Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Free software firewalls I have never heard of before

Last response: in Networking
Share
September 7, 2005 1:09:30 PM

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=4...;

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]
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 7, 2005 1:26:28 PM

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=4...;
>
> 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]
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 7, 2005 1:26:29 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 7, 2005 6:06:23 PM

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=4...;
>
> 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,
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 7, 2005 6:21:16 PM

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"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 7, 2005 6:24:32 PM

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=4...;
>>
>> 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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 7, 2005 8:28:33 PM

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....

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"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 8, 2005 6:33:51 AM

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,
September 8, 2005 7:41:42 AM

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.
September 8, 2005 10:37:23 AM

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
September 8, 2005 2:33:09 PM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 9, 2005 12:54:10 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 10, 2005 5:31:41 AM

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...

Rgds,

Yourhighness
September 10, 2005 8:01:35 AM

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. ;) 
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 10, 2005 7:36:50 PM

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...
> 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
September 11, 2005 4:20:41 AM

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.
September 11, 2005 5:22:29 AM

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"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 11, 2005 12:19:56 PM

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...

Correction...

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

Notan
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 11, 2005 12:21:56 PM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 11, 2005 1:05:04 PM

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)
September 11, 2005 4:27:45 PM

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! :-)
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 11, 2005 4:27:46 PM

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
September 11, 2005 4:28:50 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 11, 2005 11:49:49 PM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 12, 2005 9:23:40 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 12, 2005 12:19:25 PM

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
September 13, 2005 8:12:10 AM

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. ;) 
September 13, 2005 10:50:15 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 13, 2005 11:23:44 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 13, 2005 11:59:17 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 13, 2005 4:41:35 PM

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
September 13, 2005 5:56:51 PM

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!
September 17, 2005 5:15:29 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 17, 2005 11:35:17 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 17, 2005 9:30:38 PM

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.
September 17, 2005 10:17:32 PM

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).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 18, 2005 9:14:13 AM

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]
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 18, 2005 2:23:43 PM

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"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 18, 2005 3:13:13 PM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 18, 2005 3:13:14 PM

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
September 19, 2005 3:32:41 AM

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"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 3:32:42 AM

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,
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 3:32:43 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 3:32:44 AM

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.



,
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 3:32:45 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 3:32:46 AM

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,
September 19, 2005 9:57:38 AM

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"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 9:57:39 AM

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
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 9:57:39 AM

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

David <farookdas@picknowl.com.au> wrote in
news:o ajri1drm6steqofs3cno6q13qrg864ls4@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.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
September 19, 2005 9:57:40 AM

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
!