Ad Filtering

[Caratacus]

One aspect of firewalls I'd like to hear opinions on is their capacity to filter out advertisements. I know this is not the major function of a firewall, and to many may seem a frivolous concern. But though I own licences for ZAP and Nortons Firewall 2003, I have settled for using Nortons simply because it is far and away the best ad stopper I have seen.

I previously used ZAP along with AdSubtract Pro to combine strong firewall with ad filter, but encountered problems: especially that often AdSubtract seemed to slow connections. Nortons does not perform as well as ZAP on tests like grc (and mine even failed the Symantec online test on a couple of points eg pingability); but generally seems reasonably solid, which, along with its great capacity to block ads makes it currently my choice.

But I'm always looking for something better, and would welcome comments. My son tested Kerio 4 for a few weeks, and it seems reasonably effective at ad stopping, and reasonably trouble-free on his machine. Oupost seems not so strong at stopping ads. How about Look'n'Stop, or any others?

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "Oupost seems not so strong at stopping ads. How about Look'n'Stop [...]? " }-

Say, that question definitely has a familiar ring...wait a min...but yes! Of cos' !! I brought up the subject not so long ago!!! ;D

In fact the issue has been trotted out over & over again. Keep up the pressure, guys. ;)

Here, let me spare you the hassle:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=17293;start=15

[Graystoke]

I switched from ZAP to NPF 2004. Had some problems with ZAP and decided to give NPF a try. I think it does an outstanding job when it comes to blocking adds and pop ups. And as far as the tests at GRC goes, NPF 2004 passed them all with flying colors. It also passed all the tests at Sygate's SOS site, PC Flank and DSLR's port scanner. I'm very happy with it. Just my 2 cents worth. :)

[Morgoth]

Now don't get me wrong 4 what I'm about too say:
Peter Norton may well be a genius. But the problem is:
I doubt he programs Symantec products himself... ;D

ZA is known for its memory leak bug - the latest release hasn't changed anything to it. And I doubt they will in the nigh future.

But my guess is, the probs you've had with ZA such as CPU and RAM load will be nothing next to what you're in for with NPF.
Symantec products are known for their ability to wallop huge amounts of CPU resources, causes crashes (even Norton Crahsguard hehe) and leave sh*tloads of registry entries and files, even after a "complete" uninstall.

Of course this I do not wish onto U, hopefully you will not encounter any of these bugs, so all I can say is, good luck m8 ;)

[bigc73542]

I look at firewalls a little different I guess. I use my BlackIce pc security to secure my pc and leave ad blocking to other means.

[Caratacus]

Thanks for the replies. Morgoth, I'm sorry that I raised the issue again - I did not intend to duplicate. I am new to this part of the forums, and did not see the previous discussions though I did do a quick but obviously too lazy look to see if I could see it in the topic headers. I will go and read that thread to see if I can find an answer to my question regarding comparative ad filtering capabilities there.

[Morgoth]

Actually the issue was raised towards the bottom of the page I pointed to, so scroll down.

This doesn't prevent U from starting a new thread on the same subject - on the contrary, as I said, the more the better..

[Caratacus]

So I gather that LNS does not have ad filtering as an option. Some of the problems mentioned here with ZAP have bugged me too, and using AdSubtract seems to slow things down at times and sometimes causes results like images not loading. I haven't tried Proxymitron or Admuncher.

It seems to me that the best solution is if adstopping is integrated into the firewall. I have Nortons Internet Security but only use the Firewall part because the NAV is so slow (I use Nod instead). I have not had crashes etc with Norton Firewall (touch wood!) and the ad filtering is 99.999% effective - more so than any others including AdSubtract.

So my question remains: assuming Nortons firewall works ok (as it does for me) - is there anything comparable? If so, I'll try it.

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "It seems to me that the best solution is if adstopping is integrated into the firewall" }-

Welcome 2 the club, m8 8)

-{ Quote: "I have not had crashes etc with Norton Firewall (touch wood!)" }-

?!! Heh - and I always thought 'Stable Norton product' was an oxymore. Now I too believe in miracles!

-{ Quote: "[...] and the ad filtering is 99.999% effective" }-

Actually, the Ad-blocking built into Agnitum Outpost Pro has a slight edge on its competitors as it can also block flash popups. On the other hand the FW itself has memory leak issues akin to those of ZAP, and the 'outbound' protection leaves to be desired.

U could give Kerio a try - good inbound protection (like all other recent firewall), decent outbound protection (but like any other FW, not infallible - has its own weaknesses) and has integrated anti-popup. Plus, uses few resources (although LnS uses yet a little less resources, and has better outbound protection...)

But if NPF suits your needs & causes no trouble, stay with it. As they say, "let sleeping dogs lie" ;D

[Caratacus]

IMO ad filtering should be integrated into the firewall because ads are one more element to be filtered out, and filtering out unwanted incomings is one of the main tasks of firewalls. Why run 2 apps (eg FW + Admuncher) when one can do it?

As to letting sleeping dogs lie: if I can find a more efficient firewall that passes more tests than NAV and is less resource hungry and filters ads out as well or better, I will use it. Hence my initial question.

[mvdu]

I just learned how to turn popups back on with Outpost, so its ad filtering isn't as annoying as it once was to me. I just stopped PCAudit 2 with Outpost, so its outbound protection is pretty good. Kerio has its own weakness: dll injection. Ad filtering seems surprisingly smooth with Kerio, though.

[CrazyM]

Hi Caratacus

-{ Quote: "One aspect of firewalls I'd like to hear opinions on is their capacity to filter out advertisements. I know this is not the major function of a firewall, and to many may seem a frivolous concern." }-

Certainly not frivilous to many of the major firewall vendors as many move towards being overall security suites and include things like ad/active content filtering and AV.

-{ Quote: "Nortons does not perform as well as ZAP on tests like grc (and mine even failed the Symantec online test on a couple of points eg pingability)" }-

The latest versions of NIS/NPF (2003/2004) should pass all the online tests. You might want to check your rules.

-{ Quote: "...along with its great capacity to block ads makes it currently my choice." }-

The change in the proxy filter in 2003 improved the filtering quite a bit. So much so, it was not uncommon to see posts from users having problems accessing certain sites.

-{ Quote: "So I gather that LNS does not have ad filtering as an option." }-

No it does not.

-{ Quote: "... but only use the Firewall part because the NAV is so slow (I use Nod instead). " }-

The resident scanner? Or just when doing system scans?

As for resource usage, when I have used NIS I found it uses little in the way of CPU. RAM is consistent, perhaps a little higher, than when using other firewall/AV/proxy combos that would provide the same functionality.

I think the main contenders with similar built in functionality at this point would be Outpost, Kerio 4.x and ZAP.

Regards,

CrazyM

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "if I can find a more efficient firewall that passes more tests than NAV and is less resource hungry and filters ads out as well or better, I will use it." }-

Actually, NPF and Kerio both have their weaknesses (as do all FWs). Check out this leak, the results are a few days fresh:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jugesoftware/firewallleaktester/eng/pageweb/test.html (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jugesoftware/firewallleaktester/eng/pageweb/test.html)

NPF can block Ghost and Pcaudit2 (bot not PCAudit!?!), whereas Kerio can block MBtest (it has always has good low level network filtering) but not PcAudit2 (nor PcAudit). Thus Kerio has better network filtering but weaker DLL injection protection.

So both NPF and Kerio are more or less equivalent, yet Kerio uses fewer resources. Both have ad-blocking.

-{ Quote: "I just stopped PCAudit 2 with Outpost, so its outbound protection is pretty good." }-

Don't wanna spoil the day, but check out the aformentionned link (gkweb's leaktest site): there are a few issues concerning Outpost, moreover according to his tests it does not pass PcAudit2 :-\(the test conditions are strict: the FW must be able to "see" the source of the leaktest for it to truly pass the test). But overall, yes it has decent outbound protection, and the Pcaudit2 issue will no doubt be dealt with in the nigh future...

[mvdu]

It actually did see PCAudit 2 - that's what surprised me. I might have accidently allowed a dll before. There was only one bug with Outpost: sometimes it will keep asking if you want to allow the .dll, even after you're done testing. NPF also has this problem with some tests - to a greater extent.

From what I've seen, NIS's ad filtering isn't really better than ZAP's, but is a little better than Outpost's. NIS doesn't use a lot of CPU, but the program is too bloated.

[Morgoth]

NPF (or NIS, whatever) may use a little less resources, but I'm 99.99% certain that it uses a lot more than its competitors (I haven't tested the latest one). U got it right about the 'bloating part' - but one thing users often forget is that Symantec products leave a whole lot of @%$# registry entires & files on the HDD even after a supposedly "thorough" uninstall... >:(

-{ Quote: "It actually did see PCAudit 2" }-

Surprised but glad to see that - if this is actually true (if OPP did see the new PCaudit2 components). Perhaps you're using a new version of OPP (> 2.0.238)?

IF so, better advise Gkweb to double-check & update the test results ;)

[Acadia]

Just in case you guys are interested, here is one of the very best ad blockers (in my opinion) available today:

http://www.ad-shield.com/

Here are a number of links to an earlier version of AdShield that is free:

http://www.fsd1.org/technology/Files/AdShield.exe

http://www.internettechs.net/utilities/AdShield.exe

http://ftp.ural.ru/home/index/windows/networking/utils/AdShield

http://www.megalog.ru/info/utilz/AdShield.zip

Acadia

[mvdu]

I used that version. Back to ZAP right now because with open process control, it's one of the best. But perhaps Outpost technically still fails because of that bug I mentioned?

Thanks for the links, Acadia. :D

[rerun2]

I still think this is a matter of personal preference. Some people still rather not have any sort of ad filtering capabilities (even if it can easily be turned on/off and even if it appears as a plugin) because ad blocking is not viewed as a very high priority to them. To the people who are in favor of ad filtering there are quite a number of firewalls that have this feature (most of which are already mentioned in this thread). And for those people who are not in favor of this feature, they also have a nice selection as well. I do not see why this has to be changed. Not every vendor has the same amount of resources and time to develop QUALITY ad filtering in their product, and if they wish to spend their resources and time in developing other aspects of their firewall I think that is fine.

I have had my own negative experiences using these type of features when i was trialing a firewall product that had ad filtering. I dont think it is necessary to relate my experience in detail, as my own needs and concerns about ads is probably very different from others. However, the main problem was that most of the ad filtering features were overlapping with other settings I have already set (for example in my browser). I ended up having to do much more configuration for some pages to be displayed properly. Without the ad filtering features of this firewall, I did not see a compelling reason to keep this firewall over the one I have previously been using.

[doug6949]

I have followed this thread from the beginning and taken the scenic detours through all the other threads linked herein.

What kind of websites are y'all visiting? Opera seems to block just about everything if you check the popup box in preferences. Is IEx.x such a great browser that folks are willing to fight its marketing "features" with all this other software?

Doug

....she swallowed the spider to catch the fly - I don't know why she swallowed the fly. Perhaps she'll die.

[Caratacus]

CrazyM, thanks for comments. When I installed NIS I opted not to install the AV, and use NOD32 instead for resident scanner & system scans.

Fire Permit, it's not only pop-ups (I use Opera too) - banner ads (at eg the Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au or at Yahoo news), especially moving ones, are distracting to me. I suppose that is their intention, but luckily NIS blocks them right out and I can concentrate on the task at hand.

Acadia, I will try out LNS along with Adshield though I would prefer just one app instead of two.

rerun2, I agree with what you say. In my case I would like to find the best combo of firewall & filter, preferably in the one bundle.

[claire]

Hi Caractus,
Please excuse me for popping in.If you try LnS(greatFW)
don't forget to use the enhanced ruleset
:)

[Morgoth]

Rerun2:
-{ Quote: "However, the main problem was that most of the ad filtering features were overlapping with other settings I have already set (for example in my browser)" }-

When using an ad-filter or the like, remove all browser restrictions. Simple, isn't it? ;)

Fire:
-{ Quote: "I have followed this thread from the beginning and taken the scenic detours through all the other threads linked herein." }-

Enjoyed the view? ;D

-{ Quote: "Is IEx.x such a great browser that folks are willing to fight its marketing "features" with all this other software?" }-

Good question. For compatibility, perhaps. Or maybe they just enjoy seeing their own popup-killer in action...

Mvdu:

-{ Quote: "Back to ZAP right now because with open process control, it's one of the best. " }-

A decent FW, but remember it also has that long-standing - and very annoying - memory-leak bug, and is known to wallop CPU resources when using it with P2P apps. Moreover, the "process protection" is an application monitor, thus only a makeshift protection against process-injecting trojans such as Beast, etc...

[mvdu]

Well, what I'm saying is that even a makeshift thing provides better protection than what the other firewalls are now offering. Does Outpost use a lot fewer resources?

Also, I don't usually filter out banner ads - just popup ads - but that's me.

[FluxGFX]

There's pay service called AdMuncher 4.51 very effective Ad-Blocking techniques and Pop-Up filtering.

It is worth to checkout. It's even more powerfull then Ad-Shield and I do use Ad-Shield.

Very outstanding results since November over 54 291 Ads blocked for a total of 397 mb of space

[rerun2]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=15#msg111563 date=1071779706]
When using an ad-filter or the like, remove all browser restrictions. Simple, isn't it? ;)
" }-

... and vice versa ;) . You know how many of the same javascript features you can restrict using a browser like opera and mozilla (prevent moving/resizing windows, prevent changing of status fields etc etc). You can even prevent media and sounds from being played in web sites using one of these browsers. I have also found the pop up blocking to be quite effective on both. As you can see with the proper tweaking of my browser, I have found no real need for an ad filtering program. Which is exactly my point, everyone has different needs concerning ad filtering. And ad filtering in of itself is much more subjective than packet filtering. Block a legitimate image because of ad size and you have one unhappy customer (I have found this to be the case in some online retailers that sell shoes like eastbay and footlocker). Block a legitimate javascript window from opening and now you have another unhappy customer (yahoo fantasy draft). And on and on. You even mentioned that most firewalls with these ad filtering capabilities are flawed in some way, so what would prevent these customers from staying with this product if they were to leave ad filtering "off" all the time? Some of them may even ditch the firewall completely (even if the firewall might excel in other areas). By adding ad filtering in firewalls some customers may inadvertently associate the quality of the firewall with the quality of the ad filtering. If ads are that large of a concern to you... products like ad muncher excel in ad filtering (that is what they specialize in!), and yet you ask for ad filtering feature in a firewall that may only be sub par at best (if compared with specialized ad filtering programs).

Morgoth, I have read your comments and still do not completely understand where you stand and what the crutch of your argument is concerning this issue. From what i gather... your ideal firewall has great packet filtering, outbound protection, no memory leaks or other bugs in the code, excellent ad filtering and script blocking, and ummm dll/code injection protection (from your last reply) ... and yet... reply #35 http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=17293;start=30 ???

[Caratacus]

Claire, thanks for the advice. I have not installed LnS yet. Is the enhanced ruleset built in or an add on? Any specific tips would be much appreciated.

[Morgoth]

mdvu:
-{ Quote: "Does Outpost use a lot fewer resources?" }-

Actually, OPP uses almost as many resources as ZA and has similar memory leak issues. I change FW from time 2 time, and am currently using ZA. I like its ergonomy, if only they would correct their resource usage bug... >:(

rerun2:
-{ Quote: "From what i gather... your ideal firewall has great packet filtering, outbound protection, no memory leaks or other bugs in the code, excellent ad filtering and script blocking, and ummm dll/code injection protection" }-

Well, leaving the "controversial" ad/script-blocking option aside, wouldn't that be - logically - everyone's ideal firewall? ;D

Any ad-blocking routine has its flaws & drawbacks, be it a browser-feature, or integrated into a FW, or even a seperate app. Personally, I'm quite satisfied with ZA's ad-blocking performance. Any ad slipping though is an extremely rare event.

The ideal solution would perhaps be a FW-plugin, as in Outpost. Since ad, script & cookie blocking are only "minor" features, there is no harm in having them built into the firewall - this certainly won't turn it into an overbloated "multiware" in any way.
But one thing's for sure - if a firewall such as LnS were to take the lead over the others, eg. by having unrivaled outbound protection and CPU usage efficiency (it seems to be already the case for the latter criterion), then I would resort to a seperate ad-blocker, as LnS has no such feature.

-{ Quote: "I have read your comments and still do not completely understand where you stand" }-

But that's the whole point, comrade - for I don't know either!! ;D (cf. read my prev. statements, and my other post you so kindly pointed to). You see, trends are fickle, and making one's choice depends also on the context. For example, I have quite a positive opinion about ZA (among others) for its ergonomy, leak prevention and ad-killing features, and despite blatant flaws such as its CPU-hogging bug. But I've had word recently that Zonelabs is about to merge with another firm, can't recall the name. But history has shown (cf. Atguard & Symantec) that this may not be of good omen concerning the quality of future releases of ZA. It may not even have extra anti-ad & privacy options that it has now. Other FWs such as Sygate & LnS might on the other hand integrate such extra bonuses into their products, who knows.

Products evolve. So do users' stances...

[rerun2]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Caratacus link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=15#msg111592 date=1071789786]
Claire, thanks for the advice. I have not installed LnS yet. Is the enhanced ruleset built in or an add on? Any specific tips would be much appreciated.
" }-

If you are using the trial version you click on the "Internet Filtering" tab and click "Load..." By default it should bring you to the look 'n' stop directory (if not browse to the location from which you installed LnS too) and from there you select EnhancedRulesSet.rls and open. You should then click Apply . If you decide to stick with look 'n' stop and you become more familiar with how the rule set works, you may even try Phantom's rule set http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=17909 . The look 'n' stop forum is also very helpful, as is http://www.wilderssecurity.info/ . Though I believe the Look 'n' Stop - Alternative Homepage is not completed at the moment.

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=15#msg111596 date=1071790462]Well, leaving the "controversial" ad/script-blocking option aside, wouldn't that be - logically - everyone's ideal firewall? ;D" }-

heh indeed it would be for most people ;D ... though some may question how realistic that would be ;)

-{ Quote: "Products evolve. So do users' stances..." }-
Very true... and that sounds very reasonable to me.

Take care and best wishes in your pursuits :) .

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "heh indeed it would be for most people ... though some may question how realistic that would be" }-

... by definition of an 'ideal' - something that cannot be reached. I once referred in another post to such a firewall as "the Holy Grail" ;D

[JayK]

Firewall that does popup and banner blocking? Why? Doesn't have sense at all. Might as well expect your firewall to do word processing.

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "Firewall that does popup and banner blocking? Why? Doesn't have sense at all. Might as well expect your firewall to do word processing." }-

Well,
- firewall blocks unwanted net traffic while the user surfs on the Net
- adblocker blocks unwanted popups while the user surfs on the Net

A striking similarity, don't you think? Not to mention that adblockers also have - for mos - the ability to block malicious web bugs, to cite an example. Which is more than I can say about FWs and Word Processors.
In fact, I reckon that firewall & adblocker would go pretty well together - and am certainly not the only one to think so.

Nah, this apparent relation that both Firewalls and Adblockers have to Network security must be a figment of my imagination... Damn! This is a cause for concern, for as there are countless users out there who share my opinion, this must be a mass hallucination! ;D

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=30#msg112116 date=1071950323]
-{ Quote: "Firewall that does popup and banner blocking? Why? Doesn't have sense at all. Might as well expect your firewall to do word processing." }-

Well,
- firewall blocks unwanted net traffic while the user surfs on the Net
- adblocker blocks unwanted popups while the user surfs on the Net

" }-

So anything that has to do with surfing on the net has to be handled by the firewall? Wow, why not expect your firewall to browse the web for you too? or maybe it's the "blocking" action? So it must "block" viruses and "block" spam too?


-{ Quote: "

Not to mention that adblockers also have - for mos - the ability to block malicious web bugs, to cite an example.

" }-

Privacy concern, blocking web bugs. Different matter.
If you want to include privacy in the package, your firewall would also need to be configured as a annymous proxy, do secure erasing of your tracks, and more.

-{ Quote: "
Nah, this apparent relation that both Firewalls and Adblockers have to Network security must be a figment of my imagination...

" }-

Yes you must be. Look up the definition of firewall sometime, you will find it very enlightening, I bet.



-{ Quote: "
Damn! This is a cause for concern, for as there are countless users out there who share my opinion, this must be a mass hallucination! ;D
" }-

Countless number of people are idiots, besides, i'm guessing here on Wilder's people are drilled with the idea that using mutiple apps are much better than using one (at least that what's layered defences seem to mean to some people). E.g people prefer to use a dedicated anti virus + antitrojan compared to one that does both (eg KAV), people prefer to use a leaky email client + stuff to handle web-bugs/malicious content etc and do spam filtering isn't of one that is inherently secure.

so I would guess your view is the minority one here.

[Phant0m]

I definitely don’t share your opinion and never will.
Ad-filtering or web-filtering in general should be kept a separate code from Software Firewall main code. My observations with Software Firewall vendors implementing Ad-filtering technology and so forth into their product were just unacceptable, to me anyways. Besides I’ve observed in most cases using products that covers a specific aspect normally has knack, like Ad-Muncher.

This is just my opinion; we are all entitled to our opinions. You like sandbox, perfect. You prefer anything dealing with security be joint forces that you.

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "So anything that has to do with surfing on the net has to be handled by the firewall? Wow, why not expect your firewall to browse the web for you too? or maybe it's the "blocking" action? So it must "block" viruses and "block" spam too?

[...]

Privacy concern, blocking web bugs. Different matter.
If you want to include privacy in the package, your firewall would also need to be configured as a annymous proxy, do secure erasing of your tracks, and more.

[...]

Countless number of people are idiots, besides, i'm guessing here on Wilder's people are drilled with the idea that using mutiple apps are much better than using one (at least that what's layered defences seem to mean to some people). E.g people prefer to use a dedicated anti virus + antitrojan compared to one that does both (eg KAV)..." }-

If you'd but taken the trouble to read this thread:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=17293;start=30
(which Caratacus pointed to in this present thread), you would have seen that I too oppose integration of MAJOR applications (eg. Firewall, Antivirus, Proxy client, etc...), into a "bloatware" package, and that I too advocate the principle of 'layered defense' - I personally use an AV, an AT and a FW. And , as I said, ad-blocking & privacy certainly won't bloat up a firewall. I also agreed with Klaus that adblocking as a plugin would be the perfect solution. But I hate repeating myself, thank Microsoft for cut & paste... >:(

-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "Nah, this apparent relation that both Firewalls and Adblockers have to Network security must be a figment of my imagination..." }-

Yes you must be. Look up the definition of firewall sometime, you will find it very enlightening, I bet." }-

Re-read my sentence carefully sometime, you won't find it enlightening, but at least you might understand what I meant, I bet - firewalling & adblocking both relate to networking, I didn't say that a firewall (in the strictest sense) had built-in adblocking by definition.


So you see, my point of view is a perfectly legitimate one, and so perhaps is yours, but it's not up to you to brand users who share mine as 'idiots' - unless you're part of the club...

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=30#msg112144 date=1071958566]
-{ Quote: "
Countless number of people are idiots, besides, i'm guessing here on Wilder's people are drilled with the idea that using mutiple apps are much better than using one (at least that what's layered defences seem to mean to some people). E.g people prefer to use a dedicated anti virus + antitrojan compared to one that does both (eg KAV)..." }-

If you'd but taken the trouble to read this thread:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=17293;start=30
(which Caratacus pointed to in this present thread), you would have seen that I too oppose integration of MAJOR applications (eg. Firewall, Antivirus, Proxy client, etc...), into a "bloatware" package, and that I too advocate the principle of 'layered defense' - I personally use an AV, an AT and a FW. And , as I said, ad-blocking & privacy certainly won't bloat up a firewall. I also agreed with Klaus that adblocking as a plugin would be the perfect solution. But I hate repeating myself, thank Microsoft for cut & paste... >:(

" }-

First, if you expect me to read every post on this board, you should at least take the trouble to register.

Second, what is MAJOR or not depends on your point of view. Someone could very well, argue that antiviruses, antitrojans, spam blocking belong in a firewall, using the very same argument above. This tells me your arguement demanding for adblocking is flawed! The only way to avoid this problem is to stick to the strictest defintion of a firewall.

-{ Quote: "
-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "Nah, this apparent relation that both Firewalls and Adblockers have to Network security must be a figment of my imagination..." }-

Yes you must be. Look up the definition of firewall sometime, you will find it very enlightening, I bet." }-

Re-read my sentence carefully sometime, you won't find it enlightening, but at least you might understand what I meant, I bet - firewalling & adblocking both relate to networking, I didn't say that a firewall (in the strictest sense) had built-in adblocking by definition.

" }-

Really, yet you bemoan the fact that some firewalls don't have adblocking. Sure sounds to me you expect it to be in there.

And has for the "relates to networking" , but
by your definition everything relates to networking.
Emailing relates to networking. irc relates to networking.

A firewall is usually defined has a packet filter and works on packets, to filter adverts and popups, the firewall has to work on a higher app level, for that, a proxy would be a much better choice.

If you want content filtering (that would include spam filtering , poup and banner filtering), you are better off with a seperate proxy server for each protocol.

-{ Quote: "
So you see, my point of view is a perfectly legitimate one, and so perhaps is yours, but it's not up to you to brand users who share mine as 'idiots' - unless you're part of the club...
" }-

Let me be clearer, the fact that you had to appeal to numbers as evidence that your argument has merit, doesn't impress me.

It shouldn't impress you either.

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "what is MAJOR or not depends on your point of view" }-

Maybe, but one thing's for sure, antivirus software is much "bulkier" than an adblocker. You get antivirii on store shelves - along with firewalls. Can't say the same about adblockers.
Second, AVs are "critical" apps - and if U integrate a firewall, AT and AV into one product, and if this app gets terminated, then all 3 vital layers of defense are brought down. On the other hand, no virus/worm or trojan would try to shut down an ad/cookie blocker...

So my argument stands 8)

-{ Quote: "yet you bemoan the fact that some firewalls don't have adblocking. Sure sounds to me you expect it to be in there." }-

No I'm not lamenting about it, I'm just saying - as I did in the other post - that it would be a nice little bonus to add, nothing more. Perhaps you also read that having such extra features was my least important criterion. Nevertheless,it's an option I'd greatly appreciate, esp. as a plugin.

-{ Quote: "The fact that you had to appeal to numbers as evidence that your argument has merit, doesn't impress me." }-

Now who said it was meant to?


-{ Quote: "if you expect me to read every post on this board, you should at least take the trouble to register" }-

BUT I TRIED TO, @%$&#!
In fact I did register (under another name, now I can't even use this name for my posts, it's marked as "taken").
And here's what happens:
whenever I browse the forum, at first - obviously - it says 'Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register'. Then I log in using my name & pass. The login seems to work as I'm welcomed by my name.
Now here's where things go awry: if I do as much as click on a thread link, or try to start a topic, or do anything that opens a new page, then I I'm back to the same message: 'Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register'.

In short, I can log in but whatever I do thereafter seems to log me out! How d'you explain THAT? >:(

[Phant0m]

Exclude blocking wilders cookies and you wont have any problems... ;)

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Phant0m`` link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=30#msg112362 date=1072022195]
Exclude blocking wilders cookies and you wont have any problems... ;)
" }-

Better check if it's your firewall blocking the cookies LOL.

[Phant0m]

-{ Quote: " quoting: JayK link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=30#msg112364 date=1072022452]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Phant0m`` link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=30#msg112362 date=1072022195]
Exclude blocking wilders cookies and you wont have any problems... ;)
" }-

Better check if it's your firewall blocking the cookies LOL.
" }-

LOL!

[Morgoth]

OK, problem wuz, I never got a warning about cookie being disabled when I tried to login (and remain logged in).

Besides, I already have session cookies enabled, which so far has worked in all other forums.
Which ones are needed here? Persistent cookies? 3rd party cookies? Private headers? And what data do they contain?

And if I do succeed, any way to turn my guest name into a login name? :D

[Phant0m]

Enjoy :)

[Morgoth]

Private headers?

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "Better check if it's your firewall blocking the cookies LOL." }-

Counter-LOL, Phantom's screenshot indicated a session cookie, and my FW is NOT set to block them. 8)

[LowWaterMark]

Hi Morgoth,

The issue with getting and staying logged on to the forum software here almost always relates to privacy and security settings... These settings might be in your firewall and/or proxy filtering software, or perhaps in your browser or ad management application. Cookies are often key, but there are other causes, as well.

This thread is one example of a type of access problem and the first reply there lists several others:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=16756

Usually, it's a matter of stepping through the settings until you find what's blocking what.

-{ Quote: "And if I do succeed, any way to turn my guest name into a login name?" }-

We can do that. We have the technology. ;) I can fix that but we need to ensure you can get access first. Then I can work out which ID is taken and which email address is already on file as used by a previous ID.

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=30#msg112426 date=1072035748]
-{ Quote: "Better check if it's your firewall blocking the cookies LOL." }-

Counter-LOL, Phantom's screenshot indicated a session cookie, and my FW is NOT set to block them. 8)
" }-

I see you are humour impaired. Never mind.

Turn off all privacy settings in ZAP, and try again. If it still doesn't look at your ie settings.

[Phant0m]

LOL

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "I see you are humour impaired" }-

So is your sight, then... ;)

-{ Quote: "Turn off all privacy settings in ZAP, and try again" }-

Nope, it's OPP for me this week, but not for long - leaving the leaktest cheating aside (cf. AWFT) privacy settings don't allow for as much fine-tuning as in other FWs. In ZA, I think I'd have to enable session cookie and something called "persistent cookies".

As for my browser (ie. IE) it is set to block only "3rd party cookies used without the user's consent", whatever exactly these are...

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=45#msg112685 date=1072120197]
-{ Quote: "I see you are humour impaired" }-

So is your sight, then... ;)

" }-

Let me try again. The remark I made was funny (and I guess I'm not the only one who thought so), independent of what your problems were ultimately caused by.

If you don't get it, never mind.


-{ Quote: "Turn off all privacy settings in ZAP, and try again" }-

Nope, it's OPP for me this week, but not for long - leaving the leaktest cheating aside (cf. AWFT) privacy settings don't allow for as much fine-tuning as in other FWs. In ZA, I think I'd have to enable session cookie and something called "persistent cookies".

As for my browser (ie. IE) it is set to block only "3rd party cookies used without the user's consent", whatever exactly these are...
-{ Quote: "" }-

I would recommend, trying to figure out exactly what your problem is, rather than randomly switching from application to application, without understanding what exactly is happening. You seeem to have picked up the right buzz words (though some like "privacy header" for cookies appears to be purely a ZA invention), but when it comes down to it, you can't even do something that the rankest newbie can do , that is log in.

That's pretty funny, if not for the fact that's it sad.

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "Let me try again. The remark I made was funny " }-

what a coincidence - so was my answer meant to be.
So I guess YOU didn't get it - forget it...

-{ Quote: "I would recommend, trying to figure out exactly what your problem is, rather than randomly switching from application to application, without understanding what exactly is happening. You seeem to have picked up the right buzz words (though some like "privacy header" for cookies appears to be purely a ZA invention), but when it comes down to it, you can't even do something that the rankest newbie can do , that is log in. " }-

Now now - let's not be hasty in making unfounded statements. If you thought I keep switching from FW to FW just to be able to log in (LOLOL), then think again: that's the least of my worries 4 the moment. ;D
Firewalls are available for test out there and that's exactly what I'm doing right now (gets pretty boring staying with the same FW, don't you think? ), at least until the "perfect" FW is released - according to my criteria of course - one that will comprise all the benefits of the others, minus the drawbacks.

The problem is, my login name could not be used for my guest posts (because I'd get a msg that the name was already taken, obviously) and vice-versa. I wuz hoping the admins could turn my "guest name" (which I prefer) into a new login name.

So you see m8, I figured long ago how to login, without even meddling with the browser 8)
C4 yourself:

[Aggressor]

-{ Quote: "That's pretty funny, if not for the fact that's it sad." }-
Damn! I hope I didn't spoil all your fun...

[Acadia]

LOL, Morgoth, don’t take anything that JayK says too personally, we’ve all been slam dunked by him at one point or another. Heck, his reply to one of my posts a long time ago was so bad that Paul had to delete part of it before I even had a chance to read it. I believe Paul set this Forum up to teach, and to be a GOOD teacher you need two things: knowledge of the subject, and the ABILITY to teach which includes being patient with those who are less knowledgeable than you are (idiots like me). In my opinion JayK definitely excels in one of those two areas.

Acadia

[libbo1]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Acadia link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=45#msg112912 date=1072186807]
LOL, Morgoth, don’t take anything that JayK says too personally, we’ve all been slam dunked by him at one point or another.

" }-

Yup . . . he knows . . . look at his own signature :P He also knows his 'stuff''.

[Pieter_Arntz]

Can we get back on topic here? (puts on strict face >:( )

Pieter

[Acadia]

Oops, sorry about that Pieter, I just wanted Morgoth to understand that he really is welcome here.

Acadia

[Morgoth]

Thx 4 your welcome, comrades.

And no, it would have taken much, much more than that for me to take it "personally" - right now, it's water on a duck's back, more like hehe. Actually, Lex Talionis is one of my nasty little habits, and I was beginning to like this little game ;D

Now, what was the topic again...

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Acadia link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=45#msg112912 date=1072186807]
LOL, Morgoth, don’t take anything that JayK says too personally, we’ve all been slam dunked by him at one point or another. Heck, his reply to one of my posts a long time ago was so bad that Paul had to delete part of it before I even had a chance to read it. I believe Paul set this Forum up to teach, and to be a GOOD teacher you need two things: knowledge of the subject, and the ABILITY to teach which includes being patient with those who are less knowledgeable than you are (idiots like me). In my opinion JayK definitely excels in one of those two areas.

Acadia

" }-

First, Sorry if I hurt your pride back then (you seem to be stalking me a bit in these forums...) but we all learn new things all the time even senior members like yourself.

Second, I don't know what got into your head , that I "definitely excel" in one of those two areas.

Third, who said morgoth wasn't welcome? Just an advice. And a joke that was not properly appreciated.

[Pieter_Arntz]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=45#msg112923 date=1072188621]
Now, what was the topic again...
" }-

Ad filtering....... I think. ;)

Pieter

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=45#msg112909 date=1072185028]
-{ Quote: "Let me try again. The remark I made was funny " }-

what a coincidence - so was my answer meant to be.
So I guess YOU didn't get it - forget it...

" }-

Well given that you type LOL, and make smileies at the rate of 2-3 per post, I wouldn't know if you were joking unless you started dancing naked and shout "I'M JOKING"

But whatever. My joke was far funnier.


-{ Quote: "
Now now - let's not be hasty in making unfounded statements. If you thought I keep switching from FW to FW just to be able to log in (LOLOL), then think again: that's the least of my worries 4 the moment. ;D
Firewalls are available for test out there and that's exactly what I'm doing right now (gets pretty boring staying with the same FW, don't you think? ), at least until the "perfect" FW is released - according to my criteria of course - one that will comprise all the benefits of the others, minus the drawbacks.
" }-

I'm well aware that you like to "test" firewalls (and probably god knows what else), my advice holds. Understand what you are doing, don't switch just for the sake of switching which is the impression I'm getting it. You talk about your ideal firewall, but do you know enough about networking to know what ideal would mean?

-{ Quote: "
The problem is, my login name could not be used for my guest posts (because I'd get a msg that the name was already taken, obviously) and vice-versa. I wuz hoping the admins could turn my "guest name" (which I prefer) into a new login name.

So you see m8, I figured long ago how to login, without even meddling with the browser 8)
C4 yourself:
" }-

Really ? So you solved this

-{ Quote: "

And here's what happens:
whenever I browse the forum, at first - obviously - it says 'Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register'. Then I log in using my name & pass. The login seems to work as I'm welcomed by my name.
Now here's where things go awry: if I do as much as click on a thread link, or try to start a topic, or do anything that opens a new page, then I I'm back to the same message: 'Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register'.

In short, I can log in but whatever I do thereafter seems to log me out! How d'you explain THAT?

" }-

[Acadia]

Jayk,

Hmmmm, maybe I’ll change my handle to The Stalker.

Just trust me on this, you know MUCH more than I do about this security stuff.

Now what was the original topic again?

Acadia

[Morgoth]

-{ Quote: "Well given that you type LOL, and make smileies at the rate of 2-3 per post, I wouldn't know if you were joking unless you started dancing naked and shout "I'M JOKING"" }-

There's another way to know - plain old human intuition. You'll learn soon enough...
As 4 the smilies, yes I do like these little things, in fact I'd move for a vaster choice.
A "naked smilie with an I'M JOKING sign" to start with, as seems it could be handy for some users ;)


-{ Quote: "But whatever. My joke was far funnier." }-

OH YEAH? Well, I think MINE was ... oh whatever, OK yours was funnier...


-{ Quote: "You talk about your ideal firewall, but do you know enough about networking to know what ideal would mean? " }-

But THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! >:(
Still don't get it, do you? I AM a network novice, and my FW criteria are made from the point of view of the user (and there are surprisingly many users out there...). When I call for "complete leak protection", "low resources" & "ad-blocking", are those the criteria of a networking specialist? As a user, I look for a maximum level of protection, ease of use and convenience so that, among other things, "nothing bad can happen to my system" - there, that's simply said isn't it? For a user, comparing many different FW reviews and leak test results (inc. the one from our comrade gkweb) can be useful to that end...


The problem is, my login name could not be used for my guest posts (because I'd get a msg that the name was already taken, obviously) and vice-versa. I wuz hoping the admins could turn my "guest name" (which I prefer) into a new login name.

-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "So you see m8, I figured long ago how to login, without even meddling with the browser
C4 yourself:" }-

Really ? So you solved this

-{ Quote: "And here's what happens:
whenever I browse the forum, at first - obviously - it says 'Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register'. Then I log in using my name & pass. The login seems to work as I'm welcomed by my name.
Now here's where things go awry: if I do as much as click on a thread link, or try to start a topic, or do anything that opens a new page, then I I'm back to the same message: 'Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register'.

In short, I can log in but whatever I do thereafter seems to log me out! How d'you explain THAT?" }- " }-

uh... OK, maybe not so long ago then. Actually, shortly after I wrote about not being able to log in, I DID manage to log in as 'Aggressor', in case U didn't notice my prev. post. But the thing is, I'd still like to convert my present "guest name" into a new login.

[Pieter_Arntz]

As you seem to be unable to stop the bickering, I'm closing this thread.

Regards,

Pieter

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Morgoth link=board=23;threadid=17941;start=45#msg112938 date=1072193899]The problem is, my login name could not be used for my guest posts (because I'd get a msg that the name was already taken, obviously) and vice-versa. I wuz hoping the admins could turn my "guest name" (which I prefer) into a new login name." }-

Morgoth,

Just to finish the "account issue" problem... I stated in reply #43 (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=17941;start=msg112477#msg112447) that we can handle the renaming. You simply need to get logged in, as it appears you can from that one post above where you were logged in, and communicate with me about what you want to do.

Just let me know.