«

I had been using Zonealarm free but I would really like to switch to
Jetico. To understand why you might take a look at the report here;
(click the view results button);

http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php

The problem is that the Jetico setup is rather tricky to understand. I
found one running discussion here;

http://wilderssecurity.com/showthrea...6f9f47a0301ae3...

I am still struggling to figure it out. Ugh.

wrote:
> I had been using Zonealarm free but I would really like to switch to
> Jetico. To understand why you might take a look at the report here;
> (click the view results button);
>
> http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
>
> The problem is that the Jetico setup is rather tricky to understand. I
> found one running discussion here;
>
> http://wilderssecurity.com/showthrea...6f9f47a0301ae3...
>
> I am still struggling to figure it out. Ugh.
>

You could look at other options:

1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
intrusions.

2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)

3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.

optikl wrote:
> wrote:
> > I had been using Zonealarm free but I would really like to switch to
> > Jetico. [...]
> >
> > http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
> > http://wilderssecurity.com/showthrea...6f9f47a0301ae3...
> >
> > I am still struggling to figure it out. Ugh.
>
> You could look at other options:
>
> 1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
> intrusions.
>
> 2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)
>
> 3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.

Yes, thank you. Your item #2 is the driving issue. I did add a hardware
firewall -- and as a result I don't see much need for a software
firewall anymore unless it is capable of helping to associate running
processes with outbound traffic (leak detection). With that in mind my
preliminary investigation seems to indicate that my prior SW firewall
(ZoneAlarm-free) is nearly worthless at leak detection while Jetico is
one of the best for this purpose -- thus my interest.

In article < .com>,
says...
> optikl wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > I had been using Zonealarm free but I would really like to switch to
> > > Jetico. [...]
> > >
> > > http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
> > > http://wilderssecurity.com/showthrea...6f9f47a0301ae3...
> > >
> > > I am still struggling to figure it out. Ugh.
> >
> > You could look at other options:
> >
> > 1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
> > intrusions.
> >
> > 2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)
> >
> > 3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.
>
> Yes, thank you. Your item #2 is the driving issue. I did add a hardware
> firewall -- and as a result I don't see much need for a software
> firewall anymore unless it is capable of helping to associate running
> processes with outbound traffic (leak detection). With that in mind my
> preliminary investigation seems to indicate that my prior SW firewall
> (ZoneAlarm-free) is nearly worthless at leak detection while Jetico is
> one of the best for this purpose -- thus my interest.
>

There is no doubt about it, Jetico can be difficult and annoying when
you first set it up and tweak the rules and so on. There are some
tricks to help with that, for example, making some custom rules to you
can eliminate that annoying "access to network" permission every time
anything wants local network access. Probably the best source of help
is at Wilders, which I think you've already found. There are several
people there who use Jetico and have worked with it extensively. If you
have specific issues, start a new thread and ask, someone will respond
I'm sure. I have found in the past (I don't use it currently) that
Jetico does settle down once you get it configured for your system and
needs. It's just the initial work that's a little painful. But as you
say, it's outbound protection is quite good if you're concerned about
leak tests and such. And it's very light on resources as well. All in
all it's a good firewall. I helped them work out many of the bugs in
the beta stages last year. There is also apparently a version 2
currently in the works, no committment to a release date yet though.

--
Kerodo

wrote:
> optikl wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I had been using Zonealarm free but I would really like to switch to
>>> Jetico. [...]
>>>
>>> http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests_overview.php
>>> http://wilderssecurity.com/showthrea...6f9f47a0301ae3...
>>>
>>> I am still struggling to figure it out. Ugh.
>> You could look at other options:
>>
>> 1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
>> intrusions.
>>
>> 2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)
>>
>> 3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.
>
> Yes, thank you. Your item #2 is the driving issue. I did add a hardware
> firewall -- and as a result I don't see much need for a software
> firewall anymore unless it is capable of helping to associate running
> processes with outbound traffic (leak detection). With that in mind my
> preliminary investigation seems to indicate that my prior SW firewall
> (ZoneAlarm-free) is nearly worthless at leak detection while Jetico is
> one of the best for this purpose -- thus my interest.
>

Leak detection preoccupation fascinates me. Its premise is flawed.
Anyway, if you're concerned about rogue processes and programs being
added to your start up folders and creating malicious services, get a
program like Process Explorer or WinPatrol. They are far more useful
than most PFW's I've used. The only reason I even have a PFW on my
company laptop is because it's company policy to have one when I'm on
the road. At home, none of my equipment has a PFW. I rely on an
appliance, instead.

optikl wrote:
> wrote:
> > optikl wrote:
> >> 1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
> >> intrusions.
> >>
> >> 2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)
> >>
> >> 3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.
> >
> > Yes, thank you. Your item #2 is the driving issue. I did add a hardware
> > firewall -- and as a result I don't see much need for a software
> > firewall anymore unless it is capable of helping to associate running
> > processes with outbound traffic (leak detection). With that in mind my
> > preliminary investigation seems to indicate that my prior SW firewall
> > (ZoneAlarm-free) is nearly worthless at leak detection while Jetico is
> > one of the best for this purpose -- thus my interest.
> >
>
> Leak detection preoccupation fascinates me. Its premise is flawed.
> Anyway, if you're concerned about rogue processes and programs being
> added to your start up folders and creating malicious services, get a
> program like Process Explorer or WinPatrol. They are far more useful
> than most PFW's I've used. The only reason I even have a PFW on my
> company laptop is because it's company policy to have one when I'm on
> the road. At home, none of my equipment has a PFW. I rely on an
> appliance, instead.

I put the blame on Microsoft. Leak detection is like trying to patch a
sieve and software firewalls are only needed because of endless flaws
in the OS port services.

In article <. com>, galt_
says...
> optikl wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > optikl wrote:
> > >> 1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
> > >> intrusions.
> > >>
> > >> 2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)
> > >>
> > >> 3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.
> > >
> > > Yes, thank you. Your item #2 is the driving issue. I did add a hardware
> > > firewall -- and as a result I don't see much need for a software
> > > firewall anymore unless it is capable of helping to associate running
> > > processes with outbound traffic (leak detection). With that in mind my
> > > preliminary investigation seems to indicate that my prior SW firewall
> > > (ZoneAlarm-free) is nearly worthless at leak detection while Jetico is
> > > one of the best for this purpose -- thus my interest.
> > >
> >
> > Leak detection preoccupation fascinates me. Its premise is flawed.
> > Anyway, if you're concerned about rogue processes and programs being
> > added to your start up folders and creating malicious services, get a
> > program like Process Explorer or WinPatrol. They are far more useful
> > than most PFW's I've used. The only reason I even have a PFW on my
> > company laptop is because it's company policy to have one when I'm on
> > the road. At home, none of my equipment has a PFW. I rely on an
> > appliance, instead.
>
> I put the blame on Microsoft. Leak detection is like trying to patch a
> sieve and software firewalls are only needed because of endless flaws
> in the OS port services.

That doesn't make much sense.. Flaws in the OS's services is the reason
you need *inbound* protection, not outbound. Your craving for a
software firewall and outbound protection is an attempt to keep malware
and ill behaved programs in check. Some people would argue that this is
an impossible task and all software firewalls can and will be
circumvented rather easily. Others like to run the firewall anyway,
hoping that it will catch at least some of the nasties trying to dial
out. As always, it's mostly up to the user to use his/her machine
intelligently and if done then the need for software firewalls is
minimal or non-existent.

--
Kerodo

Kerodo wrote:
> In article <. com>, galt_
> says...
> > optikl wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > optikl wrote:
> > > >> 1. Hardening your operating system so that it's not susceptible to
> > > >> intrusions.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Considering an appliance (router, VPN Firewall, etc.)
> > > >>
> > > >> 3. An other PFW that would be easier to set-up and configure.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, thank you. Your item #2 is the driving issue. I did add a hardware
> > > > firewall -- and as a result I don't see much need for a software
> > > > firewall anymore unless it is capable of helping to associate running
> > > > processes with outbound traffic (leak detection). With that in mind my
> > > > preliminary investigation seems to indicate that my prior SW firewall
> > > > (ZoneAlarm-free) is nearly worthless at leak detection while Jetico is
> > > > one of the best for this purpose -- thus my interest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Leak detection preoccupation fascinates me. Its premise is flawed.
> > > Anyway, if you're concerned about rogue processes and programs being
> > > added to your start up folders and creating malicious services, get a
> > > program like Process Explorer or WinPatrol. They are far more useful
> > > than most PFW's I've used. The only reason I even have a PFW on my
> > > company laptop is because it's company policy to have one when I'm on
> > > the road. At home, none of my equipment has a PFW. I rely on an
> > > appliance, instead.
> >
> > I put the blame on Microsoft. Leak detection is like trying to patch a
> > sieve and software firewalls are only needed because of endless flaws
> > in the OS port services.
>
> That doesn't make much sense. Flaws in the OS's services is the
> reason you need *inbound* protection, not outbound.

Yes, I'm talking about two different things, and yet the OS is the
problem in both cases. Outbound data stream security is crap and
inbound port security is crap.

> Your craving for a software firewall and outbound protection is
> an attempt to keep malware and ill behaved programs in check.
> Some people would argue that this is an impossible task and
> all software firewalls can and will be circumvented rather easily.

Because the OS provides no reliable security for outbound data streams.
Yet since I have a hardware firewall outbound protection is the only
functionality I desire from a SFW.

> Others like to run the firewall anyway, hoping that it will catch
> at least some of the nasties trying to dial out.

Yes, that is the hope.

wrote:

>
> Because the OS provides no reliable security for outbound data streams.
> Yet since I have a hardware firewall outbound protection is the only
> functionality I desire from a SFW.
>
Are you absolutely certain you'd want to default security to the OS for
outbound data stream protection? Doesn't sound wise from a security
perspective to me. That's why God gave us brains.

optikl wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Because the OS provides no reliable security for outbound data streams.
> > Yet since I have a hardware firewall outbound protection is the only
> > functionality I desire from a SFW.
> >
> Are you absolutely certain you'd want to default security to the OS for
> outbound data stream protection? Doesn't sound wise from a security
> perspective to me. That's why God gave us brains.

If the OS can't maintain security then nothing can. Everything else is
just layer after layer of pathetic bandaids.