|
Posted by ASCII on June 10, 2008, 10:55 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> I don't recall them ever making such a claim,
>
>Read your Subject line.
My subject line, not Opera's, and it was because I got online results
that would indicate some firewall behavior was taking place. I thought
there might be a new trend in current browsers that I was unaware of,
sorry to see this group has fallen so far.
>> even though I was
>> surmising that it behaved as if it had a built in firewall.
>
>Oh. Guess I won't waste more time trying to find out where was that
>firewalling within Opera. If they had added it inside the app, I wanted
>to see why they thought it was necessary.
I only guessed why it behaved as it does, I have no idea why some
Norwegian company thinks something is necessary, if they even think that
in the first place
> Please don't make up stuff.
No need
You're doing a good enough job of that as it is
You know, I've got a little extra time the next few days so I won't
plonk you guys, maybe just see the depths of intellectual depravity that
has come to inhabit this forum.
carry on kids...
|
|
Posted by VanguardLH on June 10, 2008, 1:25 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> Please don't make up stuff.
>
> No need. You're doing a good enough job of that as it is
Oh, yeah, it was me claiming Opera had a web browser, sure.
> You know, I've got a little extra time the next few days so I won't
> plonk you guys,
While killfiling does eliminate "noise" in a newsgroup that you inhabit,
it also does mean the plonked get the last word. I have no qualms about
you killfiling me.
> maybe just see the depths of intellectual depravity that
> has come to inhabit this forum.
> carry on kids...
Yes, we're the children based on your so-adult opinion announced as fact
based your conjecture on some unindentified behavior in a web browser
where YOU say they have some functionality which has obviously been
proven that you didn't have a clue about your statement. Yes, it was
our fault in interpreting your misleading claim. You contrived, you
mislead. When you got caught, like a child, you tried to recover with
justifications hoping to provide you with excuses and now you try to
redirect the blame. Pathetic.
I never said that they do not have a firewall built into their browser.
I said that they make no mention of such functionality. I found nothing
to substantiate your unfounded claim. If you wanted to validate your
claim regarding your *guess* about behavior, you couldn't do some better
investigation before spouting your claim? Since you are an Opera user,
you couldn't go ask in the Opera newsgroups (a list of which is
available at http://www.opera.com/newsgroups/)? Instead of professing
knowledge and announcing added functionality (but which was based on
conjecture), you could've asked over there first.
I don't use Opera but thought it was something to review if only to
figure out why they thought an application-embedded firewall had any
value. Since I don't use Opera, there would be no past history of
experience with it by me nor would I have been visiting the Opera
newsgroups to know about any such feature enhancement. You made the
claim so I figured you were an Opera user. Not many users go extolling
a product unless they actually use it. It's been awhile since I've seen
a user touting a feature that doesn't exist in a product. I've seen
spammers do it but not actual users.
So now to move onto your claim although based on conjecture ...
When you tested Opera and did the stealth and leak tests, did you
disable any and all software firewalls running on your test host?
Obviously if you wanted to test Opera's conjectured firewall abilities,
you would have to disable all other firewall, security, anti-virus,
anti-malware, or other protective software to ensure that they weren't
already providing the firewalling effect that you noticed.
Did you also disable any upstream firewalls, like in your NAT router?
Did you bypass the router and hook your host directly to the your
Internet access point (dsl/cable modem, satellite, whatever)? Many
users do these tests and then claim success but were never testing the
software on their host. Instead they were testing the firewall that is
in their router.
"Passes as stealth on Shields Up". Not sure why you would make that
claim. The web browser is a client process that issues connect requests
(it initiates the handshaking to establish a socket with the server that
was listening for the inbound connection requests). The web browser is
not a server process listening on a port. The web browser isn't going
to respond to a ping or accept connection requests on a port on which it
isn't listening. The web browser issues outbound connect requests to
somewhere else that listens on, for example, port 80 (for HTTP). The
web browser is not listening for inbound connection requests on port 80.
Leak tests have a client (that you allow to run) on your host try to
make an outbound connection to see if the firewall blocks that attempt
or prompts you for permission to allow that connection. Since you
obviously need to permit the firewall to allow connections for your web
browser to be useful (unless you are unique in wanting to use it to only
render your own local HTML files), the web browser is always "leaking"
through the firewall. It is the leak clients you are testing, not the
web browser.
PCFlank doesn't explain just how its leak tests function? You didn't
see the button was labelled "Download" and that you were downloading an
.exe program to execute locally that would then test your firewall (and
that the .exe you downloaded was not the Opera web browser)? You need
to spend some time reading the GRC and PCFlank web sites to understand
just what those tests do and how they execute.
|
|
Posted by Gary on June 11, 2008, 12:19 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
reason to pounce on the OP. I guess this is Usenet after all...
Security
* Improved back-end for Fraud Protection, now enabled by default.
* Added support for Extended Validation (EV) certificates.
* Added automatic updates of root certificates.
* Introduced a new security notification scheme in the address field:
o gold lock on green field for secure sites with Extended Validation
o silver lock on yellow field for regular secure sites
o question mark on gray field for HTTPS sites with problems
o no notification for normal sites
o fraud warning on red field for blacklisted sites
* Opera now distinguishes between local servers on localhost, intranet
servers, and remote servers on the Internet. Local servers can use remote
resources, but not vice versa.
http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/950b2
|
|
Posted by ASCII on June 12, 2008, 1:44 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>These are the only security enhancements that I can see. But that's no
>reason to pounce on the OP. I guess this is Usenet after all...
The vehement attack over semantic distinctions of what a firewall
involves, suggests a woefully vacuous level of immaturity. Reminds me of
a know it all that once posted here under the name Duane Arnold of Elgin
Illinois, seems he worked at some retail outlet pushing hardware routers
and swore up and down that nothing was better.
|
|
Posted by Cunnilingus on June 12, 2008, 4:35 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still
ATGUARD? Lmao!
Please tell me you aren't still using that relic.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | 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 |
|
XML site map