Free software firewalls I have never heard of before

Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I was looking for an alternative freeware firewall (I don't like
ZA, Sygate is nice but I get problems with it, Kerio 2.1.5 is too
technical for me, and Outpost is too hard to work out)

I thought I had tried all the free firewalls but then I came
across this web page:
<http://www.klitetools.com/index.php?action=news&catid=47>

I have never heard of products like these:

R-Firewall 1.0 Build 53
Look n Stop Lite 1.04
Securepoint Personal Firewall 3.7.1
WyvernWorks Firewall 5.2
Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5
SoftPerfect Personal Firewall 1.4.1
Jetico Personal Firewall 1.0.1.61

Are they fully functioning full-strength firewalls? Many look as
if they are only just out of beta if the version number is
anything to go by.

But others seems to have a mature version number and I have never
heard of them.

What do people know about these?

Frank


--

[sorry guys if it offends but x-posting seems appropriate this
time]
51 answers Last reply
More about free software firewalls heard before
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    I've tried most freeware firewalls and I get very good results with NetVeda
    Safety.Net

    Had problems with sp2 and securepoint
    wasn't satisfied with r-firewall and jetico
    had good results with wyvern

    hope it helps


    "Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:96CA5D2A7EB2071F3M4@204.153.244.156...
    >I was looking for an alternative freeware firewall (I don't like
    > ZA, Sygate is nice but I get problems with it, Kerio 2.1.5 is too
    > technical for me, and Outpost is too hard to work out)
    >
    > I thought I had tried all the free firewalls but then I came
    > across this web page:
    > <http://www.klitetools.com/index.php?action=news&catid=47>
    >
    > I have never heard of products like these:
    >
    > R-Firewall 1.0 Build 53
    > Look n Stop Lite 1.04
    > Securepoint Personal Firewall 3.7.1
    > WyvernWorks Firewall 5.2
    > Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5
    > SoftPerfect Personal Firewall 1.4.1
    > Jetico Personal Firewall 1.0.1.61
    >
    > Are they fully functioning full-strength firewalls? Many look as
    > if they are only just out of beta if the version number is
    > anything to go by.
    >
    > But others seems to have a mature version number and I have never
    > heard of them.
    >
    > What do people know about these?
    >
    > Frank
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > [sorry guys if it offends but x-posting seems appropriate this
    > time]
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    El Gee wrote:

    > 1) Jetico was not good (but I cannot remember why though) I stuck with
    > Sygate 2) Did not like Wyvern Works either. So far FOR ME, Sygate has
    > been the best.

    maybe but it has been bought out by norton. So no matter how good it was in
    the past(It was my preference also) it may not remain a viable solution.

    I have been looking at jetico for quite some time and done allot or reading
    on it over at wildersecurity. It seems to be an excellent firewall but it
    is also more advanced so you will need to actually think to use it. If you
    want something easy and brain dead simple but not as featurefull you should
    look elsewere. I have not used it personally though.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in news:96CA5D2A7EB2071F3M4@
    204.153.244.156:

    > I was looking for an alternative freeware firewall (I don't like
    > ZA, Sygate is nice but I get problems with it, Kerio 2.1.5 is too
    > technical for me, and Outpost is too hard to work out)
    >
    > I thought I had tried all the free firewalls but then I came
    > across this web page:
    > <http://www.klitetools.com/index.php?action=news&catid=47>
    >
    > I have never heard of products like these:
    >
    > R-Firewall 1.0 Build 53
    > Look n Stop Lite 1.04
    > Securepoint Personal Firewall 3.7.1
    > WyvernWorks Firewall 5.2
    > Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5
    > SoftPerfect Personal Firewall 1.4.1
    > Jetico Personal Firewall 1.0.1.61
    >
    > Are they fully functioning full-strength firewalls? Many look as
    > if they are only just out of beta if the version number is
    > anything to go by.
    >
    > But others seems to have a mature version number and I have never
    > heard of them.
    >
    > What do people know about these?
    >
    > Frank


    I don't know about the others but Look n Stop (the full version)
    regularly takes turns with Outpost as the number 1 firewall in
    independent reviews. (Look n Stop isn't very well known, though.)

    See, for instance:

    www.firewallleaktester.com (that's 3 L's in a row!)

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

    In comp.security.firewalls Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:
    > I was looking for an alternative freeware firewall (I don't like
    > ZA, Sygate is nice but I get problems with it, Kerio 2.1.5 is too
    > technical for me, and Outpost is too hard to work out)

    You're searching an host based packet filter? Why not using the
    Windows-Firewall?

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
    deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
    Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On 07 Sep 2005 14:06:23 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

    > Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in news:96CA5D2A7EB2071F3M4@
    > 204.153.244.156:
    >
    >> I was looking for an alternative freeware firewall (I don't like
    >> ZA, Sygate is nice but I get problems with it, Kerio 2.1.5 is too
    >> technical for me, and Outpost is too hard to work out)
    >>
    >> I thought I had tried all the free firewalls but then I came
    >> across this web page:
    >> <http://www.klitetools.com/index.php?action=news&catid=47>
    >>
    >> I have never heard of products like these:
    >>
    >> R-Firewall 1.0 Build 53
    >> Look n Stop Lite 1.04
    >> Securepoint Personal Firewall 3.7.1
    >> WyvernWorks Firewall 5.2
    >> Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5
    >> SoftPerfect Personal Firewall 1.4.1
    >> Jetico Personal Firewall 1.0.1.61
    >>
    >> Are they fully functioning full-strength firewalls? Many look as
    >> if they are only just out of beta if the version number is
    >> anything to go by.
    >>
    >> But others seems to have a mature version number and I have never
    >> heard of them.
    >>
    >> What do people know about these?
    >>
    >> Frank
    >
    >
    > I don't know about the others but Look n Stop (the full version)
    > regularly takes turns with Outpost as the number 1 firewall in
    > independent reviews. (Look n Stop isn't very well known, though.)
    >
    > See, for instance:
    >
    > www.firewallleaktester.com (that's 3 L's in a row!)

    Look n Stop is not freeware.
    --
    Jim
    Tyneside UK
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In comp.security.firewalls nemo_outis <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
    > I don't know about the others but Look n Stop (the full version)
    > regularly takes turns with Outpost as the number 1 firewall in
    > independent reviews. (Look n Stop isn't very well known, though.)

    Outpost is vulnerable to the SelfDoS attack.

    It opens Popups with texts, which most users don't understand and
    misinterpret.

    Outpost cannot prevent spyware from sending your personal information
    across the Internet; it failed in our tests together with the rest of the
    "Personal Firewalls".

    Outpost does not make a PC "invisible" or "stealth" in the Internet, as
    this is not possible at all.

    Outpost "Personal Firewall" installs SYSTEM-Services, which open
    windows.

    This is a gross error, because this breaches security. Agnitum show here,
    that they never read Microsoft's design guidlines for system services:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dllproc/base/interactive_services.asp%23security_considerations_for_interactive_services

    For a software, which should enhance security, this design flaw means the
    declaration of bankruptcy.

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
    deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
    Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Jim Scott <mr.jimscott@Xvirgin.net> wrote in news:3fh249zylmt$.dlg@ID-
    104726.news.individual.net:

    > On 07 Sep 2005 14:06:23 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
    >> I don't know about the others but Look n Stop (the full version)
    >> regularly takes turns with Outpost as the number 1 firewall in
    >> independent reviews. (Look n Stop isn't very well known, though.)
    >>
    >> See, for instance:
    >>
    >> www.firewallleaktester.com (that's 3 L's in a row!)


    > Look n Stop is not freeware.


    You're undoubtedly correct - I tend to gloss over such distinctions; the
    concept of paying for software does not loom large in my mind :-)

    Regards,
  8. Archived from groups: alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    >On 08 Sep 2005 02:33:51 GMT, "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
    >
    >the concept of paying for software does not loom large in my mind :-)
    >
    Maybe in the future you would consider not cross-posting to a group
    where such a concept is off-topic.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    * Mel <MJ@nospam.com>:
    >>On 08 Sep 2005 02:33:51 GMT, "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>the concept of paying for software does not loom large in my mind :-)
    >>
    > Maybe in the future you would consider not cross-posting to a group
    > where such a concept is off-topic.
    >

    What concept would that be? Not paying for software? I haven't paid for
    software for years yet I'm totally legal so dont get all high and mighty
    thinking we're talking warez.

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

    > R-Firewall 1.0 Build 53
    > Look n Stop Lite 1.04
    > Securepoint Personal Firewall 3.7.1
    > WyvernWorks Firewall 5.2
    > Filseclab Personal Firewall 2.5
    > SoftPerfect Personal Firewall 1.4.1
    > Jetico Personal Firewall 1.0.1.61

    Hmm you forgot the CHX-I packet filter (www.idrci.net)
    although it's not exactly a "personal firewall" nor a "toy
    firewall" but just a regular rule-based stateful packet filter
    w/o application control (all in all the job of a packet filter
    is controlling network traffic, not applications, the latter
    are a job for anti spy/mal-ware or antivirus s/w); as a
    note the CHX-I packet filter (and the NAT as well) are
    free for personal, non commercial use

    Regards

    --

    * ObiWan

    DNS "fail-safe" for Windows 2000 and 9X clients.
    http://www.ntcanuck.com

    Support and discussions forums/groups
    http://forums.ntcanuck.com
    news://news.ntcanuck.com

    408 XP/2000 tweaks and tips
    http://www.ntcanuck.com/tq/Tip_Quarry.htm
  11. Archived from groups: alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Go with kerio..lot's of options and very tech intuitive.
    The free version doesnt disable the protection measures needed for a
    home system.

    It may take a bit of time to learn the features, but it's worth it. It
    is the most robust out of the free firewalls that I have tried.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    >From: "Brett Michaels From Poison"

    >Go with kerio..lot's of options and very tech intuitive.

    "Kerio Personal Firewall will be discontinued as of December 31, 2005.
    It will not be available for purchase after this date. Subscriptions
    will not be renewed. Technical support will be provided to all
    customers with valid subscriptions until the end of 2006."

    Quote taken from Kerio Forum:
    http://forums.kerio.com/index.php?t=msg&th=7040&start=0&S=87a76357fa565eb8998b4e93472fa6fb

    Rgds,

    Yourhighness
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    If it's not for sale and discontinued then it's no crime to use a crack
    with it. ;)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "Yourhighness" <betzjohannes@yahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1126341101.223155.198110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

    >>From: "Brett Michaels From Poison"
    >
    >>Go with kerio..lot's of options and very tech intuitive.
    >
    > "Kerio Personal Firewall will be discontinued as of December 31, 2005.
    > It will not be available for purchase after this date. Subscriptions
    > will not be renewed. Technical support will be provided to all
    > customers with valid subscriptions until the end of 2006."
    >
    > Quote taken from Kerio Forum:
    > http://forums.kerio.com/index.php?t=msg&th=7040&start=0&S=87a76357fa565
    > eb8998b4e93472fa6fb
    >
    > Rgds,
    >
    > Yourhighness
    >

    I am starting to really this one,..

    http://www.snapfiles.com/get/netvadanet.html

    NetVeda Safety.Net is an application firewall that offers inbound and
    outbound protection, as well as filtering, parental controls and email
    safety to protect you from hackers, worms, Trojans and intruders. It uses
    multi layer deep packet stateful inspection and enables you to configure
    which applications and components are trusted to access the network or
    Internet. In addition, some advanced firewall settings enable you to
    customize rules for enhanced security. The firewall features are basic,
    but application control and content filtering are easy to use and offer
    good features that let you restrict access to web sites, remove content
    from emails and browser requests, disarm email attachments and more. In
    addition, NetVeda Safety.Net offers detailed reports about application
    and network activity and allows you to apply rules to network computer
    that use your machine as Internet gateway.
    ...

    It seems to be doing the job and very pleasing to my habits.

    I am running it with Goldtach-FW on a w2k56kdialup..and chugging along
    rather swiftly..


    gw
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Well, since it's free for personal use then I guess it doesn't matter
    anyway.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On 10 Sep 2005 04:01:35 -0700, "Fred" <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com>
    typed furiously:

    >If it's not for sale and discontinued then it's no crime to use a crack
    >with it. ;)

    It is still a copyright work and it would be illegal to do as you
    suggest.
    --
    David
    Remove "farook" to reply
    At the bottom of the application where it says
    "sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Yourhighness wrote:
    >
    > >From: "Brett Michaels From Poison"
    >
    > >Go with kerio..lot's of options and very tech intuitive.
    >
    > "Kerio Personal Firewall will be discontinued as of December 31, 2005.
    > It will not be available for purchase after this date. Subscriptions
    > will not be renewed. Technical support will be provided to all
    > customers with valid subscriptions until the end of 2006."
    >
    > Quote taken from Kerio Forum:
    > http://forums.kerio.com/index.php?t=msg&th=7040&start=0&S=87a76357fa565eb8998b4e93472fa6fb

    Correction...

    According to Kerio's web site, the cutoff date is September 30, 2005.

    Notan
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Fred wrote:
    >
    > Well, since it's free for personal use then I guess it doesn't matter
    > anyway.

    There's a free version and a pay version.

    Unless Kerio decides to change the pay version, it's stealing, no matter
    how you rationalize.

    Notan
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Global Warming wrote:
    > "Yourhighness" <betzjohannes@yahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:1126341101.223155.198110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >
    > I am starting to really this one,..
    >
    > http://www.snapfiles.com/get/netvadanet.html
    >
    > NetVeda Safety.Net is an application firewall that offers inbound and
    > outbound protection, as well as filtering, parental controls and email
    []
    > It seems to be doing the job and very pleasing to my habits.
    >
    > I am running it with Goldtach-FW on a w2k56kdialup..and chugging along
    > rather swiftly..

    not tried it yet, but it's a 6.2M download. Then again Kerio PF is 7M these
    days!
    No wonder they changed the name from Tiny Personal Firewall (that was <400k)
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Thu 08 Sep 2005 03:33:51, nemo_outis wrote:
    <news:Xns96CAD1355E333abcxyzcom@204.153.244.170>

    >>> I don't know about the others but Look n Stop (the full
    >>> version) regularly takes turns with Outpost as the number 1
    >>> firewall in independent reviews. (Look n Stop isn't very
    >>> well known, though.)
    >>>
    >>> See, for instance:
    >>>
    >>> www.firewallleaktester.com (that's 3 L's in a row!)
    >
    >
    >> Look n Stop is not freeware.
    >
    >
    > You're undoubtedly correct - I tend to gloss over such
    > distinctions; the concept of paying for software does not loom
    > large in my mind :-)
    >
    > Regards,

    I had asked in the first line of my OP for "freeware". Grrr! :-)
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in news:96CE7EC718E7471F3M4@
    204.153.244.156:


    > I had asked in the first line of my OP for "freeware". Grrr! :-)

    There is a free "lite" version of Look N Stop on Snapfiles.com. Though as an
    older version you may not be interested.

    Ibn
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Sun 11 Sep 2005 08:20:41, Fred wrote:
    <news:1126423241.133463.72070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

    >
    > Well, since it's free for personal use then I guess it doesn't
    > matter anyway.

    I thought the cognoscenti used the much older Kerio 2.1.5 which is
    freeware.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:36:50 -0500, Global Warming
    <griverwatch@myrealbox.com> wrote:

    >I am starting to really this one,..
    >
    >http://www.snapfiles.com/get/netvadanet.html

    Just tried it, and it didn't alert when I started IE, nor when
    I did a av update. It only seems to block certain apps. So
    I chucked it. I'm sticking with Sygate :)

    Art

    http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Oh man. you're breakin my heart.
    Well i guess i'll always have rock n roll at least
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Brett Michaels From Poison wrote:
    >
    > Oh man. you're breakin my heart.
    > Well i guess i'll always have rock n roll at least

    It kinda pisses me off, as I just purchased Personal Firewall in August.

    Notan
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Sorry, but you can't steal what isn't for sale. ;)
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Not the same thing -- my car was never for sale in the first place, and
    then removed from the market for no reason.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Fred wrote:
    >
    > Sorry, but you can't steal what isn't for sale. ;)

    OK, Fred. You come out of your house and find your car missing.

    According to your logic, you can't report it stolen, because
    it wasn't for sale.

    Did I miss something?

    Notan
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Fred wrote:
    >
    > Not the same thing -- my car was never for sale in the first place, and
    > then removed from the market for no reason.

    If you're gonna make a stupid remarks, I'll play along...

    1) Your car's for sale and, for no reason, you decide not to sell it.
    According to you, someone has the right to steal it. Is that correct?

    2) How do you know Kerio removed it from the market for no reason.

    Mind you, at this time, I'm not real happy with Query. I paid full
    price for Personal Firewall, in August, only to find out they're
    discontinuing the product in September.

    Notan
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Notan wrote:
    >
    > Fred wrote:
    > >
    > > Not the same thing -- my car was never for sale in the first place, and
    > > then removed from the market for no reason.
    >
    > If you're gonna make a stupid remarks, I'll play along...
    >
    > 1) Your car's for sale and, for no reason, you decide not to sell it.
    > According to you, someone has the right to steal it. Is that correct?
    >
    > 2) How do you know Kerio removed it from the market for no reason.
    >
    > Mind you, at this time, I'm not real happy with Query. I paid full
    > price for Personal Firewall, in August, only to find out they're
    > discontinuing the product in September.

    Ooops! That was "... not real happy with Kerio."

    Notan
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    >On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 07:23:44 -0600, Notan wrote:
    >
    >Fred wrote:
    >>
    >> Sorry, but you can't steal what isn't for sale. ;)
    >
    >OK, Fred. You come out of your house and find your car missing.
    >
    >According to your logic, you can't report it stolen, because
    >it wasn't for sale.
    >
    >Did I miss something?
    >
    >Notan
    >
    LOL!
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    For (1) a car is a tangible item but software isn't, so that's the diff.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Fred wrote:
    >
    > For (1) a car is a tangible item but software isn't, so that's the diff.

    Software isn't tangible, huh?

    Then how do you explain all the software CDs that I own?

    Notan
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <1126944929.176194.176060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Fred <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com> wrote:
    :For (1) a car is a tangible item but software isn't, so that's the diff.

    You posted several days into the conversation and you left out
    all context. Please recall that readers may not be using threaded
    newsreaders, and that their server may have expired the article
    you were replying to (or might not happened to have received the
    article at all.)


    The missing context was a discussion about whether it was acceptable
    to take items that were "not for sale". Some people had made the
    distinction about items that had been withdrawn from sale as being
    fair game. The posting to which you were replying was saying,
    approximately "Okay, so suppose you had put your car on sale and
    then withdrew it from sale: does that make it okay to steal your car?"

    In your reply, by virtue of qualifying phrases that you did -not-
    put in, you have removed the layer of distinction about whether the
    item had ever been offered for sale, and have implied that it is
    always acceptable to steal anything that is intangible. Or to
    phrase it in the more common fashion, "How can it be stealing if
    you still have the original?"
    --
    Ceci, ce n'est pas une idée.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Software is not a car, which makes it okay. If you can't see that,
    then that's your loss. End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see
    I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <1127006252.614031.175630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Fred <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com> wrote:
    :Software is not a car, which makes it okay.

    Which makes *what* okay? We need context or specific subjects
    or verbs for referential pronouns such as "it"!

    Be explicit. Are you saying that it is your belief that it is
    acceptable to steal software, on the grounds that software is not
    a car?

    If you are saying that that is your belief, then are we to
    understand that it is your belief that it is acceptable to steal
    everything other than cars? Diamonds, fine wine, baby elephants?
    How about SUVs -- they aren't cars? And interestingly, PT Cruisers
    aren't cars either: apparently they have a wheelbase 1/2" wider than
    the maximum allowed for a car, specifically so that they would be
    classified as light trucks and so not have to abide by the gas economy
    regulations that apply to cars.

    You used the word "intangible" in a previous posting. Are you
    indicating that it is your belief that it is acceptable to steal
    anything intangible? Software, music files, DVD contents, patents,
    trade secrets? Electricity? Is it okay to "cut and run" on bills from
    mechanics, tailors, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, landscapers? As long
    as you pay them for any raw materials, it's okay to stiff them for the
    "intangible" use of their knowledge, skills, and labour?


    :End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see
    :I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).

    You aren't hitting your head against a brick wall: we're just asking
    you to explain what you mean. We aren't asking you to justify your
    position: we don't understand as yet what your position *is*.

    --
    "I want to make sure [a user] can't get through ... an online
    experience without hitting a Microsoft ad"
    -- Steve Ballmer [Microsoft Chief Executive]
  37. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In comp.security.firewalls Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
    > Then how do you explain all the software CDs that I own?

    "Hardware".

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
    deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
    Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Notan wrote:
    > Fred wrote:
    >
    >>For (1) a car is a tangible item but software isn't, so that's the diff.
    >
    >
    > Software isn't tangible, huh?
    >
    > Then how do you explain all the software CDs that I own?
    >
    > Notan

    You read those licenses? You don't own anything.

    Winged
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Winged wrote:
    >
    > Notan wrote:
    > > Fred wrote:
    > >
    > >>For (1) a car is a tangible item but software isn't, so that's the diff.
    > >
    > >
    > > Software isn't tangible, huh?
    > >
    > > Then how do you explain all the software CDs that I own?
    > >
    > > Notan
    >
    > You read those licenses? You don't own anything.

    I'm aware that the consumer doesn't "own" the software,
    he/she merely purchases the right to use it.

    Notan
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On 17 Sep 2005 18:17:32 -0700, "Fred" <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com>
    typed furiously:

    >Software is not a car, which makes it okay. If you can't see that,
    >then that's your loss. End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see
    >I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).

    It is still illegal to steal it. Sounds to me like your head is the
    brick wall.
    --
    David
    Remove "farook" to reply
    At the bottom of the application where it says
    "sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    David <farookdas@picknowl.com.au> wrote in
    news:9o8qi1p5et6jfaimtr7l57tnllonsnqdcp@4ax.com:

    > On 17 Sep 2005 18:17:32 -0700, "Fred" <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com>
    > typed furiously:
    >
    >>Software is not a car, which makes it okay. If you can't see that,
    >>then that's your loss. End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see
    >>I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).
    >
    > It is still illegal to steal it. Sounds to me like your head is the
    > brick wall.


    Although I'm sure you're enjoying your moral posturing immensely, you might
    want to pause, however briefly, to try something that is obviously
    unfamiliar to you: thinking.

    We are not discussing theft but rather infringement of intellectual
    property laws, such as copyright and licences. Different history,
    different laws, and different political, social, and economic issues.

    Sorry to have interrupted you - feel free to climb back on your high horse.

    Regards,
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    > David <farookdas@picknowl.com.au> wrote in
    > news:9o8qi1p5et6jfaimtr7l57tnllonsnqdcp@4ax.com:
    >
    > > On 17 Sep 2005 18:17:32 -0700, "Fred" <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com>
    > > typed furiously:
    > >
    > >>Software is not a car, which makes it okay. If you can't see that,
    > >>then that's your loss. End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see
    > >>I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).
    > >
    > > It is still illegal to steal it. Sounds to me like your head is the
    > > brick wall.
    >
    > Although I'm sure you're enjoying your moral posturing immensely, you might
    > want to pause, however briefly, to try something that is obviously
    > unfamiliar to you: thinking.
    >
    > We are not discussing theft but rather infringement of intellectual
    > property laws, such as copyright and licences. Different history,
    > different laws, and different political, social, and economic issues.
    >
    > Sorry to have interrupted you - feel free to climb back on your high horse.

    Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers on
    the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no cost.

    Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.

    Notan
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote in news:432D825C.F4F7AE78@ddress.com:


    > Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers
    > on the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no
    > cost.
    >
    > Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.
    >
    > Notan


    Feel free to bury your head as deeply in the sand as you wish, while
    jamming your fingers in your ears, and humming loudly. While that will
    prevent you hearing uncomfortable truths, it will not change their nature.
    No amount of your disdain for clear thought and careful distinctions
    detracts from those important things but rather, to the contrary, it
    indicts you as either a sloppy thinker or one unwilling to think at all.

    So, no, it isn't stealing. While I agree it is unlawful in many
    jurisdictions, it is an activity of a considerably different character.

    Regards,

    PS To fill the lacuna (or should that be chasm?) in your knowledge you
    might want to start your investigations of intellectual property with the
    history of the scriveners' guild - or even further back with the abbot's
    psalter.

    But you needn't go to all that trouble. The nice thing about your approach
    of moralistic ranting is that there needn't be any foundation of knowledge
    or understanding to support it. Very convenient for the intellectually
    lazy or inept.



    ,
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    > Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote in news:432D825C.F4F7AE78@ddress.com:
    >
    >
    > > Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers
    > > on the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no
    > > cost.
    > >
    > > Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.
    > >
    > > Notan
    >
    > Feel free to bury your head as deeply in the sand as you wish, while
    > jamming your fingers in your ears, and humming loudly. While that will
    > prevent you hearing uncomfortable truths, it will not change their nature.
    > No amount of your disdain for clear thought and careful distinctions
    > detracts from those important things but rather, to the contrary, it
    > indicts you as either a sloppy thinker or one unwilling to think at all.
    >
    > So, no, it isn't stealing. While I agree it is unlawful in many
    > jurisdictions, it is an activity of a considerably different character.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > PS To fill the lacuna (or should that be chasm?) in your knowledge you
    > might want to start your investigations of intellectual property with the
    > history of the scriveners' guild - or even further back with the abbot's
    > psalter.
    >
    > But you needn't go to all that trouble. The nice thing about your approach
    > of moralistic ranting is that there needn't be any foundation of knowledge
    > or understanding to support it. Very convenient for the intellectually
    > lazy or inept.

    I've read some of your previous posts and, you're correct. There's no point
    in discussing this topic, any further.

    If you haven't, already, you really should consider politics as a profession.

    NOtan
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote in news:432D8A55.C8BCD03C@ddress.com:

    ....snip...
    > I've read some of your previous posts and, you're correct. There's no
    > point in discussing this topic, any further.
    >
    > If you haven't, already, you really should consider politics as a
    > profession.
    >
    > NOtan


    Professions that a person of your intellectual calibre should consider
    include doorstop, paperweight, and boat anchor.

    Regards,
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On 18 Sep 2005 14:55:32 GMT, "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> typed
    furiously:

    >David <farookdas@picknowl.com.au> wrote in
    >news:9o8qi1p5et6jfaimtr7l57tnllonsnqdcp@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On 17 Sep 2005 18:17:32 -0700, "Fred" <fred_whitaker@hotmail.com>
    >> typed furiously:
    >>
    >>>Software is not a car, which makes it okay. If you can't see that,
    >>>then that's your loss. End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see
    >>>I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).
    >>
    >> It is still illegal to steal it. Sounds to me like your head is the
    >> brick wall.
    >
    >
    >Although I'm sure you're enjoying your moral posturing immensely, you might
    >want to pause, however briefly, to try something that is obviously
    >unfamiliar to you: thinking.
    >
    >We are not discussing theft but rather infringement of intellectual
    >property laws, such as copyright and licences. Different history,
    >different laws, and different political, social, and economic issues.
    >
    >Sorry to have interrupted you - feel free to climb back on your high horse.
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
    Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.
    --
    David
    Remove "farook" to reply
    At the bottom of the application where it says
    "sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    David wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
    > Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.

    Don't let him upset you.

    Daddy obviously got his money's worth, sending nemo to a school which
    put a high priority on the value of multisyllabic doublespeak.

    Nemo's no more honest than Freddy... He just has a larger vocabulary.

    Notan
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    David <farookdas@picknowl.com.au> wrote in
    news:oajri1drm6steqofs3cno6q13qrg864ls4@4ax.com:


    > Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
    > Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.


    Oh dear, I should charge for having to teach. Especially such a
    recalcitrant and unpromising pupil.

    No, m'boy, it is not theft. "Intellectual property," to use the term
    much in vogue, is an analogy, not an accurate description. It is
    tendentious to the point of begging the question to call it property even
    when it is preceded by the qualifier "intellectual." However, the ploy
    clearly works very well to deceive the weak-minded, like you!

    Copyright, trade marks, patents, and related matters actually share very
    little in common with what has been historically meant by property. And,
    corrspondingly, the term "theft" is a very poor one for infringements
    regarding such matters (although, once again, the attempt to deceive the
    weak-minded has apparently been quite successful.)

    You, like so many mouthbreathers, have been misled by someone pre-empting
    and promoting a biased terminology in lieu of making an argument.

    Theft is more precisely called "larceny" in most (common-law)
    jurisdictions and, simplifying somewhat, it is characterized by the
    taking away of moveable property depriving the owner of it. For
    instance, you cannot commit "theft" (larceny) of what is historically and
    economically the most important kind of property: real property (e.g.,
    land). And then there is "conversion" as opposed to, or as an element
    of, larceny, and on and on...

    Moreover (and, once again, qualifications are required that there may be
    differences between jurisdictions) there is no larceny if the property is
    taken away under a claim of right - and here's the kicker! - even if that
    claim is not well-founded!

    Moreover (although statute law may say differently in some jurisdictions)
    an infringement of copyright is generally a tortious act, not a criminal
    one. (In contradistinction, the acts constituting "theft" usually result
    in both a civil and a criminal wrong.)

    I could go on - I have only scratched the surface - but I already fear I
    may be responsible for making your head burst from too much information
    entering at once into that dusty disused attic.

    Regards,

    PS As just one concrete illustration, patents are fundamentally a
    *privilege* granted by the state primarily to secure the common weal by
    encouraging the invention and subsequent production of useful things.
    Their primary purpose is public benefit, not individual enrichment.
    That, at least, is the prevalent legal theory. For instance, in many
    countries, patents may carry obligations as well as rights, such as the
    obligation to either manufacture or grant licences to others to
    manufacture.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.freeware,alt.computer.security,comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <Xns96D5B0C10F303abcxyzcom@204.153.244.170>,
    nemo_outis <abc@xyz.com> wrote:

    >Theft is more precisely called "larceny" in most (common-law)
    >jurisdictions and, simplifying somewhat, it is characterized by the
    >taking away of moveable property depriving the owner of it. For
    >instance, you cannot commit "theft" (larceny) of what is historically and
    >economically the most important kind of property: real property (e.g.,
    >land). And then there is "conversion" as opposed to, or as an element
    >of, larceny, and on and on...

    Nice theory, but it doesn't hold true.

    - Canada's Criminal Code does not contain even a single reference
    to "larceny".
    - Canada's Criminal Code defines several offences as "theft" that
    do not involve moveable property, including (for example),
    "theft of telecommunications".
    - Using someone else's credit card number without permission is widely
    recognized as "theft" even though it does not involve "movable
    property".

    >Moreover (and, once again, qualifications are required that there may be
    >differences between jurisdictions) there is no larceny if the property is
    >taken away under a claim of right - and here's the kicker! - even if that
    >claim is not well-founded!

    The term in Canada is "colour of right", and it holds only through
    due process, or when a baliff or law enforcement official has been
    givn good reason to believe that the deprivation of property is
    within the official's duty. For eample, if a police officer is told
    by a superior officer to seize something, then the seizing officer
    is not liable if it turns out that the superior officer did not
    have adequate justification. But if a police officer steps up to
    you and says, "Nice watch. Give it to me!" for personal gain,
    then the officer is -not- operating under colour of right.


    >Moreover (although statute law may say differently in some jurisdictions)
    >an infringement of copyright is generally a tortious act, not a criminal
    >one. (In contradistinction, the acts constituting "theft" usually result
    >in both a civil and a criminal wrong.)

    Both Canada and the USA have penalties for copyright violation
    that include potential jail time. In the USA, the potential jail time
    exceeds 2 years, making the offence a "felony". Canada does not
    use the concept of "felony".


    >PS As just one concrete illustration, patents are fundamentally a
    >*privilege* granted by the state primarily to secure the common weal by
    >encouraging the invention and subsequent production of useful things.
    >Their primary purpose is public benefit, not individual enrichment.

    Yes? And does that somehow imply that it is impossible to steal the
    benefits of the privilege so granted?
    --
    The rule of thumb for speed is:

    1. If it doesn't work then speed doesn't matter. -- Christian Bau
Ask a new question

Read More

Firewalls Freeware Security Software Networking