Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Networking Firewalls    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall ASCII 06-08-2008
Posted by Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers on June 9, 2008, 7:12 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Root Kit wrote:
>> a sad example of a clueless dude mislead by "security" sites.
>
> If you know of any effective attack against it, how about posting a
> URL, otherwise you're as clueless as those other idiots who sell
> hardware routers on commission and need to maintain their illusion of
> superiority

Buster, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

1. There's no such thing as "stealth" in IP. That's just braindead
marketing babble of people who failed to understand how IP works.

2. Client applications (like, say, web browsers) are not supposed to
open listening sockets on external interfaces. Therefore there's no
need at all to firewall them.

3. Stateful inspection doesn't have anything at all to do with
preventing data leaks.

Now get lost.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Posted by ASCII on June 9, 2008, 2:29 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
>
>Now get lost.

Good idea, since you obviously have nothing to contribute.
...and go find some other venue to air the frustration with your devoid
life, maybe play superman with an Amtrak.

Posted by VanguardLH on June 9, 2008, 10:30 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new
> Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands all
> pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so probably
> does stateful packet inspection too. http://tinyurl.com/z85y

Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why? And why promote a BETA version?

Must be a very minor feature if they don't even bothering mentioning it
at http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/next/ on the page or in their
tour video, nor is a firewall mentioned in their changelogs at
http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/.

Posted by ASCII on June 9, 2008, 2:41 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
VanguardLH wrote:
>
>Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
>Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why?

Just guessing that the primary interface (browser)
to the major source of danger (internet)
is the most likely focus of concern.
Sandboxing would be an unnecessary encumbrance
if all your applications were trusted

>And why promote a BETA version?

Not really 'promoting' it (I have no interest in the company) it was the
version I finally upgraded to from an earlier legacy v6.06 that I used
to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still
enough unresolved bugs that I've now gone back to the stable v9.27.
This version seems a little faster loading pages yet just as invisible
and/or invulnerable, so I'll stay here for awhile.

Posted by VanguardLH on June 9, 2008, 7:04 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
>>Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why?
>
> Just guessing that the primary interface (browser)
> to the major source of danger (internet)
> is the most likely focus of concern.

Which would be covered by a general firewall that enforces connectivity
on any particular application, including the web browser.

> Sandboxing would be an unnecessary encumbrance
> if all your applications were trusted

You just said that you didn't trust the web browser. Sandboxing doesn't
sandbox every application. It sandboxes just the application that you
want sandboxed. Have a look at Sandboxie.

>>And why promote a BETA version?
>
> Not really 'promoting' it (I have no interest in the company) it was the
> version I finally upgraded to from an earlier legacy v6.06 that I used
> to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still
> enough unresolved bugs that I've now gone back to the stable v9.27.
> This version seems a little faster loading pages yet just as invisible
> and/or invulnerable, so I'll stay here for awhile.

And as for the part that you snipped out, just WHERE does Opera claim
that their beta 9.5 version contains a firewall within just their
browser?

Similar ThreadsPosted
router contains a built-in switch versus router without a built-in switch September 14, 2005, 10:22 pm
VPN endpoint with built-in cardreader November 18, 2005, 11:23 am
connecting to WEBRAMP 700 via VPN from XP built in ipsec. July 21, 2004, 7:29 am
Re: connecting to WEBRAMP 700 via VPN from XP built in ipsec. July 21, 2004, 12:49 pm
Norton 2005 Internet Worm Protection (Firewall) or Windows XP native firewall? December 11, 2004, 11:19 am
[Newbie alert!] Is the Linksys BEFSX41 hardware Firewall/router a "real" firewall? March 25, 2005, 11:12 am
firewall synchronization not properly working on RainWall/CheckPoint's firewall cluster April 13, 2006, 10:24 am
SP2 Windows Firewall : Can the values of Firewall Settings be read from the Registry? November 6, 2007, 9:10 am
Firewall-1 Licensing Counting Each Interface of Firewall as a Separate Host February 13, 2008, 1:19 am
Firewall (cheap) that supports PPTP inbound to firewall July 30, 2004, 7:53 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy