>
> cu
> 59cobalt
> --
> "Personal Firewalls are crap. Throw away any personal firewall. Personal
> Firewalls are bad[tm]."
> --Malte von dem Hagen on security-basics
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On 13 Nov 2006 19:59:28 +0200, Volker Birk
>> >> Let me quote your own words:
>> >> 'I offered tips for protection here many times already. Maybe you
>> >> want to read my postings in this group.
>> >> Maybe it's time for a FAQ.'
>> It's obvious that you have some comprehension problems.
>And it's quite obvious, that you have some quoting problems.
Quoting problems? You don't seem to understand plain English. You
did not seem to agree with my quoting Leythos saying that there is
need for a FAQ:
'If they put half as much energy into building a FAQ that could be
posted every month, they might actually be helping people, but they
appear to be to stuck on how important they think they are than to
spend real time helping real people.'
You only offered the silly reply:
'If you know how to use a usenet archive, then you'll find such
explanation in this group.'
'Maybe you want to maintain the FAQ then, "GEO", right?'
To which I quoted yourself saying the same:
' Maybe it's time for a FAQ.'
Your replies go further and further away from the topics of the
thread. How about if instead of insults you do reply to the point. If
you think that a FAQ is needed and security is your hobby, why don't
you write it. But you are saying that a FAQ is needed, and also that
it is not needed, that people should just use a search engine of some
sort.
Since I have said nothing whatsoever about personal firewalls, I
don't see where you last comments fit on with what I have said. Just
because you have disagreements on the topic with Leythos have nothing
to do with the need (or not) for a FAQ.
Geo
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"GEO" wrote:
> Quoting problems?
Yes. And this is getting boring. *PLONK*
VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:34:37 GMT, Leythos
>LOL, I told you VB would KF you if you mentioned my name to many times.
>He head is to big to allow anyone that doesn't pay homage to him in his
>view at the same time :)
Well, you were right.
Whatever technical knowledge he might have, he does not seems to
display much intelligence when trying to answer a simple question.
When I told him that he has the bad habit of replying with
one-liners, he replied with a one-liner. Later when I mentioned that
he had called himself an expert he denied it, but followed by saying
that well, yes, he was one. When presented with the evidence that he
was contradicting himself he refused to answer.
Geo