Whats' with Cli.exe?

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I am trying to learn more about this application. Google doesn't help much.
It seems to be part of CCC but I want to know why it is always asking to
connect to internet. I have blocked it with ZoneAlarm but it still shows it
is listening on ports 1027,1040 and 1049.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Its an ATI driver component...

http://www.auditmypc.com/process/cli.asp

"Jimmy" <JimmyCliff@xemaps.com> wrote in message
news:OJudnVR00podZpnfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> I am trying to learn more about this application. Google doesn't help
much.
> It seems to be part of CCC but I want to know why it is always asking to
> connect to internet. I have blocked it with ZoneAlarm but it still shows
it
> is listening on ports 1027,1040 and 1049.
>
> J.
>
>

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Blaedmon wrote:
> Its an ATI driver component...
>
> http://www.auditmypc.com/process/cli.asp
>
> "Jimmy" <JimmyCliff@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:OJudnVR00podZpnfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>> I am trying to learn more about this application. Google doesn't
>> help much. It seems to be part of CCC but I want to know why it is
>> always asking to connect to internet. I have blocked it with
>> ZoneAlarm but it still shows it is listening on ports 1027,1040 and
>> 1049.
>>
>> J.

It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I wonder
what it is listening to and reporting home about?

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Jimmy wrote:
> It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I
> wonder what it is listening to and reporting home about?


What addresses does it look at?

If its 127.0.0.1 it looking at a server on your machine. It's quite
possible that the CCC has a server/client architecture and accesses some
information over "the internet", but in fact it's just doing an internal
loopback in your machine and the information never even touches your network
device.

If you were me, you'd give up on the CCC and get "ye olde skool" Control
Panel drivers, they're smaller, faster and come without cli.exe.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Ben Pope wrote:
> Jimmy wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I
>> wonder what it is listening to and reporting home about?
>
>
> What addresses does it look at?
>
> If its 127.0.0.1 it looking at a server on your machine. It's quite
> possible that the CCC has a server/client architecture and accesses
> some information over "the internet", but in fact it's just doing an
> internal loopback in your machine and the information never even
> touches your network device.
>
> If you were me, you'd give up on the CCC and get "ye olde skool"
> Control Panel drivers, they're smaller, faster and come without
> cli.exe.
> Ben

I have been reading of many that are not using CCC so I guess I will do the
same and remove it. I was curious about this new application and why it was
acting like it is.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Jimmy wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>> Jimmy wrote:
>>> It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I
>>> wonder what it is listening to and reporting home about?
>>
>>
>> What addresses does it look at?
>>
>> If its 127.0.0.1 it looking at a server on your machine. It's quite
>> possible that the CCC has a server/client architecture and accesses
>> some information over "the internet", but in fact it's just doing an
>> internal loopback in your machine and the information never even
>> touches your network device.
>>
>> If you were me, you'd give up on the CCC and get "ye olde skool"
>> Control Panel drivers, they're smaller, faster and come without
>> cli.exe.
>> Ben
>
> I have been reading of many that are not using CCC so I guess I will
> do the same and remove it. I was curious about this new application
> and why it was acting like it is.

..NET (which the CCC is built on), makes it easy to use web based
technologies to transfer data, I suspect that they have done that and this
is why your firewall is telling you it's trying to access the net.

If you set your firewall up so that anything with a source address of
127.0.0.1 can access anything with a destination address of 127.0.0.1, then
it probably won't complain any more. The security implications are
minimal - if there is a process running on your machine then it doesn't need
to access the local machine via IP to do nasty things. It's probably more
secure than saying "yes, always" to a program when it accesses 127.0.0.1 and
then having it access external addresses later.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Ben Pope wrote:
> Jimmy wrote:
>> Ben Pope wrote:
>>> Jimmy wrote:
>>>> It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I
>>>> wonder what it is listening to and reporting home about?
>>>
>>>
>>> What addresses does it look at?
>>>
>>> If its 127.0.0.1 it looking at a server on your machine. It's quite
>>> possible that the CCC has a server/client architecture and accesses
>>> some information over "the internet", but in fact it's just doing an
>>> internal loopback in your machine and the information never even
>>> touches your network device.
>>>
>>> If you were me, you'd give up on the CCC and get "ye olde skool"
>>> Control Panel drivers, they're smaller, faster and come without
>>> cli.exe.
>>> Ben
>>
>> I have been reading of many that are not using CCC so I guess I will
>> do the same and remove it. I was curious about this new application
>> and why it was acting like it is.
>
> .NET (which the CCC is built on), makes it easy to use web based
> technologies to transfer data, I suspect that they have done that and
> this is why your firewall is telling you it's trying to access the
> net.
> If you set your firewall up so that anything with a source address of
> 127.0.0.1 can access anything with a destination address of
> 127.0.0.1, then it probably won't complain any more. The security
> implications are minimal - if there is a process running on your machine
> then it
> doesn't need to access the local machine via IP to do nasty things. It's
> probably more secure than saying "yes, always" to a program when
> it accesses 127.0.0.1 and then having it access external addresses
> later.
> Ben
Well then maybe I will not remove it until I try it out.

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Jimmy wrote:

> Ben Pope wrote:
>> Jimmy wrote:
>>> Ben Pope wrote:
>>>> Jimmy wrote:
>>>>> It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I
>>>>> wonder what it is listening to and reporting home about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What addresses does it look at?
>>>>
>>>> If its 127.0.0.1 it looking at a server on your machine. It's quite
>>>> possible that the CCC has a server/client architecture and accesses
>>>> some information over "the internet", but in fact it's just doing an
>>>> internal loopback in your machine and the information never even
>>>> touches your network device.
>>>>
>>>> If you were me, you'd give up on the CCC and get "ye olde skool"
>>>> Control Panel drivers, they're smaller, faster and come without
>>>> cli.exe.
>>>> Ben
>>>
>>> I have been reading of many that are not using CCC so I guess I will
>>> do the same and remove it. I was curious about this new application
>>> and why it was acting like it is.
>>
>> .NET (which the CCC is built on), makes it easy to use web based
>> technologies to transfer data, I suspect that they have done that and
>> this is why your firewall is telling you it's trying to access the
>> net.
>> If you set your firewall up so that anything with a source address of
>> 127.0.0.1 can access anything with a destination address of
>> 127.0.0.1, then it probably won't complain any more. The security
>> implications are minimal - if there is a process running on your machine
>> then it
>> doesn't need to access the local machine via IP to do nasty things. It's
>> probably more secure than saying "yes, always" to a program when
>> it accesses 127.0.0.1 and then having it access external addresses
>> later.
>> Ben
> Well then maybe I will not remove it until I try it out.

The thing that bugs me is all of this .NET use in stuff that has no need for
any kind of network access.
>
> J.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> Jimmy wrote:
>
>> Ben Pope wrote:
>>> Jimmy wrote:
>>>> Ben Pope wrote:
>>>>> Jimmy wrote:
>>>>>> It doesn't seem to want to work unless I allow internet access. I
>>>>>> wonder what it is listening to and reporting home about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What addresses does it look at?
>>>>>
>>>>> If its 127.0.0.1 it looking at a server on your machine. It's
>>>>> quite possible that the CCC has a server/client architecture and
>>>>> accesses some information over "the internet", but in fact it's
>>>>> just doing an internal loopback in your machine and the
>>>>> information never even touches your network device.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you were me, you'd give up on the CCC and get "ye olde skool"
>>>>> Control Panel drivers, they're smaller, faster and come without
>>>>> cli.exe.
>>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> I have been reading of many that are not using CCC so I guess I
>>>> will do the same and remove it. I was curious about this new
>>>> application and why it was acting like it is.
>>>
>>> .NET (which the CCC is built on), makes it easy to use web based
>>> technologies to transfer data, I suspect that they have done that
>>> and this is why your firewall is telling you it's trying to access
>>> the
>>> net.
>>> If you set your firewall up so that anything with a source address
>>> of 127.0.0.1 can access anything with a destination address of
>>> 127.0.0.1, then it probably won't complain any more. The security
>>> implications are minimal - if there is a process running on your
>>> machine then it
>>> doesn't need to access the local machine via IP to do nasty things.
>>> It's probably more secure than saying "yes, always" to a program
>>> when
>>> it accesses 127.0.0.1 and then having it access external addresses
>>> later.
>>> Ben
>> Well then maybe I will not remove it until I try it out.
>
> The thing that bugs me is all of this .NET use in stuff that has no
> need for any kind of network access.

Ya, so where is all this going anyway? I sure can't keep up. SP2 - SATA
drives - HT - HDTV - .NET....?

J.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> The thing that bugs me is all of this .NET use in stuff that has no
> need for any kind of network access.


Yeah, but .NET is more about the common language infrastructure (CLI) and
managed code than network access. I was pretty sceptical until I looked
into it, CLI is actually a pretty useful idea. http://www.mono-project.com
is an effort to make this all work in Linux, and since the standards that
..NET sit on are open, it shouldn't be as hard is could be. In this light,
it makes more sense, and seems to be able to take on Java face on.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Ben Pope wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> The thing that bugs me is all of this .NET use in stuff that has no
>> need for any kind of network access.
>
>
> Yeah, but .NET is more about the common language infrastructure (CLI) and
> managed code than network access. I was pretty sceptical until I looked
> into it, CLI is actually a pretty useful idea.
> http://www.mono-project.com is an effort to make this all work in Linux,
> and since the standards that
> .NET sit on are open, it shouldn't be as hard is could be. In this light,
> it makes more sense, and seems to be able to take on Java face on.

If it's being used in stuff that doesn't need Internet access then it seems
to me that it's more Microsoft cleverness that will blow up in their faces.
Tried to open a help file the other day, wouldn't open until I tweaked some
registry settings, because Microsoft, having fixed their system so that
local files get opened in the same application that is used to open files
over the Internet, found it necessary to then prevent that application from
opening local files. I saw that one coming ages ago.

> Ben

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)