Jetico Personal Firewall freeware asks way to many questions

[AlleyCat]

In article <MPG.21786326c330ab3a9896ff@netnews.insightbb.com> ,
Lord_Possum@yahoo.com says...
> In article <96sPi.1575$Pv2.1234@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net> ,
> lshorsetrainer@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Is there an easy way to get Jetico Personal Firewall to only ask ONCE (like
> > Zone Alarm or Sygate Personal Firewall does)? [snip]
> =======================
> Same problem; I uninstalled it.
>
> Same problem with Comodo, too; I uninstalled it.
>
> Zone Alarm and Sygate both have become really bloated, and think too
> long about things.
>
> Currently using Netveda Safety Net, and am pleased with it. Only
> 8MB or so installed

Is that particularly small for a Firewall? I'm not sure your description
of Sygate being "really bloated", is entirely accurate. I'm not pushing
or endorsing Sygate, but my installation is 12 megs. That's not that
bloated IMO. If it, or any software package, does what it advertises, 4
megs doesn't make THAT much of a difference. I've tried most "endorsed"
firewalls, but I always seem to "go back" to Sygate.

Al

>
> Lord Possum
>

[Lord Possum]

In article <MPG.21789728da8e9ed7989927@newsgroups.comcast.net >,
al@aohell.com says...

>Is that particularly small for a Firewall? I'm not sure your
>description of Sygate being "really bloated", is entirely accurate.
>I'm not pushing or endorsing Sygate, but my installation is 12 megs.
>That's not that bloated IMO. If it, or any software package, does
>what it advertises, 4 megs doesn't make THAT much of a difference.
>I've tried most "endorsed" firewalls, but I always seem to "go
>back" to Sygate. Al
============================

One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.

And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
is faster.

Lord Possum

[AlleyCat]

In article <MPG.21797b226da1f0d7989700@netnews.insightbb.com> ,
Lord_Possum@yahoo.com says...
> In article <MPG.21789728da8e9ed7989927@newsgroups.comcast.net >,
> al@aohell.com says...
>
> >Is that particularly small for a Firewall? I'm not sure your
> >description of Sygate being "really bloated", is entirely accurate.
> >I'm not pushing or endorsing Sygate, but my installation is 12 megs.
> >That's not that bloated IMO. If it, or any software package, does
> >what it advertises, 4 megs doesn't make THAT much of a difference.
> >I've tried most "endorsed" firewalls, but I always seem to "go
> >back" to Sygate. Al
> ============================
>
> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>
> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
> is faster.
>
> Lord Possum
>

I've had this conversation with others in the past and found that, with
the "right" equipment, 4megs of hard drive space and 2 or 3 megs of RAM
is not very much. I'm running a 2.8GHz Pentium D with 2 Gigs of RAM. I
know not everyone has these resources, but I believe most people
frequenting this newsgroup looking for software, are probably people
that are pretty computer savvy and do have newer hardware which will run
most any of the software being discussed about here. It seems apropos
that someone here could come up with a list of software with attributes
pertaining to RAM and hard drive space usage. I'm sure there's a website
that does this, but I'm not familiar with one.

Al

[Gary]

Lord Possum wrote:
> In article <MPG.21789728da8e9ed7989927@newsgroups.comcast.net >,
> al@aohell.com says...
>
>> Is that particularly small for a Firewall? I'm not sure your
>> description of Sygate being "really bloated", is entirely accurate.
>> I'm not pushing or endorsing Sygate, but my installation is 12 megs.
>> That's not that bloated IMO. If it, or any software package, does
>> what it advertises, 4 megs doesn't make THAT much of a difference.
>> I've tried most "endorsed" firewalls, but I always seem to "go
>> back" to Sygate. Al
> ============================
>
> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>
> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
> is faster.
>
> Lord Possum

What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated in
my opinion.

[Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers]

In comp.security.firewalls Gary <gareth@capecod.net> wrote:
> Lord Possum wrote:
>> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
>> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
>> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
>> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>>
>> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
>> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
>> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
>> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
>> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
>> is faster.
>
> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated
> in my opinion.

It just has serious design flaws and won't receive any bugfixes anymore.
Some qualification for a "security" product.

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

[Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers]

In comp.security.firewalls Gary <gareth@capecod.net> wrote:
> Lord Possum wrote:
>> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not only
>> the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and the
>> number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on RAM
>> resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>>
>> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
>> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or any
>> better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much to those
>> who don't care how much room a program takes up, but the extra 4MB
>> means more of something else for me. And, in the end result, NetVeda
>> is faster.
>
> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not bloated
> in my opinion.

It just has serious design flaws and won't receive any bugfixes anymore.
Some qualification for a "security" product.

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

[Max M.Wachtel III]

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2007@planetcobalt.net> after much
thought,came up with this jewel in news:fg2n7nUkp7L2@news.in-ulm.de:

> In comp.security.firewalls Gary <gareth@capecod.net> wrote:
>> Lord Possum wrote:
>>> One of the criteria I employ in judging a program's worth is not
>>> only the installed size, but the amount of Registry entries, and
>>> the number of functions requiring 'think' power ... a drain on
>>> RAM resources. Sygate is heavy than many in that respect.
>>>
>>> And, as far as installed size ... 12MB compared to 8MB tells me
>>> immediately that Sygate is 50% bigger, while doing no more or
>>> any better than what I use. That apparently will not mean much
>>> to those who don't care how much room a program takes up, but
>>> the extra 4MB means more of something else for me. And, in the
>>> end result, NetVeda is faster.
>>
>> What version of sygate are you referring too. 5.5.2710 is not
>> bloated in my opinion.
>
> It just has serious design flaws and won't receive any bugfixes
> anymore. Some qualification for a "security" product.
>
> cu
> 59cobalt

Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of resources.
A router/harding your system/safe-hex is the way to go.
max
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Tools http://max.shplink.com/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.

[Sebastian G.]

Max M.Wachtel III wrote:


> Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of resources.


Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall doesn't mean
that it's not a security concept or can't be part of it. Indeed it is a
host-based packet filter, and, if used correctly (which already excludes all
the common "personal firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this
excludes all the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.

> A router/harding your system/safe-hex is the way to go.


The common SOHO router stuff is neither a firewall nor is it suitable to
implement a routing firewall.

[s|b]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:37:15 +0100, Sebastian G. wrote:

> > Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of resources.

> Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall doesn't mean
> that it's not a security concept or can't be part of it. Indeed it is a
> host-based packet filter, and, if used correctly (which already excludes all
> the common "personal firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this
> excludes all the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.

Can you suggest alternative software other than the common "personal
firewall" stuff that will achieve a certain gain of security (on a
Windows OS) ? Tnx.

--
s|b

[Max M.Wachtel III]

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> after much thought,came up with
this jewel in news:5okdovFn7fe1U1@mid.dfncis.de:

> Max M.Wachtel III wrote:
>
>
>> Software "firewall" is not a real firewall and a waste of
>> resources.
>
>
> Right start, wrong conclusion. Just because it isn't a firewall
> doesn't mean that it's not a security concept or can't be part of
> it. Indeed it is a host-based packet filter, and, if used
> correctly (which already excludes all the common "personal
> firewall" stuff) and not being too broken (again this excludes all
> the common nonsense) can achieve a certain gain of security.
>
>> A router/harding your system/safe-hex is the way to go.
>
>
> The common SOHO router stuff is neither a firewall nor is it
> suitable to implement a routing firewall.

Your correct. I think a router provides better protection than using
a software firewall(some routers include a packet filter). And
turning off un-needed services,using a more secure e-mail
client/browser(like Thunderbird,Firefox) is better than relying on a
software firewall alone.
max
--
Virus Removal http://max.shplink.com/removal.html
Keep Clean http://max.shplink.com/keepingclean.html
Tools http://max.shplink.com/tools.html
Change nomail.afraid.org to gmail.com to reply by email.