LooknStop

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

LooknStop doesn't seem to get many mentions here.

http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm

I've been playing with it for two days and am very impressed. Very
small file size (about 600kb), massively configurable, application
filtering so passes all leak tests, uses hardly any resources.

This might be the app that finally tempts me away from AtGuard where
ZA, ZAP, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate and a few others have not.

I have yet to fault it, hence this post...

Anyone here got any criticisms of it?

 

[user]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

jo wrote:

> LooknStop doesn't seem to get many mentions here.
>
> http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm
>
> I've been playing with it for two days and am very impressed. Very
> small file size (about 600kb), massively configurable, application
> filtering so passes all leak tests, uses hardly any resources.
>
> This might be the app that finally tempts me away from AtGuard where
> ZA, ZAP, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate and a few others have not.
>
> I have yet to fault it, hence this post...
>
> Anyone here got any criticisms of it?

Yes... Once you "look" at it, you "stop" taking it seriously.

I used LNS for awhile. Ran into bugs here and there, none of which I
remember verbatim (it's been over a year, sorry). And I hated the
interface (some really strange wording in the rules dialogs), but that's
a personal thing.

The main thing I disliked about LNS was that the "application filtering"
feature had a strict upper limit as to the number of entries there can
be (that being 80). Well, I have lots of applications, so I complained
to the author, who verified the limit, and told me (get this) to delete
some applications to make room for more.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>This might be the app that finally tempts me away from AtGuard where
>ZA, ZAP, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate and a few others have not.

There is no replacement for AtGuard.

I have never used Look 'n' Stop, and the reason I have never used it is that
people whose opinions I respect told me to avoid it. I forget all the reasons,
and third hand information isn't always reliable, but there it is. When I am
finally forced to abandon AtGuard (probably with the next W2K Service Pack), I
will probably turn to Kerio 2.1.5 (not the newer versions).
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"jo" <kisei@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:1088115366.15122.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
> LooknStop doesn't seem to get many mentions here.
>
> http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm
>
> I've been playing with it for two days and am very impressed. Very
> small file size (about 600kb), massively configurable, application
> filtering so passes all leak tests, uses hardly any resources.
>
> This might be the app that finally tempts me away from AtGuard where
> ZA, ZAP, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate and a few others have not.
>
> I have yet to fault it, hence this post...
>
> Anyone here got any criticisms of it?

Yeah- try PCaudit2

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

harry wong wrote:

>> Anyone here got any criticisms of it?
>
>Yeah- try PCaudit2

Thx.

LnS allows PCaudit2 if another app has already been allowed to launch
an app to connect to the internet. In this case, Explorer (if I launch
from a shortcut giving full permissions) or the hot key launcher that
works with this laptop's idea of what constitutes a keyboard.

It is easy enough to pass the PCaudit2 test, but it would be nice not
to have to...

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

· wrote:

>jo wrote:
>
>> LooknStop doesn't seem to get many mentions here.
>>
>> http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm
>>
>> I've been playing with it for two days and am very impressed. Very
>> small file size (about 600kb), massively configurable, application
>> filtering so passes all leak tests, uses hardly any resources.
>>
>> This might be the app that finally tempts me away from AtGuard where
>> ZA, ZAP, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate and a few others have not.
>>
>> I have yet to fault it, hence this post...
>>
>> Anyone here got any criticisms of it?
>
>Yes... Once you "look" at it, you "stop" taking it seriously.

Not yet...

>I used LNS for awhile. Ran into bugs here and there, none of which I
>remember verbatim (it's been over a year, sorry). And I hated the
>interface (some really strange wording in the rules dialogs), but that's
>a personal thing.

Bugs? So far the only one that pisses me off is that a new rule only
really seem to 'take' after a LnS close/relaunch. I like the
interface, which is comforting to a dim button pusher like me.

>The main thing I disliked about LNS was that the "application filtering"
>feature had a strict upper limit as to the number of entries there can
>be (that being 80). Well, I have lots of applications, so I complained
>to the author, who verified the limit, and told me (get this) to delete
>some applications to make room for more.

I doubt I would ever want 80 apps with online permissions, but would
certainly get a trifle aggrieved at being patronised by a software
writer

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Crash" Dummy wrote:

>There is no replacement for AtGuard.

It is very nice; it even defaults to disallowing WinME to boot, which
has to be a bonus.

>I have never used Look 'n' Stop, and the reason I have never used it is that
>people whose opinions I respect told me to avoid it. I forget all the reasons,
>and third hand information isn't always reliable, but there it is.

OK. I dare you to go and get and install a firewall of 600kb or so
that uses less resources than @G and is as configurable and uses less
resources and handles outgoing traffic better.. You get 30 days before
deciding to buy or steal it.

>When I am
>finally forced to abandon AtGuard (probably with the next W2K Service Pack), I
>will probably turn to Kerio 2.1.5 (not the newer versions).

Sygate is better for @G oldbies than Kerio.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>OK. I dare you to go and get and install a firewall of 600kb or so
>that uses less resources than @G and is as configurable and uses less
>resources and handles outgoing traffic better.. You get 30 days before
>deciding to buy or steal it.

If your mind is made up, why bother to ask? As I said, I am just passing along
some very old hearsay. For the time being, I am still using AtGuard and not in
the market for a replacement.
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Jo,

I don't know if you want to play online but LNS have many problems to play
online games.



"jo" <kisei@lineone.net> schreef in bericht
news:1088204370.16409.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> · wrote:
>
> >jo wrote:
> >
> >> LooknStop doesn't seem to get many mentions here.
> >>
> >> http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm
> >>
> >> I've been playing with it for two days and am very impressed. Very
> >> small file size (about 600kb), massively configurable, application
> >> filtering so passes all leak tests, uses hardly any resources.
> >>
> >> This might be the app that finally tempts me away from AtGuard where
> >> ZA, ZAP, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate and a few others have not.
> >>
> >> I have yet to fault it, hence this post...
> >>
> >> Anyone here got any criticisms of it?
> >
> >Yes... Once you "look" at it, you "stop" taking it seriously.
>
> Not yet...
>
> >I used LNS for awhile. Ran into bugs here and there, none of which I
> >remember verbatim (it's been over a year, sorry). And I hated the
> >interface (some really strange wording in the rules dialogs), but that's
> >a personal thing.
>
> Bugs? So far the only one that pisses me off is that a new rule only
> really seem to 'take' after a LnS close/relaunch. I like the
> interface, which is comforting to a dim button pusher like me.
>
> >The main thing I disliked about LNS was that the "application filtering"
> >feature had a strict upper limit as to the number of entries there can
> >be (that being 80). Well, I have lots of applications, so I complained
> >to the author, who verified the limit, and told me (get this) to delete
> >some applications to make room for more.
>
> I doubt I would ever want 80 apps with online permissions, but would
> certainly get a trifle aggrieved at being patronised by a software
> writer
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

My apologies to Look'n'Stop. That is not the application that carried the bad
memories. It was an application called Lockdown 2000. Sorry.
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>Sygate is better for @G oldbies than Kerio.

I downloaded SPF to evaluate it. I am managing to fumble my way through the
rules, but there is one option I cannot find, if it is there. I would like to be
able to enable or disable logging in the Traffic Log by rule. That is, one rule
would get logged when appropriate and another would not. For example, I have an
advanced rule to allow all LAN traffic, but I don't want the traffic logged. Is
there a way to do this?
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Huisbaas wrote:

>I don't know if you want to play online but LNS have many problems to play
>online games.

The only time I play online is on telnet which LNS seems happy with;
but I have not checked this

Getting ntp access was interesting. :-(

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Crash" Dummy wrote:

>My apologies to Look'n'Stop. That is not the application that carried the bad
>memories. It was an application called Lockdown 2000. Sorry

I remember bad tales of Lockdown2000 here (and everywhere else) five
years or so ago.

 

[Jo]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Crash" Dummy wrote:

>>Sygate is better for @G oldbies than Kerio.
>
>I downloaded SPF to evaluate it. I am managing to fumble my way through the
>rules, but there is one option I cannot find, if it is there. I would like to be
>able to enable or disable logging in the Traffic Log by rule. That is, one rule
>would get logged when appropriate and another would not. For example, I have an
>advanced rule to allow all LAN traffic, but I don't want the traffic logged. Is
>there a way to do this?

I don't know, sorry. I've used spf enough to know I much prefer it to
kerio and to my mind it has more AtGuard qualites than kerio, but I
don't know much about it. You need to ask in a new thread since it
seems no one is reading this one.

I've found another problem with LNS which will probably send me back
to AtGuard... I can see no way at the moment to allow an app to do
everything, but stop it phoning home.

It is probably time for me to start looking for a lightweight
application filter to use alongside @G

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>I don't know, sorry. I've used spf enough to know I much prefer it to
>kerio and to my mind it has more AtGuard qualites than kerio, but I
>don't know much about it. You need to ask in a new thread since it
>seems no one is reading this one.

I did, and the answer is apparently no.
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"\"Crash\" Dummy" <dvader@deathstar.mil> wrote in message news:<10dr4du7lddv679@corp.supernews.com>...
> >Sygate is better for @G oldbies than Kerio.
>
> I downloaded SPF to evaluate it. I am managing to fumble my way through the
> rules, but there is one option I cannot find, if it is there. I would like to be
> able to enable or disable logging in the Traffic Log by rule. That is, one rule
> would get logged when appropriate and another would not. For example, I have an
> advanced rule to allow all LAN traffic, but I don't want the traffic logged. Is
> there a way to do this?

yes you can do this. In the general tab under Advanced Rule Settings,
there is a check box labeled: Record this traffic in "Packet Log"
if you uncheck it, it doesnt log...

SysAdm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>yes you can do this. In the general tab under Advanced Rule Settings,
>there is a check box labeled: Record this traffic in "Packet Log"
>if you uncheck it, it doesnt log...

That's not what I had in mind. That is a global option that effects all rules,
and it is not the traffic log. I would like to enable/disable the traffic log on
a per rule basis.
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com